[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S577-S606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Bennett):

[[Page S578]]

  S. 168. A bill to reauthorize additional contract authority for 
States with Indian reservations; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished 
colleague Senator Bennett to introduce the Indian School Bus Route 
Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill continues an important 
Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the 
roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and 
the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had 
been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often 
impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because 
of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to 
be addressed at the Federal level.
  I'd like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why 
I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo 
Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 
25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere 
close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State 
of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are 
smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.
  According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of 
public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these 
roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, seventy-eight percent, are 
dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to 
transport Navajo children to and from school.
  About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA 
roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public 
roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including 
BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian 
Reservation Road System. However, only BIA roads are eligible for 
Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding 
and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA-
21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States 
and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 
2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.
  The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation 
are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the 
reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the 
land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.
  For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley 
County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, 
and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of 
McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very 
limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of 
the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 
miles serve Indian land.
  In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the 
land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo 
Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 
miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, 
two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.
  The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, and 
Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' 
limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the 
States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in 
this unique situation.

  Families living in and around the reservation are no different from 
families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same 
opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. 
However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the 
reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, 
muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply 
cannot get to school.
  These children are literally being left behind.
  Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of 
maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the 
counties can bear without federal assistance. I believe it is essential 
that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of-
a-kind situation.
  In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began 
providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo 
reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to 
and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request 
in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million was 
made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. 
The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very 
clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located 
within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county 
maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.
  This program has been very successful. For the last six years, the 
counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used 
by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. 
I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this 
funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are 
maintained using funds from this program.
  The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year 
reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, 
with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and 
for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. The 
text of the bill is identical to that passed last year by the full 
Senate in H.R. 3550, the SAFETEA bill.
  I believe that continuing this program for six more years is fully 
justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far 
the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the 
Federal Government can deal with effectively.
  I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should 
have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in 
rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good 
education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask 
all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo 
schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get 
an education.
  I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of 
Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion 
bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year 
and with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to 
incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year 
reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that 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. 168

       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 ``Indian School Bus Route 
     Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR 
                   STATES WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

       Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 112 Stat. 206) is 
     amended by striking ``$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1998 through 2003'' and inserting ``$1,800,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2010''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 169. A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 to identify a route that passes through the 
States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority 
corridor on the National Highway System; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, 
Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties.

[[Page S579]]

The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to 
upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the 
transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, 
Central, and Eastern New Mexico.
  I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, 
as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators 
Inhofe as an original cosponsor. In addition, Representatives Udall 
(NM), Lucas, and Pearce are introducing this bill today on the House 
side.
  Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at 
the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and 
Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for 
Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress 
has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. 
This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor to Congress's list of High Priority 
Corridors on the National Highway System.
  About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and 
another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal in asking Congress to 
designate SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway 
System is to help focus attention on the need for a complete four-lane 
upgrade of the route from El Paso to Wichita. When completed, the route 
will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers.
  I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway 
infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age 
of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads 
continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial 
goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are 
especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.
  It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily 
attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the 
traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.
  In New Mexico, U.S. 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New 
Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New 
Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including three of the state's popular 
Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San 
Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known 
as El Llano Estacado. Another is the State's newest byway, La Frontera 
de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding 
County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa 
National Grasslands. The third byway is the historic Route 66, which 
crosses Highway 54 from Santa Rosa to Tucumcari.
  The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico 
Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands 
National Monument.
  Highway 54 is also important to our Nation from the perspective of 
national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White 
Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes 
through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most 
important oil and gas fields.
  The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, 
home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border 
region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border 
traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, 
and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the 
border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the 
next twenty years.
  The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international 
trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The 
route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I-
10, 1-35, I-40, and 1-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between 
Chicago and El Paso shaving 137 miles off the major alternative.
  Though much of U.S. 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been 
rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. 
In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are 
projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the 
total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent 
of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly 
reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger 
drivers.
  New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic 
development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to 
complete the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54. The State Department of 
Transportation rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The 
four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to 
Alamogordo was completed in 2002. Two more sections in New Mexico 
remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through 
Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from 
Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. This 
corridor is currently a two-lane facility with no shoulders, no passing 
zones and various deficient areas. The cost to four-lane these two 
segments is estimated at $420 million.
  I am pleased Governor Richardson has set aside over $130 million as 
part of the New Mexico's GRIP initiative to upgrade key portions of the 
route between Tularosa and Santa Rosa. I am committed to working with 
State to secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane 
upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other states are also 
moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route.
  Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four 
high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three 
are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the 
East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as 
our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role 
New Mexico plays in our Nation's interstate and international 
transportation network.
  The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, 
counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso 
have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54 
along the entire corridor.
  I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the 
continued economic development for all of the communities along the 
SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts and 
Inhofe for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us 
in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill 
can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate again 
considers the reauthorization of a six-year surface transportation 
bill.
  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. 169

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

     SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST PASSAGE INITIATIVE FOR REGIONAL AND 
                   INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(46) The corridor extending from the point on the border 
     between the United States and Mexico at El Paso, Texas, where 
     United States Route 54 begins, along United States Route 54 
     through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 
     Kansas, and ending in Wichita, Kansas, to be known as the 
     `Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate 
     Transportation Corridor' or `SPIRIT Corridor'.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 170. A bill to clarify the definition of rural airports; to the 
Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 171. A bill to exempt seaplanes from certain transportation taxes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two related 
pieces of legislation addressing inequities that affect seaplane 
operators and passengers in rural areas. Both of these were included in 
S. 1072 when it passed the Senate last year, but because that business 
remains unfinished, it is necessary to reintroduce them.

[[Page S580]]

  The first of these--on which Senator Stevens is joining me as a 
cosponsor, is a modification to the definition of a ``rural airport.'' 
The law adopted in 1997 provides for a per-passenger fee--now $3.20--on 
each domestic flight segment. Rural airports were exempted from the tax 
on the grounds it was intended to cover increased security costs for 
airports handling large aircraft and international flights. The law 
defines a rural airport as one which--for a given calendar year--has 
fewer than 100,000 departures in the second preceding calendar year, 
and which either received essential air service subsidies as of August 
5, 1997, or is more than 75 miles from a larger airport.
  The latter provision is a significant problem in my State. It was 
intended to reflect the fact that 75 miles is not really a long way to 
drive to and from an airport. Unfortunately, that assumes there is a 
road to drive on. That's not always the case. My State has a number of 
small community airports that are within 75 miles of a larger airport, 
but where there are no roads connecting the two. Thus, passengers 
cannot choose to drive to the larger airport. In order to fly to their 
ultimate destination, they are forced to fly from their village to the 
larger airport, where the passenger tax is legitimately collected. The 
bottom line is that these rural residents are unfairly taxed at least 
twice as much as all the other passengers leaving from the larger 
airport.
  My bill simply adds this one additional unique criterion to the 
definition of a rural airport--that it may include a small airport that 
is within 75 miles from a larger one, but where there is no road 
connection between the two.
  The second bill I am introducing today--along with Senator Stevens 
and Senator Murray--is also intended to correct an inequity. Air 
passenger transportation is subject to a 7.5 percent excise tax in 
addition to the $3.20 per-segment fee. This generates revenue that goes 
toward the maintenance and improvements of airports receiving Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) funding. However, in several cases in Alaska, 
and in at least one case in the State of Washington, the taxes are 
imposed on seaplane operators who land on and take off from open 
waters, not from facilities using AIP funds, and which rarely if ever 
make use of FAA communication and navigation systems. It should be a 
fundamental tenet that those who do not receive a service should not be 
required to pay for it. That is exactly the basis for my second bill.
  Both these proposals have been in circulation for several years. Each 
of them has been estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to have 
negligible impacts on revenue--less than $2 million per year for the 
rural airport definition and less than $1 million for the excise tax. 
In that connection, it should also be noted that even if the excise tax 
for seaplane operators is eliminated, they will still be paying their 
fair share because they will automatically begin paying higher fuel 
taxes. The latter will go up from 4.4 cents per gallon to 19.4 cents 
per gallon for aviation gasoline and to 21.9 cents per gallon for jet 
fuel.
  I encourage my colleagues' support of these two important measures.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of both measures be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 170

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

     SECTION 1. RURAL AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(e)(1)(B) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rural airport) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(III) is not connected by paved roads to another 
     airport.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 S. 171

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

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED BY 
                   SEAPLANES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Exemption for Transportation Provided by Seaplanes.--
     No tax shall be imposed by this section or section 4271 on 
     any air transportation by a seaplane with respect to any 
     segment consisting of a takeoff from, and a landing on, 
     water.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 172. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. 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. 172

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) All contact lenses have significant effects on the eye 
     and pose serious potential health risks if improperly 
     manufactured or used without appropriate involvement of a 
     qualified eye care professional.
       (2) Most contact lenses currently marketed in the United 
     States, including certain plano and decorative contact 
     lenses, have been approved as medical devices pursuant to 
     premarket approval applications or cleared pursuant to 
     premarket notifications by the Food and Drug Administration 
     (``FDA'').
       (3) FDA has asserted medical device jurisdiction over most 
     corrective and noncorrective contact lenses as medical 
     devices currently marketed in the United States, including 
     certain plano and decorative contact lenses, so as to require 
     approval pursuant to premarket approval applications or 
     clearance pursuant to premarket notifications.
       (4) All contact lenses can present risks if used without 
     the supervision of a qualified eye care professional. Eye 
     injuries in children and other consumers have been reported 
     for contact lenses that are regulated by FDA as medical 
     devices primarily when used without professional involvement, 
     and noncorrective contact lenses sold without approval or 
     clearance as medical devices have caused eye injuries in 
     children.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN ARTICLES AS MEDICAL DEVICES.

       Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 360j) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                ``Regulation of Contact Lens as Devices

       ``(n)(1) All contact lenses shall be deemed to be devices 
     under section 201(h).
       ``(2) Paragraph 1 shall not be construed as having any 
     legal effect on any article that is not described in that 
     paragraph.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 173. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide adequate coverage for immunosuppressive drugs furnished to 
beneficiaries under the Medicare program that have received an organ 
transplant; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DeWINE. 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. 173

       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 ``Comprehensive 
     Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS 
                   UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by 
     striking ``, to an individual who receives'' and all that 
     follows before the semicolon at the end and inserting ``to an 
     individual who has received an organ transplant''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE COVERAGE OF 
                   IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICARE 
                   PROGRAM FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS.

       (a) Continued Entitlement to Immunosuppressive Drugs.--
       (1) Kidney transplant recipients.--Section 226A(b)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(except for coverage of immunosuppressive

[[Page S581]]

     drugs under section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' after ``shall end''.
       (2) Other transplant recipients.--The flush matter 
     following paragraph (2)(C)(ii)(II) of section 226(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``of this subsection)'' and inserting ``of this subsection 
     and except for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under 
     section 1861(s)(2)(J))''.
       (3) Application.--Section 1836 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395o) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Every individual who'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--Every individual who''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Special Rules Applicable to Individuals Only Eligible 
     for Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual whose 
     eligibility for benefits under this title has ended except 
     for the coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by reason of 
     section 226(b) or 226A(b)(2), the following rules shall 
     apply:
       ``(A) The individual shall be deemed to be enrolled under 
     this part for purposes of receiving coverage of such drugs.
       ``(B) The individual shall be responsible for the full 
     amount of the premium under section 1839 in order to receive 
     such coverage.
       ``(C) The provision of such drugs shall be subject to the 
     application of--
       ``(i) the deductible under section 1833(b); and
       ``(ii) the coinsurance amount applicable for such drugs (as 
     determined under this part).
       ``(D) If the individual is an inpatient of a hospital or 
     other entity, the individual is entitled to receive coverage 
     of such drugs under this part.
       ``(2) Establishment of procedures in order to implement 
     coverage.--The Secretary shall establish procedures for--
       ``(A) identifying beneficiaries that are entitled to 
     coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by reason of section 
     226(b) or 226A(b)(2); and
       ``(B) distinguishing such beneficiaries from beneficiaries 
     that are enrolled under this part for the complete package of 
     benefits under this part.''.
       (4) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 226A of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1), as added by 
     section 201(a)(3)(D)(ii) of the Social Security Independence 
     and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-296; 108 
     Stat. 1497), is redesignated as subsection (d).
       (b) Extension of Secondary Payer Requirements for ESRD 
     Beneficiaries.--Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1)(C)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``With regard to 
     immunosuppressive drugs furnished on or after the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug 
     Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, this 
     subparagraph shall be applied without regard to any time 
     limitation.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PLANS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE OF 
                   IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

       (a) Application to Certain Health Insurance Coverage.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2707. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

       ``A group health plan (and a health insurance issuer 
     offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group 
     health plan) shall provide coverage of immunosuppressive 
     drugs that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage 
     provided by such plan or issuer on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug 
     Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such 
     requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this 
     section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2721(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-21(b)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than section 2707)'' after 
     ``requirements of such subparts''.
       (b) Application to Group Health Plans and Group Health 
     Insurance Coverage Under the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title 
     I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 714. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

       ``A group health plan (and a health insurance issuer 
     offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group 
     health plan) shall provide coverage of immunosuppressive 
     drugs that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage 
     provided by such plan or issuer on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug 
     Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such 
     requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this 
     section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and 
     714''.
       (B) The table of contents in section 1 of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 713 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 714. Coverage of immunosuppressive drugs''.
       (c) Application to Group Health Plans Under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.--Subchapter B of chapter 100 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 9812 the following new item:

``Sec. 9813. Coverage of immunosuppressive drugs'';
        and
       (2) by inserting after section 9812 the following:

     ``SEC. 9813. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

       ``A group health plan shall provide coverage of 
     immunosuppressive drugs that is at least as comprehensive as 
     the coverage provided by such plan on the day before the date 
     of enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug 
     Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such 
     requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this 
     section.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
     2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 174. A bill to improve the palliative and end-of-life care 
provided to children with life-threatening conditions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator 
Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it 
covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one 
that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation.
  What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a 
life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do 
everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible 
and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their 
suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need 
for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are 
facing death as a result of serious illness.
  No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's 
modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only 
older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. 
That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for 
Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress 
along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation 
is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum 
of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or 
sadness.
  Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some 
children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by 
drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others, 
though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life-
threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period 
of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses 
are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and 
radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might 
have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the 
time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might 
die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too 
young to understand that reality.
  One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her 
fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the 
next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for 
her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor 
after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies 
available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age 
of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether 
she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance 
for a cure--had failed.
  Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to 
offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care 
at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they 
were out of

[[Page S582]]

treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get 
better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't 
going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. 
There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk 
with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them 
to do so.
  Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist 
to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked 
her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final 
night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, 
near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the 
doctor call to tell me?''
  Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter 
during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 
percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort 
of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents 
are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely 
emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these 
parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. 
Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children 
to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. 
They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are 
sick.
  God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so 
sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more 
treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are 
going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and 
everything possible in their power to help their children and make them 
comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days.
  Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children 
with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical 
attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. 
Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and 
regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a 
gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations 
get in the way of taking care of these children.
  The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the 
deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible 
death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them 
receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care 
we would expect for our own children.
  Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does. 
First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and 
education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help 
them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants 
is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One 
of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly 
understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better 
informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of 
Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. 
This research is critically important to improving the type of care 
that dying children receive.
  An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 
percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great 
deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can 
change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has 
to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly.

  In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way 
care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right 
now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant 
insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. 
First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has 
six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is 
that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a 
sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult 
or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six 
months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that 
would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very 
difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. 
This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is 
very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that 
rule.
  According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are 
still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. 
So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart 
disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.'' 
Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and 
children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system 
designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into 
consideration the special needs of children.
  Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive 
curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current 
law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging 
treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and 
also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That 
means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide 
typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all 
the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the 
child's life.
  That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a 
horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That 
is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that 
involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront 
death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her 
sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility.
  Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care 
to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This 
should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any 
parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any 
chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this 
position.
  Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must 
fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so 
that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits 
and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined 
to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill.
  That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market 
demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and 
easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for 
children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive 
curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can 
continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving 
palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also 
removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care 
benefits at the time of diagnosis.
  I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another 
girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive 
palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart 
problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible 
with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die 
within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were 
devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of 
wire and tubes, clinging to life.
  Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided 
to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience 
life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and 
friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at 
home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her 
brothers doted on their baby sister.
  Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her 
family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every 
single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with 
her family, Rachel Ann passed away.
  Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much 
time

[[Page S583]]

together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her 
brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice 
professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and 
grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice 
professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a 
support system in place for this family.
  The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to 
confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children 
dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this 
age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is 
one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that 
our children receive. We should continue to support research and 
finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children 
suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die 
from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying 
child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support.
  The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this 
direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving 
families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I 
encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important 
piece of legislation.
  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. 174

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's 
     Compassionate Care Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents

   TITLE I--GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES AND 
                                RESEARCH

Sec. 101. Education and training
Sec. 102. Grants to expand pediatric palliative care
Sec. 103. Health professions fellowships and residency grants
Sec. 104. Model program grants
Sec. 105. Research

       TITLE II--PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Sec. 201. Medicare pediatric palliative care demonstration projects
Sec. 202. Private sector pediatric palliative care demonstration 
              projects
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations

   TITLE I--GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES AND 
                                RESEARCH

     SEC. 101. EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 770(a) by inserting ``except for section 
     771,'' after ``carrying out this subpart''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 771. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES EDUCATION AND 
                   TRAINING.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may award grants to 
     eligible entities to provide training in pediatric palliative 
     care and related services.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section the term `eligible 
     entity' means a health care provider that is affiliated with 
     an academic institution, that is providing comprehensive 
     pediatric palliative care services, alone or through an 
     arrangement with another entity, and that has demonstrated 
     experience in providing training and consultative services in 
     pediatric palliative care including--
       ``(A) children's hospitals or other hospitals or medical 
     centers with significant capacity in caring for children with 
     life-threatening conditions;
       ``(B) pediatric hospices or hospices with significant 
     pediatric palliative care programs;
       ``(C) home health agencies with a demonstrated capacity to 
     serve children with life-threatening conditions and that 
     provide pediatric palliative care; and
       ``(D) any other entity that the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Life-threatening condition defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `life-threatening condition' has the 
     meaning given such term by the Secretary (in consultation 
     with hospice programs (as defined in section 1861(dd)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2))) and 
     academic experts in end-of-life care), except that the 
     Secretary may not limit such term to individuals who are 
     terminally ill (as defined in section 1861(dd)(3) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3))).
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grant funds awarded under 
     subsection (a) shall be used to--
       ``(1) provide short-term training and education programs in 
     pediatric palliative care for the range of interdisciplinary 
     health professionals and others providing such care;
       ``(2) provide consultative services and guidance to health 
     care providers that are developing and building comprehensive 
     pediatric palliative care programs;
       ``(3) develop regional information outreach and other 
     resources to assist clinicians and families in local and 
     outlying communities and rural areas;
       ``(4) develop or evaluate current curricula and educational 
     materials being used in providing such education and guidance 
     relating to pediatric palliative care;
       ``(5) facilitate the development, assessment, and 
     implementation of clinical practice guidelines and 
     institutional protocols and procedures for pediatric 
     palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care; and
       ``(6) assure that families of children with life-
     threatening conditions are an integral part of these 
     processes.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 102. GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE.

       Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399Z-1. GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, may award grants to eligible entities to 
     implement or expand pediatric palliative care programs for 
     children with life-threatening conditions.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) children's hospitals or other hospitals with a 
     capacity and ability to care for children with life-
     threatening conditions;
       ``(2) hospices with a demonstrated capacity and ability to 
     care for children with life-threatening conditions and their 
     families; and
       ``(3) home health agencies with--
       ``(A) a demonstrated capacity and ability to care for 
     children with life-threatening conditions; and
       ``(B) expertise in providing palliative care.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grant funds awarded under 
     subsection (a) shall be used to--
       ``(1) create new pediatric palliative care programs;
       ``(2) start or expand needed additional care settings, such 
     as respite, hospice, inpatient day services, or other care 
     settings to provide a continuum of care across inpatient, 
     home, and community-based settings;
       ``(3) expand comprehensive pediatric palliative care 
     services, including care coordination services, to greater 
     numbers of children and broader service areas, including 
     regional and rural outreach; and
       ``(4) support communication linkages and care coordination, 
     telemedicine and teleconferencing, and measures to improve 
     patient safety.
       ``(d) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Administrator may require.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 103. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE TRAINING AND RESIDENCY 
                   GRANTS.

       Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 404H. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE TRAINING AND RESIDENCY 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health is authorized to award training grants 
     to eligible entities to expand the number of physicians, 
     nurses, mental health professionals, and appropriate allied 
     health professionals and specialists (as determined by the 
     Secretary) with pediatric palliative clinical training and 
     research experience.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a pediatric department of a medical school and other 
     related departments including--
       ``(A) oncology;
       ``(B) virology;
       ``(C) neurology; and
       ``(D) psychiatry;
       ``(2) a school of nursing;
       ``(3) a school of psychology and social work; and
       ``(4) a children's hospital or other hospital with a 
     significant number of pediatric patients with life-
     threatening conditions.
       ``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 104. MODEL PROGRAM GRANTS.

       Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280h et seq.), as amended by section 102, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S584]]

     ``SEC. 399Z-2. MODEL PROGRAM GRANTS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may award grants to 
     eligible entities to enhance pediatric palliative care and 
     care for children with life-threatening conditions in general 
     pediatric or family practice residency training programs 
     through the development of model programs.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section the term 
     `eligible entity' means a pediatric department of--
       ``(1) a medical school;
       ``(2) a children's hospital; or
       ``(3) any other hospital with a general pediatric or family 
     practice residency program that serves a significant number 
     of pediatric patients with life-threatening conditions.
       ``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Administrator may require.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 105. RESEARCH.

       (a) Pain and Symptom Management.--The Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Director'') shall provide translational research grants 
     to fund research in pediatric pain and symptom management 
     that will utilize existing facilities of the National 
     Institutes of Health including--
       (1) pediatric pharmacological research units;
       (2) the general clinical research centers; and
       (3) other centers providing infrastructure for patient 
     oriented research.
       (b) Eligible Entities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Director may award grants for the conduct of research to--
       (1) children's hospitals or other hospitals serving a 
     significant number of children with life-threatening 
     conditions;
       (2) pediatric departments of medical schools;
       (3) institutions currently participating in National 
     Institutes of Health network of pediatric pharmacological 
     research units; and
       (4) hospices with pediatric palliative care programs and 
     academic affiliations.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

       TITLE II--PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

     SEC. 201. MEDICARE PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Care coordination services.--The term ``care 
     coordination services'' means services that provide for the 
     coordination of, and assistance with, referral for medical 
     and other services, including multidisciplinary care 
     conferences, coordination with other providers involved in 
     care of the eligible child, patient and family caregiver 
     education and counseling, and such other services as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate in order to facilitate 
     the coordination and continuity of care furnished to an 
     individual.
       (2) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means a demonstration project established by the 
     Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
       (3) Eligible child.--The term ``eligible child'' means an 
     individual with a life-threatening condition who is entitled 
     to benefits under part A of the medicare program and who is 
     under 18 years of age.
       (4) Eligible provider.--The term ``eligible provider'' 
     means--
       (A) a pediatric palliative care program that is a public 
     agency or private organization (or a subdivision thereof) 
     which--
       (i)(I) is primarily engaged in providing the care and 
     services described in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(dd)(1)) and makes such services 
     available (as needed) on a 24-hour basis and which also 
     provides counseling (including bereavement counseling) for 
     the immediate family of eligible children;
       (II) provides for such care and services in eligible 
     children's homes, on an outpatient basis, and on a short-term 
     inpatient basis, directly or under arrangements made by the 
     agency or organization, except that--

       (aa) the agency or organization must routinely provide 
     directly substantially all of each of the services described 
     in subparagraphs (A), (C), and (H) of such section 
     1861(dd)(1);
       (bb) in the case of other services described in such 
     section 1861(dd)(1) which are not provided directly by the 
     agency or organization, the agency or organization must 
     maintain professional management responsibility for all such 
     services furnished to an eligible child, regardless of the 
     location or facility in which such services are furnished; 
     and

       (III)(aa) identifies medical, community, and social service 
     needs;
       (bb) simplifies access to service;
       (cc) uses the full range of community resources, including 
     the friends and family of the eligible child; and
       (dd) provides educational opportunities relating to health 
     care; and
       (ii) has an interdisciplinary group of personnel which--

       (I) includes at least--

       (aa) 1 physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)(1)));
       (bb) 1 registered professional nurse; and
       (cc) 1 social worker;

     employed by or, in the case of a physician described in item 
     (aa), under contract with the agency or organization, and 
     also includes at least 1 pastoral or other counselor;

       (II) provides (or supervises the provision of) the care and 
     services described in such section 1861(dd)(1); and
       (III) establishes the policies governing the provision of 
     such care and services;
       (iii) maintains central clinical records on all patients;
       (iv) does not discontinue the palliative care it provides 
     with respect to an eligible child because of the inability of 
     the eligible child to pay for such care;
       (v)(I) uses volunteers in its provision of care and 
     services in accordance with standards set by the Secretary, 
     which standards shall ensure a continuing level of effort to 
     use such volunteers; and
       (II) maintains records on the use of these volunteers and 
     the cost savings and expansion of care and services achieved 
     through the use of these volunteers;
       (vi) in the case of an agency or organization in any State 
     in which State or applicable local law provides for the 
     licensing of agencies or organizations of this nature, is 
     licensed pursuant to such law;
       (vii) seeks to ensure that children and families receive 
     complete, timely, understandable information about diagnosis, 
     prognosis, treatments, and palliative care options;
       (viii) ensures that children and families participate in 
     effective and timely prevention, assessment, and treatment of 
     physical and psychological symptoms of distress; and
       (ix) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may 
     find necessary in the interest of the health and safety of 
     the eligible children who are provided with palliative care 
     by such agency or organization; and
       (B) any other individual or entity with an agreement under 
     section 1866 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc) 
     that--
       (i) has demonstrated experience in providing 
     interdisciplinary team-based palliative care and care 
     coordination services (as defined in paragraph (1)) to 
     pediatric populations; and
       (ii) the Secretary determines is appropriate.
       (5) Life-threatening condition.--The term ``life-
     threatening condition'' has the meaning given such term by 
     the Secretary (in consultation with hospice programs (as 
     defined in section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2))) and academic experts in end-of-life 
     care), except that the Secretary may not limit such term to 
     individuals who are terminally ill (as defined in section 
     1861(dd)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(dd)(3))).
       (6) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means 
     the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Pediatric Palliative Care Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 
     demonstration projects in accordance with the provisions of 
     this subsection to provide pediatric palliative care to 
     eligible children.
       (2) Participation.--
       (A) Eligible providers.--Any eligible provider may furnish 
     items or services covered under the pediatric palliative care 
     benefit.
       (B) Eligible children.--The Secretary shall permit any 
     eligible child residing in the service area of an eligible 
     provider participating in a demonstration project to 
     participate in such project on a voluntary basis.
       (c) Services Under Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the provisions of section 1814(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)) shall apply to the payment 
     for pediatric palliative care provided under the 
     demonstration projects in the same manner in which such 
     section applies to the payment for hospice care (as defined 
     in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(dd)(1))) provided under the medicare program.
       (2) Coverage of pediatric palliative care.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1862(a)(1)(C) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)(C)), the 
     Secretary shall provide for reimbursement for items and 
     services provided under the pediatric palliative care benefit 
     made available under the demonstration projects in a manner 
     that is consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B).
       (B) Benefit.--Under the pediatric palliative care benefit, 
     the following requirements shall apply:
       (i) Waiver of requirement to elect hospice care.--Each 
     eligible child may receive benefits without an election under 
     section 1812(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395d(d)(1)) to receive hospice care (as defined in section 
     1861(dd)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) having been 
     made with respect to the eligible child.
       (ii) Authorization for curative treatment.--Each eligible 
     child may continue to receive benefits for disease and 
     symptom modifying treatment under the medicare program.
       (iii) Provision of care coordination services.--Each 
     eligible child shall receive care

[[Page S585]]

     coordination services (as defined in subsection (a)(1)) and 
     hospice care (as so defined) through an eligible provider 
     participating in a demonstration project, regardless of 
     whether such individual has been determined to be terminally 
     ill (as defined in section 1861(dd)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3))).
       (iv) Availability of information on pediatric palliative 
     care.--Each eligible child and the family of such child shall 
     receive information and education in order to better 
     understand the utility of pediatric palliative care.
       (v) Availability of bereavement counseling.--Each family of 
     an eligible child shall receive bereavement counseling, if 
     appropriate.
       (vi) Additional benefits.--Under the demonstration 
     projects, the Secretary may include any other item or 
     service--

       (I) for which payment may otherwise be made under the 
     medicare program; and
       (II) that is consistent with the recommendations contained 
     in the report published in 2003 by the Institute of Medicine 
     of the National Academy of Sciences entitled ``When Children 
     Die: Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children 
     and Their Families''.

       (C) Payment.--
       (i) Establishment of payment methodology.--The Secretary 
     shall establish a methodology for determining the amount of 
     payment for pediatric palliative care furnished under the 
     demonstration projects that is similar to the methodology for 
     determining the amount of payment for hospice care (as 
     defined in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) under section 1814(i) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395f(i)), except as provided in the following 
     subclauses:

       (I) Amount of payment.--Subject to subclauses (II) and 
     (III), the amount of payment for pediatric palliative care 
     shall be equal to the amount that would be paid for hospice 
     care (as so defined), increased by an appropriate percentage 
     to account for the additional costs of providing bereavement 
     counseling and care coordination services (as defined in 
     subsection (a)(1)).
       (II) Waiver of hospice cap.--The limitation under section 
     1814(i)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)(2)) 
     shall not apply with respect to pediatric palliative care and 
     amounts paid for pediatric palliative care under this 
     subparagraph shall not be counted against the cap amount 
     described in such section.
       (III) Separate payment for counseling services.--
     Notwithstanding section 1814(i)(1)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)(1)(A)), the Secretary may pay for 
     bereavement counseling as a separate service.

       (ii) Special rules for payment of medicare+choice 
     organizations.--The Secretary shall establish procedures 
     under which the Secretary provides for an appropriate 
     adjustment in the monthly payments made under section 1853 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23) to any 
     Medicare+Choice organization that provides health care items 
     or services to an eligible child who is participating in a 
     demonstration project.
       (3) Coverage of pediatric palliative care consultation 
     services.--Under the demonstration projects, the Secretary 
     shall provide for a one-time payment on behalf of each 
     eligible child who has not yet elected to participate in the 
     demonstration project for services that are furnished by a 
     physician who is either the medical director or an employee 
     of an eligible provider participating in such a project and 
     that consist of--
       (A) an evaluation of the individual's need for pain and 
     symptom management, including the need for pediatric 
     palliative care;
       (B) counseling the individual and the family of such 
     individual with respect to the benefits of pediatric 
     palliative care and care options; and
       (C) if appropriate, advising the individual and the family 
     of such individual regarding advanced care planning.
       (d) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) Sites.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration 
     projects in at least 4, but not more than 8, sites.
       (2) Selection of sites.--The Secretary shall select 
     demonstration sites on the basis of proposals submitted under 
     paragraph (3) that are located in geographic areas that--
       (A) include both urban and rural eligible providers; and
       (B) are geographically diverse and readily accessible to a 
     significant number of eligible children.
       (3) Proposals.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to 
     furnish pediatric palliative care under the demonstration 
     projects from any eligible provider at such time, in such 
     manner, and in such form as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require.
       (4) Facilitation of evaluation.--The Secretary shall design 
     the demonstration projects to facilitate the evaluation 
     conducted under subsection (e)(1).
       (5) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     demonstration projects within a period of 5 years that 
     includes a period of 1 year during which the Secretary shall 
     complete the evaluation under subsection (e)(1).
       (e) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Evaluation.--During the 1-year period following the 
     first 4 years of the demonstration projects, the Secretary 
     shall complete an evaluation of the demonstration projects in 
     order--
       (A) to determine the short-term and long-term costs and 
     benefits of changing--
       (i) hospice care (as defined in section 1861(dd)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) provided under 
     the medicare program to children to include the pediatric 
     palliative care furnished under the demonstration projects; 
     and
       (ii) the medicare program to permit eligible children to 
     receive curative and palliative care simultaneously;
       (B) to review the implementation of the demonstration 
     projects compared to recommendations contained in the report 
     published in 2003 by the Institute of Medicine of the 
     National Academy of Sciences entitled ``When Children Die: 
     Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children and 
     Their Families'';
       (C) to determine the quality and duration of palliative 
     care for individuals who receive such care under the 
     demonstration projects who would not be eligible to receive 
     such care under the medicare program;
       (D) whether any increase in payments for pediatric 
     palliative care is offset by savings in other parts of the 
     medicare program; and
       (E) the projected cost of implementing the demonstration 
     projects on a national basis.
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) Interim report.--Not later than the date that is 2 
     years after the date on which the demonstration projects are 
     implemented, the Secretary shall submit an interim report to 
     Congress on the demonstration projects.
       (B) Final report.--Not later than the date that is 1 year 
     after the date on which the demonstration projects end, the 
     Secretary shall submit a final report to Congress on the 
     demonstration projects that includes the results of the 
     evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) together with such 
     recommendations for legislation or administrative action as 
     the Secretary determines is appropriate.
       (f) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     waive compliance with such requirements of the medicare 
     program to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds 
     necessary to conduct the demonstration projects.

     SEC. 202. PRIVATE SECTOR PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means a demonstration project established by the 
     Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Eligible child.--The term ``eligible child'' means an 
     individual with a life-threatening condition who is--
       (A) under 18 years of age;
       (B) enrolled for health benefits coverage under an eligible 
     health plan; and
       (C) not enrolled under (or entitled to) benefits under a 
     health plan described in paragraph (3)(C).
       (3) Eligible health plan.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the 
     term ``eligible health plan'' means an individual or group 
     plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care (as 
     such term is defined in section 2791 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91)).
       (B) Types of plans included.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term ``eligible health plan'' includes the following 
     health plans, and any combination thereof:
       (i) A group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a))), but 
     only if the plan--

       (I) has 50 or more participants (as defined in section 3(7) 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1002(7))); or
       (II) is administered by an entity other than the employer 
     who established and maintains the plan.

       (ii) A health insurance issuer (as defined in section 
     2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-
     91(b))).
       (iii) A health maintenance organization (as defined in 
     section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300gg-91(b))).
       (iv) A long-term care policy, including a nursing home 
     fixed indemnity policy (unless the Secretary determines that 
     such a policy does not provide sufficiently comprehensive 
     coverage of a benefit so that the policy should be treated as 
     a health plan).
       (v) An employee welfare benefit plan or any other 
     arrangement which is established or maintained for the 
     purpose of offering or providing health benefits to the 
     employees of 2 or more employers.
       (vi) Health benefits coverage provided under a contract 
     under the Federal employees health benefits program under 
     chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       (C) Types of plans excluded.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term ``eligible health plan'' does not include any 
     of the following health plans:
       (i) The medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (ii) The medicaid program under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
       (iii) A medicare supplemental policy (as defined in section 
     1882(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss et 
     seq.).
       (iv) The health care program for active military personnel 
     under title 10, United States Code.
       (v) The veterans health care program under chapter 17 of 
     title 38, United States Code.

[[Page S586]]

       (vi) The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), as defined in section 1072(4) 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       (vii) The Indian health service program under the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
       (4) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
     organization'' means an organization that provides health 
     benefits coverage under an eligible health plan.
       (5) Life-threatening condition.--The term ``life-
     threatening condition'' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 201(a)(4).
       (6) Pediatric palliative care.--The term ``pediatric 
     palliative care'' means services of the type to be furnished 
     under the demonstration projects under section 201, including 
     care coordination services (as defined in subsection (a)(1) 
     of such section).
       (7) Pediatric palliative care consultation services.--The 
     term ``pediatric palliative care consultation services'' 
     means services of the type described in section 201(c)(3).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of 
     the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
       (b) Nonmedicare Pediatric Palliative Care Demonstration 
     Projects.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 
     demonstration projects under this section at the same time as 
     the Secretary establishes the demonstration projects under 
     section 201 and in accordance with the provisions of this 
     subsection to demonstrate the provision of pediatric 
     palliative care and pediatric palliative care consultation 
     services to eligible children who are not entitled to (or 
     enrolled for) coverage under the health plans described in 
     subsection (a)(3)(C).
       (2) Participation.--
       (A) Eligible organizations.--The Secretary shall permit any 
     eligible organization to participate in a demonstration 
     project on a voluntary basis.
       (B) Eligible children.--Any eligible organization 
     participating in a demonstration project shall permit any 
     eligible child enrolled in an eligible health plan offered by 
     the organization to participate in such project on a 
     voluntary basis.
       (c) Services Under Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) Provision of pediatric palliative care and consultation 
     services.--Under a demonstration project, each eligible 
     organization electing to participate in the demonstration 
     project shall provide pediatric palliative care and pediatric 
     palliative care consultation services to each eligible child 
     who is enrolled with the organization and who elects to 
     participate in the demonstration project.
       (2) Availability of administrative grants.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     shall award grants to eligible organizations electing to 
     participate in a demonstration project for the administrative 
     costs incurred by the eligible organization in participating 
     in the demonstration project, including the costs of 
     collecting and submitting the data required to be submitted 
     under subsection (d)(4)(B).
       (B) No payment for services.--The Secretary may not pay 
     eligible organizations for pediatric palliative care or 
     pediatric palliative care consultation services furnished 
     under the demonstration projects.
       (d) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) Sites.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration 
     projects in at least 4, but not more than 8, sites.
       (2) Selection of sites.--The Secretary shall select 
     demonstration sites on the basis of proposals submitted under 
     paragraph (3) that are located in geographic areas that--
       (A) include both urban and rural eligible organizations; 
     and
       (B) are geographically diverse and readily accessible to a 
     significant number of eligible children.
       (3) Proposals.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to 
     furnish pediatric palliative care and pediatric palliative 
     care consultation services under the demonstration projects 
     from any eligible organization at such time, in such manner, 
     and in such form as the Secretary may require.
       (B) Application for administrative grants.--If the eligible 
     organization desires to receive an administrative grant under 
     subsection (c)(2), the proposal submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include a request for the grant, specify the amount 
     requested, and identify the purposes for which the 
     organization will use any funds made available under the 
     grant.
       (4) Collection and submission of data.--
       (A) Collection.--Each eligible organization participating 
     in a demonstration project shall collect such data as the 
     Secretary may require to facilitate the evaluation to be 
     completed under subsection (e)(1).
       (B) Submission.--Each eligible organization shall submit 
     the data collected under subparagraph (A) to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and in such form as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (5) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     demonstration projects within a period of 5 years that 
     includes a period of 1 year during which the Secretary shall 
     complete the evaluation under subsection (e)(1).
       (e) Evaluation and Reports to Congress and Eligible 
     Organizations.--
       (1) Evaluation.--During the 1-year period following the 
     first 4 years of the demonstration projects, the Secretary 
     shall complete an evaluation of the demonstration projects.
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) Interim report.--Not later than the date that is 2 
     years after the date on which the demonstration projects are 
     implemented, the Secretary shall submit an interim report to 
     Congress and each eligible organization participating in a 
     demonstration project on the demonstration projects.
       (B) Final report.--Not later than the date that is 1 year 
     after the date on which the demonstration projects end, the 
     Secretary shall submit a final report to Congress and each 
     eligible organization participating in a demonstration 
     project on the demonstration projects that includes the 
     results of the evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) 
     together with such recommendations for legislation or 
     administrative action as the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $2,500,000, to carry out the demonstration projects 
     under section 201; and
       (2) $2,500,000, to carry out the demonstration projects 
     under section 202, including for awarding grants under 
     subsection (c)(2) of such section.
       (b) Availability.--Sums appropriated under subsection (a) 
     shall remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until 
     expended.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with my 
good friend Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce the Compassionate Care 
for Children Act of 2005. This important legislation is designed to 
greatly improve the quality of care provided to terminally ill children 
and their loved ones, as well as the training of those that provide for 
their medical care.
  The subject of childhood illness is a difficult one. However, for 
children facing a serious illness and their families, it is a subject 
that must be examined. Tragically, we know that close to 55,000 
children under the age of 19 die each year. Some are lost to accidents. 
Many are lost suddenly to complications related to prematurity. 
However, many other children are diagnosed with life-threatening 
conditions and begin a battle that, tragically, many will eventually 
lose.
  For these children and their families, palliative care is often the 
only way to ease their great burden. Very broadly, palliative care 
seeks to prevent or relieve the physical and emotional distress 
produced by a life-threatening condition or its treatment, to help 
diagnosed children and their families live as normal a life as 
possible, and to provide accurate and timely information to ease 
decisionmaking. And while many view palliative care as necessary for 
only the terminally ill, any child with a serious illness and their 
family would benefit greatly from its broad scope of services.
  Sadly, determining how best to care for a child facing a life-
threatening or terminal illness requires an expertise that too few 
healthcare professionals possess. Too often, healthcare professionals 
serving a child with a life-threatening condition are at a loss as to 
how best ease the child's pain, comfort the child's family and loved 
ones, and coordinate the range of services required.
  The legislation we introduce today would seek to close this knowledge 
gap by authorizing $35 million annually to provide for research and 
training related to childhood palliative care. Specifically, the 
legislation will authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to award grants to health care providers and health care institutions 
to expand pediatric palliative care programs, to research new 
initiatives in pediatric palliative care--such as issues related 
specifically to pain management for children--and to provide training 
to healthcare providers serving children requiring pediatric palliative 
care services.
  According to Children's Hospice International, close to one million 
children are seriously ill with a variety of progressive afflictions at 
any one time. Parents of these children face a multitude of heart-
wrenching decisions related to the appropriate course of treatment for 
their children. Among the choices available to some parents is one that 
I believe no parent should ever be forced to make. Under current law, 
seriously ill children are not eligible to receive simultaneous 
curative and palliative care.
  Imagine forcing a parent to choose between seeking a cure for their 
seriously ill child or services designed to ease their child's burden. 
Again, no parent should ever be required to make

[[Page S587]]

this choice and under the legislation we introduce today, parents will 
no longer be forced to decide whether to forgo curative treatment 
options for their children in order to receive palliative care. In 
eliminating this unnecessary and cruel requirement, the Compassionate 
Care for Children Act establishes a demonstration program under 
Medicare that will encourage the development of more coordinated model 
systems of curative and palliative care.
  This legislation would also ensure that seriously ill children 
treated under the demonstration program would not be subject to the so-
called 6-month rule, a regulation currently in place that requires a 
physician's determination that an ill child has a life expectancy of 6 
months or less in order to receive hospice services. As we all know, 
children are not simply little adults. Children's bodies react 
differently than adults to the onset of disease and various treatment 
options, making this determination possibly dangerously inaccurate.
  Lastly, I thank the legislation's chief sponsors in the House of 
Representatives, Deborah Pryce and John Murtha. Representatives Pryce 
and Murtha have been tireless advocates on behalf of seriously ill 
children and their devotion to easing the struggle of these children 
and their families is truly admirable. I look forward to continuing 
working with my colleagues from the House to advance the Compassionate 
Care for Children Act in the 109th Congress.
  Mr. President, when Senator DeWine and I first introduced this 
legislation in the last Congress, we were joined by members of the 
National Childhood Cancer Foundation. Each year this valuable 
organization sponsors ``Conquer Kids Cancer Gold Ribbon Days,'' an 
event that brings cancer patients, families, care givers and 
researchers from across the Nation to the District to lobby the 
Congress for increased resources to battle childhood cancers. At this 
event we heard from dozens of children and families from across this 
Nation that have battled serious illness. It is because of struggles 
like theirs that we are here today at the outset of an effort to better 
serve seriously ill children and those who love and care for them.
  I know that I can say with confidence that we all wish for the day 
when no child fell ill to serious disease. Until that day comes, the 
Compassionate Care for Children Act offers children battling illness 
and their families the hope of eased pain, expertise in treatment, and 
informed decisions. They deserve no less. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 175. A bill to establish the Bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle 
for Freedom National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague 
from the great State of Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and introduce the 
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act. I appreciate the Senator's 
hard work and passion on this bill. Likewise, I commend Representative 
Jim Ryan who authored this bill in the House of Representatives who, 
like Senator Roberts and I, worked tirelessly to pass this bill last 
Congress. And finally, I would like to thank Senator Domenici, Chairman 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senator Thomas, 
Subcommittee Chair, National Parks, for working with me in the 108th 
Congress. Through their hard work and the work of their staff, the 
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act passed the Senate. It is my 
hope that we will once again be able to see this bill pass the Senate 
but also pass the House of Representatives in the 109th Session.
  The great story of Kansas can be summed up in the, State motto, ``Ad 
Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a 
short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind 
the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a 
State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality 
in this Nation.
  From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that 
helped to shape a nation and end the egregious practice of chattel 
slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country. 
I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided 
to our Nation--though arguably it was one of the most turbulent and 
darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle 
to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom 
and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized.
  Last year, 2004, marked the sesquicentennial of the signing of the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed 
States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of 
legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is 
now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State, 
then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting 
passionately to ensure that the territory would inter the Union as a 
free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the 
end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union 
as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national 
level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in 
this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
  Keeping true to our motto, to the stars through difficulties, Kansas 
opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. 
Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when 
the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best 
examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by 
African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom 
and prosperity.
  Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave 
who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black 
town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from 
Lexington, KY, and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, 
Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more 
tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an 
African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers.
  The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most 
distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our 
Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was 
stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed 
legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that 
were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments 
were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by 
the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first 
African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in 
1877 and commanded the 10th Cavalry unit where he proved that African 
Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early 
1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry 
forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the 
western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services 
performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army.
  These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my 
colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the 
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve 
to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and 
in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud 
state. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy 
is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level.
  Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will 
designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the 
Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these 
counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants 
administered by the National Park Service.
  The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by 
increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests 
of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private 
property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area. 
Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that

[[Page S588]]

they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before 
they are eligible to receive, Federal funds from the heritage area. The 
bill also authorizes $10,000,000 over a 10-year period to carry out 
this act and states that not more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated 
to the heritage area for any fiscal year.
  Kansas has much to be proud of in their history and it is vital that 
this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the 
Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage 
Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves 
as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this 
Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce, 
along with my distinguished colleague Senator Brownback, a bill 
designating the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom 
National Heritage Area. This project, which we hope will receive the 
congressional recognition it deserves, has joined communities 
throughout eastern Kansas in an effort to document, preserve, and 
celebrate Kansas' significant role in the political struggle that led 
to the Civil War and in other historic struggles for equality that took 
place in our State.
  National Heritage Areas are places where natural, cultural, historic, 
and recreational resources combine to form complete and distinct 
landscape. The State of Kansas, which has a proud heritage and 
compelling story, will benefit from this national designation that 
helps preserve and celebrate America's defining landscapes. By 
enhancing and developing historic sites throughout eastern Kansas, we 
will ensure that the traditions that evolved there are preserved.
  During the Civil War, William Quantrill, the head of an infamous gang 
of Confederate sympathizers, led a raid on Lawrence, KS. Though far 
from the main campaigns, this massacre caused Bleeding Kansas to become 
a prominent symbol in the fight for the freedom of all people, and the 
territory would become a battleground over the question of slavery. 
After these attacks, the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner delivered 
his famous speech called ``The Crime Against Kansas,'' in which he 
brought the escalating situation into sharper focus for the nation.
  Almost 100 years later, Kansas became the battleground once again, as 
Oliver L. Brown fought to prove that separate among the people of this 
great Nation is not equal. In fact, we will soon celebrate the 50th 
anniversary of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court 
decision, which was a landmark victory in the civil rights movement. 
These are only two of the historic chapters that will make up this 
heritage area, marking an important era in our Nation.
  I commend the Lawrence City Commission, the Douglas County 
Commission, and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, who have worked 
diligently on this project for over 2 years. We have a great 
opportunity to pass this important piece of legislation during the 
109th Congress, and I encourage the Senate's swift consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Baucus, and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 177. A bill to further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of 
the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry 
out an assessment and demonstration program to control salt cedar and 
Russian olive, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a piece of 
legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico 
and many other western States. This bill will address the mounting 
pressures brought on by the growing demands of a diminishing water 
supply throughout the west.
  The bill that I am introducing today authorizes the Department of the 
Interior acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a series 
of research and demonstration programs to help eradicate non-native 
species on rivers in the Western United States. This bill will help 
develop the scientific knowledge and experience base needed to build a 
strategy to control these invasive thieves. In addition to projects 
that could benefit the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other 
States in the west such as Texas, Colorado, Utah, California and 
Arizona to develop and participate in projects as well.
  Allow me to explain the importance of this bill. A water crisis has 
ravaged the west for more than five years. Drought conditions have 
expanded throughout the Western United States. Snow packs have been 
continuously low, causing severe drought conditions.
  The presence of invasive species compounds the drought situation in 
many states. For instance, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of salt 
cedar. Salt cedar is a water-thirsty non-native tree that continually 
strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant 
water supplies--the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers.
  We have already had numerous catastrophic fires in our Nation's 
forests including the riparian woodland--the Bosque--that runs through 
the heart of New Mexico's most populous city. One of the reasons this 
fire ran its course through Albuquerque was the presence of large 
amounts of Salt cedar, a plant that burns as easily as it consumes 
water.
  Estimates show that one mature Salt cedar tree can consume as much as 
200 gallons of water per day; over the growing season that's 7 acre 
feet of water for each acre of Salt cedar. In addition to the excessive 
water consumption, Salt cedars increase fire, increase river 
channelization and flood frequency, decrease water flow, and increase 
water and soil salinity along the river. Every problem that drought 
causes is exacerbated by the presence of Salt cedar.

  I know that the seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico 
becomes more acute every single day. This drought has affected every 
New Mexican and nearly everyone in the west in some way. Wells are 
running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our 
cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have 
been charred by fire.
  The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and 
Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis in New 
Mexico. Indeed, every river in the inter-mountain west seems to be 
facing similar problems. Therefore, we must bring to bear every tool at 
our disposal for dealing with the water shortages in the west.
  Solving such water problems is one of my top priorities and I assure 
this Congress that this bill will receive prompt attention by the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Controlling water thirsty 
invasive species is one significant and substantial step in the right 
direction for the dry lands of the west.
  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. 177

       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 ``Salt Cedar and Russian Olive 
     Control Demonstration Act''.

     SEC. 2. SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred 
     to in this Act as the ``Secretary''), acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense, shall 
     carry out a salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive 
     (Elaeagnus angustifolia) assessment and demonstration 
     program--
       (1) to assess the extent of the infestation by salt cedar 
     and Russian olive trees in the western United States;
       (2) to demonstrate strategic solutions for--
       (A) the long-term management of salt cedar and Russian 
     olive trees; and
       (B) the reestablishment of native vegetation; and
       (3) to assess economic means to dispose of biomass created 
     as a result of removal of salt cedar and Russian olive trees.
       (b) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary shall complete an assessment of the extent of salt 
     cedar and Russian olive infestation on public and private 
     land in the western United States.

[[Page S589]]

       (2) Requirements.--In addition to describing the acreage of 
     and severity of infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive 
     trees in the western United States, the assessment shall--
       (A) consider existing research on methods to control salt 
     cedar and Russian olive trees;
       (B) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption 
     by salt cedar and Russian olive trees;
       (C) consider methods of and challenges associated with the 
     revegetation or restoration of infested land; and
       (D) estimate the costs of destruction of salt cedar and 
     Russian olive trees, related biomass removal, and 
     revegetation or restoration and maintenance of the infested 
     land.
       (c) Long-Term Management Strategies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall identify and document 
     long-term management and funding strategies that--
       (A) could be implemented by Federal, State, and private 
     land managers in addressing infestation by salt cedar and 
     Russian olive trees; and
       (B) should be tested as components of demonstration 
     projects under subsection (d).
       (2) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to 
     institutions of higher education to develop public policy 
     expertise in, and assist in developing a long-term strategy 
     to address, infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive 
     trees.
       (d) Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary shall establish a program that selects and funds 
     not less than 5 projects proposed by and implemented in 
     collaboration with Federal agencies, units of State and local 
     government, national laboratories, Indian tribes, 
     institutions of higher education, individuals, organizations, 
     or soil and water conservation districts to demonstrate and 
     evaluate the most effective methods of controlling salt cedar 
     and Russian olive trees.
       (2) Project requirements.--The demonstration projects under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) be carried out over a time period and to a scale 
     designed to fully assess long-term management strategies;
       (B) implement salt cedar or Russian olive tree control 
     using 1 or more methods for each project in order to assess 
     the full range of control methods, including--
       (i) airborne application of herbicides;
       (ii) mechanical removal; and
       (iii) biocontrol methods, such as the use of goats or 
     insects;
       (C) individually or in conjunction with other demonstration 
     projects, assess the effects of and obstacles to combining 
     multiple control methods and determine optimal combinations 
     of control methods;
       (D) assess soil conditions resulting from salt cedar and 
     Russian olive tree infestation and means to revitalize soils;
       (E) define and implement appropriate final vegetative 
     states and optimal revegetation methods, with preference for 
     self-maintaining vegetative states and native vegetation, and 
     taking into consideration downstream impacts, wildfire 
     potential, and water savings;
       (F) identify methods for preventing the regrowth and 
     reintroduction of salt cedar and Russian olive trees;
       (G) monitor and document any water savings from the control 
     of salt cedar and Russian olive trees, including impacts to 
     both groundwater and surface water;
       (H) assess wildfire activity and management strategies;
       (I) assess changes in wildlife habitat;
       (J) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is 
     appropriate (including optimal methods for the disposal or 
     use of biomass); and
       (K) assess economic and other impacts associated with 
     control methods and the restoration and maintenance of land.
       (e) Disposition of Biomass.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall complete an analysis of economic means to use or 
     dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of salt 
     cedar and Russian olive trees.
       (2) Requirements.--The analysis shall--
       (A) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is 
     economically viable;
       (B) consider and build upon existing research by the 
     Department of Agriculture and other agencies on beneficial 
     uses of salt cedar and Russian olive tree fiber; and
       (C) consider economic development opportunities, including 
     manufacture of wood products using biomass resulting from 
     demonstration projects under subsection (d) as a means of 
     defraying costs of control.
       (f) Costs.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to projects and activities 
     carried out under this Act--
       (A) the assessment under subsection (b) shall be carried 
     out at a cost of not more than $4,000,000;
       (B) the identification and documentation of long-term 
     management strategies under subsection (c) shall be carried 
     out at a cost of not more than $2,000,000;
       (C) each demonstration project under subsection (d) shall 
     be carried out at a Federal cost of not more than $7,000,000 
     (including costs of planning, design, implementation, 
     maintenance, and monitoring); and
       (D) the analysis under subsection (e) shall be carried out 
     at a cost of not more than $3,000,000.
       (2) Cost-sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The assessment under subsection (b), the 
     identification and documentation of long-term management 
     strategies under subsection (c), a demonstration project or 
     portion of a demonstration project under subsection (d) that 
     is carried out on Federal land, and the analysis under 
     subsection (e) shall be carried out at full Federal expense.
       (B) Demonstration projects carried out on non-federal 
     land.--
       (i) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of any 
     demonstration project funded under subsection (d) that is not 
     carried out on Federal land shall not exceed--

       (I) 75 percent for each of the first 5 years of the 
     demonstration project; and
       (II) for the purpose of long-term monitoring, 100 percent 
     for each of such 5-year extensions as the Secretary may 
     grant.

       (ii) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
     the costs of a demonstration project that is not carried out 
     on Federal land may be provided in the form of in-kind 
     contributions, including services provided by a State agency 
     or any other public or private partner.
       (g) Cooperation.--In carrying out the assessment under 
     subsection (b), the demonstration projects under subsection 
     (d), and the analysis under subsection (e), the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with and use the expertise of Federal 
     agencies and the other entities specified in subsection 
     (d)(1) that are actively conducting research on or 
     implementing salt cedar and Russian olive tree control 
     activities.
       (h) Independent Review.--The Secretary shall subject to 
     independent review--
       (1) the assessment under subsection (b);
       (2) the identification and documentation of long-term 
     management strategies under subsection (c);
       (3) the demonstration projects under subsection (d); and
       (4) the analysis under subsection (e).
       (i) Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an 
     annual report that describes the results of carrying out this 
     Act, including a synopsis of any independent review under 
     subsection (h) and details of the manner and purposes for 
     which funds are expended.
       (2) Public access.--The Secretary shall facilitate public 
     access to all information that results from carrying out this 
     Act.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
       (1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $15,000,000 for each subsequent fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 178. A bill to provide assistance to the State of New Mexico for 
the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water is the life's blood for New 
Mexico. When the water dries up in New Mexico, so will many of its 
communities. As such, the scarcity of water in New Mexico is a dire 
situation. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 
NM OSE, lacks the tools necessary to undertake the Herculean task of 
effectively managing New Mexico's water resources.
  Today, I introduce legislation that would allow New Mexico to make 
informed decisions about its limited water resources.
  In order to effectively perform water rights administration, as well 
as comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries, the State Engineer is 
statutorily required to perform assessments and investigations of the 
numerous stream systems and ground water basins located within New 
Mexico. However, the NM OSE is ill equipped to vigorously and 
comprehensively undertake the daunting but critically important task of 
water resource planning. At present, the NM OSE lacks adequate 
resources to perform necessary hydrographic surveys and data 
collection. As such, ensuring a future water supply for my home State 
requires that Congress provide the NM OSE with the resources necessary 
to fulfill its statutory mandate.
  The bill I introduce today would create a standing authority for the 
State of New Mexico to seek and receive technical assistance from the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological Survey. It would 
also provide the NM OSE the sum of $12.5 million in Federal assistance 
to perform hydrologic models of New Mexico's most important water 
systems. This bill would provide the NM OSE with the best resources 
available when making crucial decisions about how best to preserve our 
limited water stores.

[[Page S590]]

  Ever decreasing water supplies in New Mexico have reached critical 
levels and require immediate action. The Congress cannot sit idly by as 
water shortages cause death to New Mexico's communities. I hope the 
Senate will give this legislation its every consideration.
  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. 178

       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 ``New Mexico Water Planning 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and 
     the United States Geological Survey.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New 
     Mexico.

     SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Upon the request of the Governor of the 
     State and subject to subsections (b) through (f), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) provide to the State technical assistance and grants 
     for the development of comprehensive State water plans;
       (2) conduct water resources mapping in the State; and
       (3) conduct a comprehensive study of groundwater resources 
     (including potable, brackish, and saline water resources) in 
     the State to assess the quantity, quality, and interaction of 
     groundwater and surface water resources.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--Technical assistance provided 
     under subsection (a) may include--
       (1) acquisition of hydrologic data, groundwater 
     characterization, database development, and data 
     distribution;
       (2) expansion of climate, surface water, and groundwater 
     monitoring networks;
       (3) assessment of existing water resources, surface water 
     storage, and groundwater storage potential;
       (4) numerical analysis and modeling necessary to provide an 
     integrated understanding of water resources and water 
     management options;
       (5) participation in State planning forums and planning 
     groups;
       (6) coordination of Federal water management planning 
     efforts;
       (7) technical review of data, models, planning scenarios, 
     and water plans developed by the State; and
       (8) provision of scientific and technical specialists to 
     support State and local activities.
       (c) Allocation.--In providing grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, allocate--
       (1) $5,000,000 to develop hydrologic models and acquire 
     associated equipment for the New Mexico Rio Grande main stem 
     sections and Rios Pueblo de Taos and Hondo, Rios Nambe, 
     Pojoaque and Teseque, Rio Chama, and Lower Rio Grande 
     tributaries;
       (2) $1,500,000 to complete the hydrographic survey 
     development of hydrologic models and acquire associated 
     equipment for the San Juan River and tributaries;
       (3) $1,000,000 to complete the hydrographic survey 
     development of hydrologic models and acquire associated 
     equipment for Southwest New Mexico, including the Animas 
     Basin, the Gila River, and tributaries;
       (4) $4,500,000 for statewide digital orthophotography 
     mapping; and
       (5) such sums as are necessary to carry out additional 
     projects consistent with subsection (b).
       (d) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the total cost of 
     any activity carried out using a grant provided under 
     subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
       (2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share under 
     paragraph (1) may be in the form of any in-kind services that 
     the Secretary determines would contribute substantially 
     toward the conduct and completion of the activity assisted.
       (e) Non-Reimbursable Basis.--Any assistance or grants 
     provided to the State under this Act shall be made on a non-
     reimbursable basis.
       (f) Authorized Transfers.--On request of the State, the 
     Secretary shall directly transfer to 1 or more Federal 
     agencies any amounts made available to the State to carry out 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 179. A bill to provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra 
National Forest, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2005, the companion to 
legislation authored by Representative Radanovich.
  This legislation would assist the Boy Scout Sequoia Council in taking 
ownership of part of the land on which Camp Chawanakee sits. By 
authorizing the transfer of ownership of part of the camp land to the 
Boy Scouts, we will help make Chawanakee a permanent member of the 
Fresno Community, and an asset that youth for generations to come can 
enjoy and benefit from.
  Specifically, the bill would authorize a land exchange between the 
Federal Government and a private landowner as follows:
  The landowner would receive 160 acres, 145 of which are submerged, on 
Shaver Lake. In exchange, the Forest Service would receive $50,000 and 
an 80 acre inholding that the landowner owns in the Sierra National 
Forest.
  The Forest Service transfer to the landowner is conditional upon his 
conveyance of the parcel to the Boy Scouts within 4 months to benefit 
Camp Chawanakee.
  Over the years, well over 250,000 youths and leaders from California, 
Nevada and Arizona have attended the Boy Scouts' Camp Chawanakee. 
Recently, summer camp attendance has exceeded 3,000 Scouts. While other 
camps in California have closed in recent years, Camp Chawanakee has 
grown to become one of the premier Scouting camps in the Nation.
  I applaud Congressman George Radanovich's commitment to this issue 
and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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. 179

       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 ``Sierra National Forest Land 
     Exchange Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     parcels of land and improvements thereon comprising 
     approximately 160 acres and located in township 9 south, 
     range 25 east, section 30, E\1/2\SW\1/4\ and W\1/2\ SE\1/4\, 
     Mt. Diablo Meridian, California.
       (2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     a parcel of land comprising approximately 80 acres and 
     located in township 8 south, range 26 east, section 29, N\1/
     2\NW\1/4\, Mt. Diablo Meridian, California.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE, SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Exchange Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--If, during the one-year period beginning 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, the owner of the non-
     Federal land offers the United States the exchange of the 
     non-Federal land and a cash equalization payment of $50,000, 
     the Secretary shall convey, by quit claim deed, all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     Federal land. The conveyance of the Federal land shall be 
     subject to valid existing rights and under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.
       (2) Acceptable title.--Title to the non-Federal land shall 
     conform with the title approval standards of the Attorney 
     General applicable to Federal land acquisitions and shall be 
     acceptable to the Secretary.
       (3) Correction and modification of legal descriptions.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the owner of the non-Federal 
     land, may make corrections to the legal descriptions of the 
     Federal land and non-Federal land. The Secretary and the 
     owner of the non-Federal land may make minor modifications to 
     such descriptions insofar as such modifications do not affect 
     the overall value of the exchange by more than five percent.
       (b) Valuation of Land to Be Conveyed.--For purposes of this 
     section, during the period referred to in subsection (a)(1), 
     the value of the non-Federal land shall be deemed to be 
     $200,000 and the value of the Federal land shall be deemed to 
     be $250,000.
       (c) Administration of Land Acquired by United States.--Once 
     acquired, the Secretary shall manage the non-Federal land in 
     accordance with the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as 
     the Weeks Act; 16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.), and in accordance with 
     the other laws and regulations pertaining to National Forest 
     System lands.
       (d) Conditions on Conveyance of Federal Land.--The 
     conveyance by the Secretary under subsection (a) shall be 
     subject to the following conditions:
       (1) That the recipient of the Federal land convey all 160 
     acres of the Federal land to the Sequoia Council of the Boy 
     Scouts of America not later than four months after the date 
     on which the recipient receives the Federal land from the 
     Secretary under subsection (a).
       (2) That, as described in section 5, the owner of the 
     easement granted in section 4

[[Page S591]]

     have the right of first offer regarding any reconveyance of 
     the Federal land by the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of 
     America.
       (e) Disposition and Use of Cash Equalization Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall deposit the cash equalization payment 
     received under subsection (a) in the fund established by 
     Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 
     484a). The cash equalization payment shall be available to 
     the Secretary until expended, without further appropriation, 
     for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands for the 
     National Forest System in the State of California.
       (f) Cost Collection Funds.--The owner of the non-Federal 
     land shall be responsible for all direct costs associated 
     with processing the land exchange under this section and 
     shall pay the Secretary the necessary funds, which shall be 
     deposited in a cost collection account. Funds so deposited 
     shall be available to the Secretary until expended, without 
     further appropriation, for the cost associated with the land 
     exchange. Any funds remaining after completion of the land 
     exchange, which are not needed to cover expenses, shall be 
     refunded to the owner of the non-Federal land.

     SEC. 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH HYDROELECTRIC 
                   PROJECT NO. 67.

       (a) Purpose.--A hydroelectric project, licensed pursuant to 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) as Project No. 
     67, is located on a majority of the Federal land authorized 
     for exchange under section 3. To protect the ability of the 
     owner of Project No. 67 to continue to operate and maintain 
     that hydroelectric project under the current and all future 
     licenses or authorizations issued pursuant to the Federal 
     Power Act or any other applicable law, this section is 
     necessary.
       (b) Easement Required.--Before conveying the Federal land 
     under section 3, the Secretary shall grant an easement, 
     without consideration, to the owner of Project No. 67 for the 
     right to enter, occupy, and use for hydroelectric power 
     purposes the Federal land currently within the licensed 
     boundary for Project No. 67. The Project No. 67 owner shall 
     hold harmless the Secretary for any claims against the owner 
     due to the grant of easement.
       (c) Required Terms and Conditions.--The easement granted 
     under this section shall provide the following: ``The United 
     States of America, hereinafter called `Grantor,' pursuant to 
     a congressional authorization, hereby grants, transfers, and 
     conveys unto the [insert name of Project No. 67 owner], its 
     successors and assigns, hereinafter called `Grantee,' all 
     those certain exclusive easements and rights in, on, under, 
     over, along, and across certain real property described in 
     Exhibit A, attached hereto [attach description of real 
     property subject to the easement] and incorporated herein 
     (the `Property'), for any purpose or activity that Grantee 
     deems convenient or necessary to the creation, generation, 
     transmission, or distribution of hydropower on and off the 
     Property, including, but not limited to, the right to 
     inundate the Property with water, reservoir management, and 
     compliance with legal obligations in accordance with the 
     applicable Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license and 
     those non-exclusive easements and rights to use, occupy, and 
     enter the Property, and to allow others to use, occupy, and 
     enter the Property, for other purposes related to hydropower 
     and reservoir management and use, such as recreation by 
     Grantee or the public, and regulation of any activities on 
     the Property that may impact such purposes, at any time and 
     from time to time. Grantor further grants, transfers, and 
     conveys unto the Grantee the right of assignment, in whole or 
     in part, to others, without limitation. Grantee shall have 
     the right to take such actions on the Property as may be 
     necessary to comply with all applicable laws, rules, 
     regulations, ordinances, orders and other governmental, 
     regulatory, and administrative authorities and requirements, 
     or that may be necessary for the economical entry, occupancy, 
     and use of the Property for hydropower purposes. Grantor, its 
     successors and assigns, shall not deposit or permit or allow 
     to be deposited, earth, rubbish, debris or any other 
     substance or material on the Property, or so near thereto as 
     to constitute, in the opinion of Grantee, an interference or 
     obstruction to the hydropower and reservoir purposes. No 
     other easements, leases, or licenses shall be granted on, 
     under or over the Property by Grantor to any person, firm or 
     corporation without the previous written consent of Grantee, 
     which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The terms, 
     covenants and conditions of this Grant of Easement shall bind 
     and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of 
     Grantor and the successors and assigns of Grantee.''.

     SEC. 5. RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCE OF 
                   FEDERAL LAND.

       (a) Right of First Offer.--As a condition on the conveyance 
     of the Federal land under section 3 and its reconveyance to 
     the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, as required 
     by section 3(d)(1), the Secretary shall require that the 
     Council agree to provide the owner of the easement granted 
     under section 4 the right of first offer to obtain the 
     Federal land, or any portion thereof, that the Council ever 
     proposes to sell, transfer, or otherwise convey.
       (b) Notice and Offer.--If the Council proposes to sell, 
     transfer, or otherwise convey the Federal land or a portion 
     thereof, the Council shall give the easement owner written 
     notice specifying the terms and conditions on which the 
     conveyance is proposed and offering to convey to the easement 
     owner, on the same terms and conditions, the Federal land or 
     the portion thereof proposed for conveyance.
       (c) Acceptance or Rejection of Offer.--Within 90 days after 
     the easement owner receives the notice required by subsection 
     (b) and all available documents necessary to perform 
     reasonable due diligence on the proposed conveyance, the 
     easement owner shall either accept or reject the offer. If 
     the easement owner accepts the offer, the closing of the sale 
     shall be governed by the terms of the offer in the notice.
       (d) Effect of Rejection.--If the hydropower easement owner 
     rejects an offer under subsection (b) or fails to respond to 
     the offer before the expiration of the 90-day period provided 
     in subsection (c), the Council may convey the property 
     covered by the notice to any other person on the same terms 
     and conditions specified in the notice. If those terms and 
     conditions are subsequently altered in any way, then the 
     notice and offer shall again be made to the easement owner 
     under subsection (b). The rejection by the easement owner of 
     one or more of such offers shall not affect its right of 
     first offer as to any other proposed conveyance by the 
     Council.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN:
  S. 181. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for taxpayers owning certain commercial power 
takeoff vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to 
correct an inequity with the United States Tax Code that affects 
thousands of taxpayers every year. The bill I am offering is the Fuel 
Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act 
which will correct an injustice for owners of ready mixed concrete and 
sanitation trucks.
  Our Tax Code imposes a Federal tax on fuel sold for use in highway 
vehicles. This makes sense because vehicles that use our roads cause 
wear and tear. The money raised from the fuel tax goes directly into 
the Highway Trust Fund and is used for road repair and maintenance. The 
Code provides fuel tax exemption for ``off highway'' use so that fuel 
used by non-highway vehicles is not taxed. The principle is simple. 
Fuel used to move vehicles on our roads is taxed; fuel used for ``off-
road'' purposes is not.
  Mixed concrete and sanitation trucks are ``dual-use'' vehicles. In 
addition to consuming fuel for roadway travel, they use fuel for a 
secondary purpose such as turning the mixer drum or lifting a dumpster 
and compacting trash. This is known as a ``Power Takeoff Function.'' In 
the past, this function was performed by a second fuel-driven engine. 
But times have changed. Today, sanitation and cement trucks are more 
efficient and use one engine for both tasks. Today's vehicles create 
the situation where technology is in the fast lane but our tax system 
lags behind in the slow lane.
  The environment benefits with the use of one engine instead of two as 
a result of decreased fuel use and exhaust emissions. Using one engine 
reduces the truck's weight which means these trucks can haul more cargo 
without violating weight restrictions. This decreases the number of 
trips these trucks must take which results in less wear and tear on the 
roads.
  Until recently, owners of dual-use vehicles would estimate the amount 
of fuel taxes they paid for fuel related to off-road use and would 
claim a tax credit for that amount. The Tax Code does not recognize 
``dual-use'' vehicles but recent IRS regulations support the idea that 
the fuel tax did not apply to fuel used for non-highway purposes. 
Despite the regulations, the IRS argued in a recent tax court case that 
estimating fuel consumption was too difficult to administer. In other 
words, the IRS dismissed its own regulations. Unfortunately for 
taxpayers who own dual use vehicles, the tax court agreed with the 
IRS's position. This decision has had the effect of penalizing 
efficiency, conservation and good environmental practices.
  Mr. President, by establishing an annual $250.00 per vehicle tax 
credit my bill resolves this inequity. This legislation should not be 
seen as creating a new tax break. It restores tax fairness to owners of 
dual-use vehicles without resorting to an elaborate fuel measurement 
scheme that would create administrative difficulties. The amount of the 
tax credit is less than the estimated amount of fuel taxes paid for

[[Page S592]]

non-highway purposes for these vehicles. In order to receive this 
credit, a vehicle would have to be registered, licensed and insured in 
the vehicle owner's respective State. This is a measure that will 
simply restore fairness to a situation involving the fuel tax where 
Congress never intended the tax to apply in the first place.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 182. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Uintah 
Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the 
States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uintah Research 
and Curatorial Center Act.
  This bill would authorize the National Park Service, NPS, to 
construct a research and curatorial facility for Dinosaur National 
Monument and its partner, the Utah Field House of Natural History 
Museum, Museum in Vernal UT. The facility would be co-located to with 
the museum while helping to preserve, protect, and exhibit the vast 
treasures of one of the most productive sites of dinosaur bones in the 
world.
  This is not the first time I have introduced this legislation, which 
was reported favorably and passed by this body in October 2004. 
Unfortunately there was not enough time before the end of the 
legislative session for this bill to be considered by the House. It is 
my hope that this legislation can be addressed by both bodies during 
the 109th Congress. With this legislation, I believe we can proactively 
address the Dinosaur National Monument's deteriorating storage 
facilities, before there is irreparable damage to the resources stored 
there.
  Since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones by the paleontologist 
Earl Douglass in 1909, and the subsequent proclamation as a national 
monument in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson, the Dinosaur National 
Monument has been a haven for both amateur and expert dinosaur 
enthusiasts.
  At present, Dinosaur National Monument has more that 600,000 items in 
its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items are currently stored 
in 17 different facilities throughout the park. Many of these resources 
are at risk due to the failure of the scattered facilities to meet 
minimum National Park Service storage standards. A new research and 
curatorial facility is greatly needed to bring the park's collections 
up to standard and to ensure its protection.
  The curatorial facility will also fill a critical role as a 
collection center for the park and partners' fossil, archaeological, 
natural resource operations and collections, and park archives. 
Moreover, in these days of limited budgets, the decision to co-locate 
this facility with the State's museum will also save taxpayer dollars. 
The State of Utah is nearing completion of their new Field House Museum 
at a cost to the State of $6.5 million. Because of the co-location, NPS 
staff, visiting scholars, interns and volunteers would have access to 
the State museum's space for exhibit, classroom, conferencing, 
education, restrooms, public access, parking, and other needs not 
included in the curatorial facility.
  The 22,500 square foot facility will be built outside the boundaries 
of the park on land donated to the Park Service by the city of Vernal 
and Uintah County. The legislation will also permit the Park Service to 
accept the donation of the land, valued at approximately $1.5 million. 
The Park Service estimates the total cost of adding the research and 
curatorial center to be $8.7 million.
  Other Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Forest Service, who are also in need of collections storage, have 
become minor partners and would utilize a small portion of the storage 
facility. An additional partner in the project, the Intermountain 
Natural History Association, has agreed to fund and carry out the soil 
and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service to 
accept the donation.
  Mr. President, it is imperative that we care for these 
paleontological resources and ensure their availability to future 
generations, both for scientific study and the enjoyment of the public. 
This legislation is a proactive approach to accomplishing those 
objectives and is an excellent example of a cost effective partnership 
between the National Park Service, the State of Utah Department of 
Natural Resources, the city of Vernal, and Uintah County, of which this 
Congress ought to applaud and support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 183. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide families of disabled children with the opportunity to purchase 
coverage under the medicaid program for such children, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my 
good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act.
  The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow 
families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program.
  Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family 
Opportunity Act enacted for many years.
  The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have 
attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original 
proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's 
eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had 
an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up 
to age 21.
  The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at 
300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and 
provides coverage for children up to age 18.
  I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the 
Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year.
  The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative'' 
agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership.
  It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide 
for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable 
prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just 
to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services.
  Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in 
order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities. 
These parents are hard working taxpayers.
  There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to 
continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while 
enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the 
contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the 
world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults 
with a child with a disability.
  The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a 
Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private 
employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some 
private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to 
offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage 
does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and 
customized durable medical equipment.
  Children with significant disabilities need these services in order 
to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of 
society.
  Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of 
demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives 
to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children.
  Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community 
based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals. 
The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help 
realize this goal for these children.
  The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this 
omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the 
effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level 
and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community 
based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in 
the Medicaid program.
  Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development 
of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide 
families

[[Page S593]]

through the maze of programs and networks associated with the 
challenges of raising a child with a disability.
  The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has 
garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of 
numerous family and child advocacy groups.
  This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge 
the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor once again to join my 
colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Family Opportunity Act to 
remove the health care barriers for children with disabilities that so 
often prevent families from staying together and staying employed.
  We know that families of disabled and special needs children continue 
to struggle to help their children learn to live independently and 
become fully contributing members of their communities.
  Eight percent of children in this country have significant mental or 
physical disabilities, and many of them do not have access to the 
critical health services they need to improve their lives and prevent 
deterioration of their health. To obtain needed health services for 
their children, families are often forced to become poor themselves, 
stay poor, put their children in out of home placements, or even give 
up custody of their children so that the children can qualify for the 
broad health coverage available under Medicaid.
  In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children 
report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down 
overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of their children 
and family so that their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through 
the Social Security Income Program.
  Today we are reintroducing legislation intended to close the health 
care gap for the Nation's most vulnerable population, and enable 
disabled children and their families to be equal partners in the 
American dream.
  As President Bush said in his ``New Freedom Initiative'' on February 
1, 2001, ``Too many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in 
bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for 
success and we need to tear down these barriers''.
  The Family Opportunity Act will eliminate the unfair barriers that 
deny needed health care to so many disabled and special needs children.
  It makes health insurance coverage more widely available for children 
with significant disabilities, through opportunities to buy-in to 
Medicaid at an affordable rate.
  It allows States to develop a demonstration program to provide needed 
Medicaid services to children with psychiatric illnesses, instead of 
limiting such coverage to a residential or institutional setting.
  It establishes Family to Family Information Centers in each State to 
help families with special needs children.
  The enactment of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 
demonstrated the commitment of Congress to do all we can to enable 
people with disabilities to lead independent and productive lives. It 
is time for Congress to show that same commitment to children with 
disabilities and their families.
  I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this 
legislation and give disabled children and their families across the 
country a genuine opportunity to fulfill their dreams and fully 
participate in the social and economic mainstream of the Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 185. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 
requirement for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan 
annuities by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to 
modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the Survivor 
Benefit Plan; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and 
Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton, I am honored to introduce 
legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-
standing problem in our military survivors benefits system.
  The system in place right now, even with the important changes we 
have made recently, does not take care of our military widows and 
surviving children the way it should. We should act to correct this in 
this session.
  I have sought and found inspiration on this from Holy Scripture. In 
fact, a simple yet powerful passage in the Book of Isaiah captures so 
much of what we are all about as a Nation theses days and what this 
legislation is trying to do.
  In Isaiah we are told, ``Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the 
oppressed.'' And then we are admonished to, ``Defend the orphan. Fight 
for the rights of widows.''
  Also in the first chapter of James, verse 27 we are told that in 
God's eyes the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and 
widows in their distress.
  This is powerful and clear direction that speaks to our hearts.
  Last year, under Senator Reid's leadership and at the Senate's 
insistence, the Defense authorization bill corrected a long-standing 
inequity by allowing 100-percent disabled military retirees to receive 
concurrently their full retired pay and disability compensation.
  That correction in law was long overdue and we need to continue to 
work to extend this change to include retirees with lower disability 
ratings.
  But there is another related injustice that needs to be addressed. 
The legislation that we offer today will extend the same protection of 
benefits to the widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military 
retirees and those who die on active duty.
  Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits 
plan--or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect 
their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the 
retiree or issued automatically in the case of service members who die 
while on active duty. Retired service members pay for this benefit from 
their retired pay. Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent 
children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an 
annuity.
  Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service-
connected disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also 
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans' 
Administration.
  But the annuity paid by the survivors' benefits plan and received by 
a surviving widow or a child is reduced by the amount of the dependency 
and indemnity compensation received from the VA.
  I know a little something about insurance and income security plans. 
And I don't know of any other annuity program in the government or 
private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their 
payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from 
another plan or program.
  The legislation that we are proposing today also makes effective 
immediately a change to the military SBP program that we enacted in 
1999. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached 
the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for 30 years should stop 
paying a premium. But we delayed the effective date for this relief 
until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further.
  The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and Marines who have sacrificed throughout our history 
to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to 
American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of 
liberty everywhere.
  We owe them and those they leave behind a great debt.
  As Abraham Lincoln instructed us, ours is an obligation ``to care for 
him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his 
orphan.''
  Too often we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation 
with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families 
have rendered.
  We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this 
Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to 
our care.
  I appreciate the cosponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Corzine, 
Hagel, Durbin and Dayton--and look forward

[[Page S594]]

to working with everyone in the days ahead.
  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. 185

       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 ``Military Retiree Survivor 
     Benefit Equity Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SBP SURVIVOR 
                   ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
                   COMPENSATION.

       (a) Repeal.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 1450(c)(1), by inserting after ``to whom 
     section 1448 of this title applies'' the following: ``(except 
     in the case of a death as described in subsection (d) or (f) 
     of such section)''; and
       (2) in section 1451(c)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively.
       (b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person for any period before the effective 
     date provided under subsection (e) by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a).
       (c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously 
     Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has 
     been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
     under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States 
     Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided 
     under subsection (e) and that is adjusted by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a 
     refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall not be required to repay such 
     refund to the United States.
       (d) Reconsideration of Optional Annuity.--Section 
     1448(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentences: ``The 
     surviving spouse, however, may elect to terminate an annuity 
     under this subparagraph in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary concerned. Upon such an election, 
     payment of an annuity to dependent children under this 
     subparagraph shall terminate effective on the first day of 
     the first month that begins after the date on which the 
     Secretary concerned receives notice of the election, and, 
     beginning on that day, an annuity shall be paid to the 
     surviving spouse under paragraph (1) instead.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the later of--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR 
                   BENEFIT PLAN.

       Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2005''.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill 
is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit 
Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's 
promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines 
two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity 
in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military 
survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more 
recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the 
last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in 
providing basic fairness to these survivors.
  This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the 
dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, 
from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military 
survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform 
are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator 
Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to 
stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.
  The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is 
included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising 
from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into 
the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and 
have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully 
``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an 
important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made 
it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who 
enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than 
enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other 
words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.
  This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier 
retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for 
two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 
percent of retired pay.
  This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, 
will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the 
Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in 
subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors 
and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.
  This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP 
benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity 
compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty 
or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is 
entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP 
annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.
  SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most 
cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of 
retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special 
compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by 
his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the 
families of those who have lost their life in the service of their 
country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.
  This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations 
representing our troops and their families, including Air Force 
Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers 
Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation 
Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United 
States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association 
of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast 
Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet 
Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of 
the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, 
Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple 
Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard 
Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National 
Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, 
Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned 
Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers 
Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, 
Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted 
Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers 
Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' 
Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this 
bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will 
have strong support in the Senate.
  It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in 
our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our 
service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in 
earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their 
sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully 
compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits 
that they have earned are fair and just.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 186. A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for 
any study related to the transportation of chemical munitions across 
State lines; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of considerable 
importance to the people of southern Colorado. For nearly 50 years, the 
people of

[[Page S595]]

southern Colorado have lived with the knowledge that within a few miles 
of their homes, schools, and places of business lies one of the largest 
stockpiles of chemical munitions in the world. The Pueblo Chemical 
Depot was built during World War II and continues to this day to serve 
as an ammunition and material storage facility. Since the mid-1990s, 
the primary mission of the depot has been to protect the 780,000 
chemical weapons being stored there.
  As required by the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Department of 
Defense in 1997 launched an aggressive program to dismantle the U.S. 
chemical weapons stockpile. The program has since repeatedly stumbled 
and has not met the expectations of the international community, 
Congress and, most important, the people who live near these 
stockpiles. The costs of the program have risen from $15 billion in 
1997 to $24 billion in 2001, an increase of $9 billion in 4 years. Some 
have estimated that the program will cost as much as $30 billion by the 
time it is completed.
  The time schedule has experienced unconscionable delays. Last year 
cleanup of Pueblo was expected to be completed by 2011. The 
Department's latest budget decision has pushed the date all the way 
back to 2021, 9 years after the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty 
deadline.
  Numerous safety incidents have occurred at operational sites, 
shutting down one facility for 9 months. Poor contracting has resulted 
in the shutting down of another facility, which is now costing the 
Federal Government $300,000 a day to keep operationally ready. It was 
hardly a surprise then when the President's own management assessment 
last year labeled this program as ineffective.
  On top of these numerous problems, the Department of Defense has 
failed to fully communicate its intentions to either Congress or the 
local community. Last week, for instance, Senator Salazar, my colleague 
from Colorado, and I met with two Department of Defense officials to 
discuss this program. At that meeting we requested that the Defense 
Department answer some questions and were promised a written response 
from Under Secretary of Defense Michael Wynne within 3 days. That 
meeting was held over a week ago, and we have yet to receive a 
response.
  At least we in Congress can get a meeting. Members of the local 
community in Pueblo, CO have been trying to get an official from the 
Defense Department to meet with them to discuss the Pentagon's plans 
for weeks. Despite the fact that the Defense Department is trying to 
unilaterally shut down the design work at Pueblo, the Pentagon has not 
taken the time to meet with the residents who, if the Pentagon gets its 
way, will be forced to live for another 15 years near an aging 
stockpile housing three-quarters of a million chemical weapons.
  The latest and most frustrating Pentagon effort in this program is to 
study once again the possibility of transporting the 2,600 tons of 
mustard gas across the State of Colorado to an incinerator site out of 
the State. Never mind that this option has been studied at least three 
times in the past decade, and never mind that current law prohibits the 
transport of chemical munitions across State lines, and never mind that 
transporting these weapons out of State would violate the agreement the 
Defense Department made with the people in Pueblo.

  This study is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars. I don't know how simpler we can make it. I have already been 
told by Pentagon officials that the study is going to conclude that the 
transportation of chemical munitions across State lines is not 
practical. If that is the case, why do the study? Why waste $150,000 to 
study the feasibility of an option that is against the law and has 
already been determined by the Pentagon to be impractical?
  With the Department wasting money on meaningless studies, it is no 
wonder that this program is over budget and behind schedule. I think it 
is time we took a stand against the Pentagon's wasteful actions. 
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that will stop this study 
and force the Department of Defense to recognize that the only option 
for destroying its chemical munitions is to build a disposal site in 
Pueblo.
  I am pleased to announce that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ken 
Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I wanted to mention, 
though, that Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Bunning, and Senator 
Shelby have also agreed to cosponsor. We should not forget that Senator 
McConnell in particular has been fighting the Department on this issue 
for over a decade. In many respects, Senator McConnell's hard work has 
paved the way for the legislation I am introducing today along with my 
colleague from the State of Colorado, Senator Salazar.
  I urge my other colleagues to join us in putting the Department on 
notice that this kind of wasteful, meaningless effort will not be 
tolerated.
  I believe it is time the Pentagon took a good look at its chemical 
demilitarization program. Our country cannot afford to throw away our 
scarce defense dollars into a program that continues to be so 
incredibly mismanaged. Nor should our Nation's diplomats be put in the 
position of having to explain why we can't meet our treaty obligations 
to the likes of China, Iran, or France. Most importantly, we cannot 
forget the thousands of innocent Americans who continue to live near 
these sites. They bear the burden of the Pentagon's mismanagement. It 
is not fair to them when all they have asked for is that these 
munitions be cleaned up in a manner that is safe and does not harm the 
environment.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues in 
relation to the Pueblo Chemical Depot. When the Senate ratified the 
Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, it became U.S. law and our sworn 
obligation to destroy our Nation's chemical weapons stockpiles by 2012. 
With the advent of the global war on terror, this responsibility has 
taken on even more importance. We must destroy these weapons to ensure 
the health and safety of the citizens of the State of Colorado.
  We must also stand as an example to the world that we are firmly 
resolved in our commitment to reducing the threats posed by weapons of 
mass destruction in our Nation.
  Given the gravity of the situation, I cannot understand why the 
Department of Defense is shirking from their responsibility in this 
matter.
  Until recently, the relationship between the Army and the citizens of 
Pueblo had an excellent track record, proving that when good people 
come together and operate from a position of trust, significant 
problems can be solved. Yet, one day after Senator Allard and I were 
absolutely assured by the Department of Defense that the chemical 
weapons stored in Pueblo would not be transported, and that the weapons 
would be destroyed in Pueblo by the environmentally safe method of 
water neutralization, the Department of Defense turned around and 
commenced a study on the feasibility of transporting the stockpiles out 
of Pueblo to be incinerated at another site--twenty-four hours after 
they said they wouldn't.
  I believe we were given a good faith commitment last week that the 
destruction of the weapons would continue at Pueblo using the water 
neutralization technology agreed upon, and that the munitions would not 
be transferred elsewhere. While we wait for the promised clarification 
on these matters, Senator Allard and I believe it is necessary to 
emphasize our resolve.
  To help provide that emphasis, we are introducing this bill. It is a 
straightforward, one-line bill to prohibit the use of Department of 
Defense funds for any study related to the transportation of chemical 
munitions across State lines.
  Mr. President, the sheer number of weapons awaiting destruction at 
the Pueblo Chemical Depot is staggering: more than three-quarters of a 
million artillery shells and mortar rounds. Transporting these weapons 
would be a dangerous and expensive enterprise. It would be subject to 
legal challenges by the towns and the States involved, and it is 
against Federal law.
  In short, transporting these weapons will not save time, and it will 
not save money. But this bill we have brought to the floor will save 
both time and money, because it stops the frivolous study and returns 
the focus to the issue at hand: the safe destruction of the chemical 
weapons at Pueblo by water neutralization.

[[Page S596]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the first meetings I had as a 
U.S. Senator 20 years ago was about the aging chemical weapons stored 
at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, KY. At the time, the Army was 
ignoring the concerns of the community and attempting to incinerate the 
weapons irrespective of the potential risk.
  Not much has changed.
  I have spent the last 20 years fighting for the citizens of Kentucky 
who live in proximity to these dangerous weapons, and although the 
party responsible for the weapons is now the Department of Defense, the 
problem remains the same. Those responsible for the destruction of the 
chemical stockpiles are ignoring the best interests and concerns of the 
citizens who live near them.
  Every time I have helped the community to clear a hurdle, whether it 
was to force the Army to investigate alternative technologies to 
incineration or the creation of a new organization to manage the new 
method of demilitarization, a new obstacle has been put in the path of 
stockpile destruction. Currently, the citizens of Kentucky and Colorado 
are being robbed to pay for the massive cost overruns at incineration 
sites throughout the country.
  The budgets for demilitarization at Blue Grass and Pueblo have been 
slashed, and the money has been transferred to other accounts in spite 
of the fact that Blue Grass and Pueblo had succeeded in securing 
permits from the local environmental agencies in record time. The 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Agency, which has been tasked with managing 
the demilitarization of these stockpiles, is respected and trusted by 
the community. And I believe the Department's decision to cut funding 
for ACWA in the FY06 budget is a slap in the face to the citizens of 
Kentucky and Colorado, and an insult to the fine people at ACWA.
  Now the Department has suggested it wants to transport the weapons 
from these depots through our communities to incineration sites. This 
will not happen so long as I am a U.S. Senator.
  After the time and energy I have expended on ensuring these weapons 
are disposed of in a safe and environmentally friendly manner, I am 
personally insulted by the Department's efforts to delay destruction 
and its suggestion of transporting the weapons elsewhere.
  The Department has an obligation to the citizens of Kentucky and 
Colorado to dispose of these stockpiles in an expeditious and safe 
manner. Congress and the Department, working with the communities, 
certified an alternative means of disposal, and it is unacceptable for 
the Department to walk away from this promise. Destruction of 
stockpiles at Blue Grass and Pueblo deserves full funding from the 
Department of Defense, and I will work to put the demilitarization of 
these stockpiles back on schedule.
  I want to thank my friend, Senator Allard, for his efforts to safely 
dispose of these dangerous stockpiles. As a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Allard was a tireless advocate for the 
citizens of Colorado who live near these weapons. I am happy to welcome 
Senator Allard to the Appropriations Committee, where I look forward to 
working with him to ensure that Blue Grass and Pueblo receive the 
funding attention that is so long overdue.
  Although the Department may come to its senses and decide not to 
pursue the shipment of decaying stockpiles of chemical weapons through 
suburban Kentucky or Colorado, I've come to learn that trusting the 
best judgment of the folks in charge of this program is never a sure 
bet. For that reason, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator 
Allard's legislation, which will prohibit the shipment of chemical 
weapons from any Army installation. These weapons need to be destroyed, 
but they need to be destroyed safely at the locations where they 
currently are stored. Moving 60-year-old stockpiles of leaking mustard 
agent is not a solution to a budget problem, it is a recipe for 
disaster.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Biden):
  S. 187. A bill to limit the applicability of the annual updates to 
the allowance for States and other taxes in the tables used in the 
Federal Needs Analysis Methodology for the award year 2005-2006, 
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2004; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith 
and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very 
important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All 
Americans Act.
  This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the 
Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the 
formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 
2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the 
Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state 
and other taxes that is used by students and their families to 
calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college 
tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are 
expected to contribute towards college in a given year.
  Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct 
impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of 
financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution 
goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.
  The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of 
cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which 
more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, 
as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in 
their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell 
grant assistance.
  Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility 
and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility 
for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as 
well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut 
practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's 
changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for 
nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students 
are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they 
were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. 
I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going 
forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based 
on outdated tax information.
  Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine 
EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to 
reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the 
administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The 
updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and 
local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For 
example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 
2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of 
State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 
billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's 
proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into 
account these substantial increases in State tax burden.
  In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that 
found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the 
tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. 
The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination 
Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of 
Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide 
us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary 
to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of 
its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the 
Department used to revise the tables,


[[Page S597]]


       As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics 
     of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the 
     allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset, 
     the current state and other tax allowance may not fully 
     reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families. 
     The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the 
     allowance because it is limited to financial data from those 
     who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local 
     taxes, and is several years older than the income information 
     reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

  The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for 
those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates 
than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to 
suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they 
use.
  These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically 
at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining 
to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of 
education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at 
a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more 
than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition 
at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a 
year. In fact, according to the National Association of State 
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public 
institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since 
the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more 
than 60 percent in the last five years.
  To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at 
the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, 
I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance 
of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student 
struggling to afford college now.
  One student writes,

       I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and 
     receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal 
     loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain 
     where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund 
     Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious 
     position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am 
     counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be 
     a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in 
     full. The President says he's an advocate for young people 
     with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us 
     behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

  A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her 
son to school writes,

       I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he 
     may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician 
     and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston. 
     With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he 
     is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very 
     well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the 
     income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there 
     won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I 
     would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams 
     and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting 
     programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many 
     dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is 
     he going to cut?''

  It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that 
low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from 
this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families 
based on faulty calculations.
  A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive 
marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, 
but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed 
contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the 
costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who 
were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are 
productive, tax-paying citizens.
  The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty 
Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan 
group of thirty Senators, I might add.
  I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation 
immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. 
Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the 
GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the 
tax tables.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 187

       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 ``Ensuring College Access for 
     all Americans Act''.

     SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE FOR STATE AND OTHER TAXES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the annual 
     updates to the allowance for State and other taxes in the 
     tables used in the Federal Needs Analysis Methodology to 
     determine a student's expected family contribution for the 
     award year 2005-2006 under part F of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087kk et seq.), published 
     in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 23, 2004 (69 
     Fed. Reg. 76926), shall not apply to a student to the extent 
     the updates will reduce the amount of Federal student 
     assistance for which the student is eligible.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Today I join Senator Corzine and 26 of our colleagues to 
introduce legislation to prohibit the implementation of the proposed 
changes in the State and local tax tables on college students receiving 
need-based aid.
  When decisions are made by any administration that affect the price 
that families pay for college, it is important that the Congress 
understands both the factors that influenced that decision and the 
impact of those decisions on our constituents. In light of the slumping 
economy, State budget crises, and rising college costs, the 
Department's proposed changes come at a very difficult time for 
students and their families. Raising the cost of tuition by a few 
hundred dollars may cause a student to have to leave school and it is 
our responsibility to ensure that these changes are being made for 
sound reasons.
  I urge the Department of Education to work with Congress when making 
these decisions so that members of this body are made aware of policy 
changes through a collaborative process--and not the media.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about 
the advantages of having a college education and the importance of 
ensuring access to higher education. That is why I am pleased to join 
as a cosponsor the Corzine-Smith Kennedy Ensuring College Access for 
All Americans Act of 2005. Due to recent changes made to the formula 
determining federal Pell grant awards, many students are at risk of 
losing needed financial aid. This bill would guarantee that no student 
sees a reduction in his or her Pell grant assistance in the 2005-2006 
school year or loses the grant completely.
  We are all familiar with the adage: education is the great 
equalizer--and that a college education is the economic ladder to 
upward mobility. Not only do individuals reap benefits from having a 
college degree, society also values higher education--as we have also 
heard that education is the engine that drives a healthy economy. 
Basically, in addition to all its other benefits, having a good 
education pays individuals in the long run.
  According to a recent report by the college board, college graduates 
earn about 73 percent more than high school graduates over their 
working lives. For those with advanced degrees, earnings are two to 
three times higher than high school graduates. Moreover, society enjoys 
the financial returns on the investment in higher education--from 
generated higher tax payments to decreased dependency on public income-
transfer programs. Overall, higher education improves individual and 
societal quality of life.
  While we are convinced that higher levels of educational attainment 
produces positive outcomes we need to do more to ensure access to 
higher education.
  With the cost of college tuition continuing to rise, financial aid is 
the decisive factor in determining whether thousands of high school 
seniors are college bound or not. In particular, Federal Pell grants 
are especially critical for low-income students financing their way 
through college. According to the college board, college tuition at 4 
year institutions increased on average by over 10 percent in the 2004-
2005

[[Page S598]]

school year. At 2-year public colleges, tuition increased by over 8 
percent.
  However, the Department of Education's recent changes to the formulas 
for financial aid eligibility will cut $300 million in Pell grant 
assistance to students nationwide, resulting in drastic reductions of 
Pell grant awards to more then one million students. The American 
Council on Education estimates that 89,000 students who are currently 
eligible for a Pell grant will lose this financial assistance. An 
additional 1.3 million student will likely see a reduction of $100 to 
$300 in their Pell Grants.
  In my home State, over 4,000 students, just at one college, the 
University of Washington, will be adversely impacted from the change in 
financial aid eligibility. Early estimates show that about 3,900 
students of the 6,900 eligible for a Pell Grant will lose up to $200 a 
year. Two hundred more students will probably lose their minimum grants 
of $400. Many of the students likely to see a decrease in their Pell 
grant award are low income.
  Federal financial aid was critical to my own educational 
achievements. I went to college on a Pell grant. It was a critical to 
my being able to finance my way through school. With these new rules, 
some students may quit school or will have to spend more time working 
when they should be going to class.
  The Ensuring Access for All Americans Act of 2005 would restore this 
critical financial assistance to thousands of needy students in the 
2005-2006 school year. At a time when more and more employers are 
requiring a college degree for employment and tuition costs are 
skyrocketing, government should be opening the doors to educational 
opportunity, not locking students out. I urge prompt Senate action on 
this measure.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senators Corzine 
and Kennedy as a cosponsor of the bill Ensuring College Access for All 
Americans that restores cuts to the Federal Pell Grant Program for 
millions of students nationwide.
  Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial 
aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.
  These grants provide nearly $12.8 billion to help about 5.3 million 
low-income students attend college.
  However, approximately 89,000 students currently eligible for a Pell 
grant will lose it, while an additional 1.3 million students will see 
their grants reduced by as much as $100 to $300 due to cuts in the 
Federal Pell Grant Program.
  In California, nearly 150,000 low-income students will see their 
federal Pell grants decrease or disappear.
  These cuts have a huge impact on students at California's public 
colleges and universities.
  Within the University of California system, almost half of the 46,000 
Pell grant recipients who attend one of the eight UC campuses will 
receive reduced grants and about 500 students who receive $400 a year 
will lose their grants completely.
  On December 23, 2004, the Department of Education issued a proposal 
that will cut $300 million from the Federal Pell Grant Program.
  The proposal updates State and local tax tables used to determine 
families' expected contribution towards college cost in a given year 
resulting in students and their families being expected to contribute 
more for college expenses.
  These changes, which use Fiscal Year 2002 State and local data, 
reduce the credit that families receive for paying State and local 
taxes at a time when they are actually paying more taxes.
  Senators Corzine and Kennedy's bill ensures that no student loses 
their Pell grant or sees a reduction in assistance under the Department 
of Education's proposal to update State and local tax tables.
  It would simply ``hold harmless'' any student who stands to lose 
under the new proposal, so that no student would see a reduction in 
their Pell grant. Those students in the States that stand to gain would 
still benefit from the new tax tables.
  It is imperative that cuts to this important student aid program be 
restored so that students can continue to receive their Pell grants 
that they are eligible for.
  I recently received a letter from one my constituents from Chino, CA, 
a parent who is very concerned about the cuts to the Pell grant 
program. The letter said:

       This would result in millions of families, many of whom 
     depend on financial aid including Pell grants, such as my 
     children in college, losing all or part of their federal 
     support. . . . this affects us all and our children's future.

  A college student from Contra Costa County in California wrote:

       The amount of my Pell grant will not cover the cost of 
     supplies that I need for the semester. . . . my parents 
     cannot take out loans themselves. . . . so now I have to take 
     out loans of my own, which for the amount I was approved for, 
     doesn't even cover a quarter of my tuition. I really felt let 
     down and disappointed.

  There could not be a worst time for making changes that would take 
away or shrink a student's financial aid.
  Over 500,000 low and middle-income California students rely on Pell 
grants for financial assistance. The maximum Pell grant has been frozen 
at $4,050 for 3 consecutive years, while the costs of attending a 4-
year public college or private college have increased both nationwide 
and in California.
  We must do all we can to make college education more accessible and 
affordable for our Nation's students.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy in 
supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. McCain, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. 
        Lautenberg):
  S. 188. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry 
out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today legislation to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.
  I am pleased to be joined on this bill by a bipartisan group of 
Senators, including Senators Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, McCain, 
Durbin, Crapo, Cantwell, Hutchison, Bingaman and Alexander.
  This legislation is critical to ensuring that cash strapped states 
and localities are at least partially reimbursed for the costs of 
housing undocumented criminal aliens in their jails. Ultimately, were 
it not for the failure of the federal government to control illegal 
immigration, States and localities would not have to spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars in housing these individuals in their prisons and 
jails.
  During the 108th Congress, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent but stalled in the House of Representatives. This year, passage 
of this legislation is even more critical given that the authorization 
for appropriations for SCAAP in the Immigration and Nationality Act 
expired in 2004.
  While hard numbers can be elusive when determining the actual costs 
to American taxpayers of illegal immigration, not many would disagree 
that the costs are in the billions of dollars each year. These costs go 
to, for instance, education, medical care and incarceration. And even 
if we consider the tax contributions of undocumented aliens and 
subtract that from the total costs, we are still left with expenditures 
in the billions of dollars.
  The cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens alone is a 
staggering figure--millions of dollars each year. And these dollars 
expended by States and localities are not optional. They must be 
expended since incarcerating individuals convicted of committing a 
crime is not optional.
  Since funding for SCAAP began in 1995, the amount appropriated has 
been as high as $565 million and as low as $250 million--and these 
figures only covered a portion of the costs expended by States and 
localities to house undocumented criminal aliens. Furthermore, every 
day States and localities expend other monies on undocumented criminal 
aliens that are not reimbursed by the federal government through SCAAP. 
Those expenses include public safety expenditures, expenses of trial 
proceedings, use of translators, cost of public defenders and the 
incarceration

[[Page S599]]

expenses of undocumented criminal aliens for minor offenses that do not 
meet the standards of SCAAP.
  The reality is that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands requested reimbursement through the 
SCAAP program in fiscal year 2004. In that year, $281,605,292 was 
awarded through the program.
  Congress has an obligation to reimburse States and localities for the 
costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens when the federal 
government fails in its responsibility to effectively deter illegal 
immigration.
  During the 108th Congress, this bill--S. 460--passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent.
  This year, passage of this legislation is all the more critical 
because authorization for SCAAP funds expired in 2004. Without funding, 
cash strapped states and localities are going to have to re-allocate 
monies from other areas within their criminal justice system to meet 
the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens.
  We in Congress can assist, albeit in small part, our states by 
supporting the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2005''. This bill would amend section 241(i)(5) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations at a 
level of $750 million for FY 2006, $850 million for FY 2007 and $950 
million for FY 2008 through FY 2011.
  Enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994, SCAAP reimburses States and localities that incur costs for 
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. These aliens must be 
convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State 
or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.
  Funding for SCAAP has been appropriated by Congress annually since 
1995. The program is administered by the Office of Justice Programs' 
Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is located in the Department of 
Justice.
  During FY1997 to FY2003, approximately $3.5 billion was distributed 
to States and localities. California has historically received the 
largest annual awards since the program's inception, with Arizona, 
Illinois, New York and Texas also consistently receiving large awards. 
Unfortunately, authorization for SCAAP expired in October 2004.
  SCAAP was established with the belief that protecting the nation's 
borders from illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal 
Government and that States and localities should be reimbursed by the 
Federal Government for expenses relating to these duties.
  It is clear to everyone in this Chamber that immigration is a federal 
responsibility. In fact, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power 
over immigration, so States are legally barred from acting on their 
own. SCAAP has been set up over the years to reimburse states and local 
government for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.
  It is based on the principle that when the Federal Government fails 
to enforce its laws against immigration violators, it should bear the 
responsibility for the financial costs of this failure.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 188

       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 ``State Criminal Alien 
     Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005 
                   THROUGH 2011.

       Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is amended by striking ``appropriated'' 
     and all that follows through the period and inserting the 
     following: ``appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       ``(A) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(C) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(D) $950,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 189. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to require parental 
consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered 
under the Head Start program.
  Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected 
to these intrusive physical exams without the prior knowledge or 
consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human 
Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S. 
Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To 
clarify the code, my bill will not allow any nonemergency intrusive 
exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not 
include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings.
  This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents 
from Tulsa, OK who felt their rights were violated when their children 
were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent. 
I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest 
in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents.
  As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be 
informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I 
hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following article be 
printed in the Record, ``Federal Head Start suit pending.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Federal Head Start Suit Pending

       A lawsuit against Tulsa's Head Start program alleging a 
     violation of the constitutional rights of preschool children 
     remains pending in the U.S. District Court.
       The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the 
     lawsuit in July 2003 saying the program appears to have 
     ``directly violated'' their rights by subjecting children to 
     genital exams and blood tests without their parents' consent.
       The appellate decision reversed a 2001 decision by U.S. 
     District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa in favor of the 
     Community Action Project.
       The lawsuit arose as a result of exams of Head Start boys 
     and girls at Roosevelt Elementary School on Nov. 5, 1998. The 
     appellate judges said a registered nurse, who was a CAP 
     employee, insisted on the exams over the objection of a 
     parent, who was also a CAP aide.
       The appeals court also reinstated claims for invasion of 
     privacy and ``technical battery'' under Oklahoma law, and 
     claims against CAP for allegedly interfering with the 
     parents' ``constitutional right to direct and control the 
     medical treatment of their children.''
       The parents are represented by Steven Aden, chief litigator 
     for the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, a conservative 
     legal foundation that focuses on religious rights, parental 
     rights and freedom from government intrusion.
                                 ______
                                 

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

  S. 190. A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market 
enterprises, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise 
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a 
critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae 
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the 
Federal Home Loan Banks.
  There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises 
GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing 
liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong 
through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at 
an all-time high.
  The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique 
set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are 
chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to 
Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all 
the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie 
and Freddie enjoy an implicit

[[Page S600]]

guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing 
substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, 
their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their 
use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and 
Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for 
mortgages.
  The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot 
be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 
percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies 
combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of 
$2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE 
debt.
  It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and 
Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory 
reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of 
accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an 
income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the 
removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, 
a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. 
That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top 
management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion 
income restatement.
  At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is 
for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered 
mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held 
significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be 
managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.
  Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator 
for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill 
provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and 
enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the 
bill would:
  Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down 
a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new 
regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect 
against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new 
programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with 
greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden 
parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits 
of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure 
that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing 
mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan 
Bank directors to be elected.
  This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence 
that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems 
at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my 
colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor 
our bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Santorum):
  S. 191. A bill to extend certain trade preferences to certain least-
developed countries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation aimed at helping some the world's poorest countries along 
their path toward economic development and self-sufficiency. Joining me 
in introducing this bill are my colleagues Senator Feinstein, of 
California; Senator Baucus, of Montana; and Senator Santorum, of 
Pennsylvania. I appreciate their efforts in getting us to this point, 
and I look forward to working with them to see that this legislation is 
enacted into law.
  When President Bush delivered his second inaugural address last week, 
he reaffirmed in absolute terms the commitment of the United States 
toward furthering human dignity around the globe. He drew on the words 
and the beliefs of our forefathers that every life has worth and is 
deserving of the freedom and security of economic independence.
  The bill that I bring here today is aimed at spreading America's 
ideals of economic independence to regions of the world that have seen 
few such successes. My bill, the Tariff Relief Assistance for 
Developing Economies (TRADE) Act of 2005, would extend to some of the 
poorest people of the world the opportunity to work toward a better 
life.
  Specifically, my legislation would provide duty-free and quota-free 
benefits, similar to those afforded under the Africa Growth and 
Opportunity Act, to some of the world's most impoverished nations. The 
countries covered by this legislation are 14 of the least developed 
countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State 
Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference 
program. They include Afghanistan, East Timor, Maldives, Cambodia, 
Bangladesh, and Nepal. My bill also includes a special emergency trade 
provision to assist Sri Lanka as it struggles through the aftermath of 
the recent tsunami.
  The TRADE Act countries are subject to some of the highest U.S. 
tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. This stands in glaring 
contrast to the nearly negligible tariffs that face our wealthier 
trading partners in Europe and Japan. The TRADE LDCs have been given 
duty-free entry from all other Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development countries, and they need our help now.
  In prior years Congress has acted generously toward LDCs in the 
Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now time for us to act in a 
similar fashion to LDCs of the Asia-Pacific region. By allowing duty-
free imports into the United States, we can encourage these countries 
to diversify their economies while creating employment opportunities 
and promoting democracy.
  In supporting these values, we can also help to bring about a safer 
and more peaceful world. Recent history has shown us the violence and 
resentment that can arise when people lose hope and societies 
breakdown. Backward economic policies and repressive regimes offer 
fertile breeding ground for radical and dangerous ideologies.
  In its final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended a U.S. strategy 
to counter terrorism that includes ``economic policies that encourage 
development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to 
improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their 
children's future.''
  The bill that I am introducing today can help us meet the goal of 
greater economic development in an increasingly important region of the 
world. The devastation brought by the recent tsunami coupled with the 
end of the textile quota system make this legislation especially timely 
and hasten the need for its passage. I thank you for the opportunity to 
speak here today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
Congress to pass this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 192. A bill to provide for the improvement of foreign 
stabilization and reconstruction capabilities of the United States 
Government; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LUGAR. The bill I am introducing today seeks to enhance United 
States effectiveness in dealing with countries that are either emerging 
from civil strife and conflict or threatened with instability. It calls 
for the creation of certain fundamental capabilities within the 
Government, and the Pentagon in particular, that are critical to 
success in what has come to be called stabilization and reconstruction 
operations. These capabilities include the training and equipping of 
sufficient numbers of civilian and military personnel for such 
activities, as well as the development of a new guiding principle--one 
that designates stabilization and reconstruction as a prime Defense 
Department mission with the same priority as combat operations.
  Often these missions will occur at the end of major combat 
operations. We have learned from recent experiences in Afghanistan and 
Iraq that the

[[Page S601]]

United States will encounter significant challenges in seeking to 
ensure stability, democracy, and a productive economy in nations 
affected by conflict.
  While United States Armed Forces are extremely capable of effectively 
projecting military force and prevailing on the battlefield, achieving 
United States objectives also requires successful stabilization and 
reconstruction operations after major fighting has ceased. Without 
success in the aftermath of large-scale hostilities, the United States 
hard-won military victories will be at risk. To achieve this success, 
the armed forces and civilian agencies of the United States Government 
must have the capabilities to support stabilization and reconstruction 
and to undertake effective planning and preparation well before the 
outbreak of hostilities.
  There are many cases, as well, when timely intervention to stabilize 
a threatening situation can head off the need for a major combat 
operation. This legislation envisions that the same capabilities 
created to stabilize a post-conflict situation may also be used to 
prevent conflict in the first place, thus achieving United States 
objectives more effectively with less loss of life and less potential 
risk to our relations with other countries.
  Much as the military component of a conflict requires extensive 
planning and training, we must also be well-prepared and trained for 
stabilization and reconstruction operations. To be fully effective in 
such operations, the United States needs to have Federal Government 
personnel deployed continuously abroad for years-long tours of duty so 
that they become familiar with the local scene and can earn the trust 
of indigenous people. The active component of the Armed Forces cannot 
meet all of these requirements. Personnel from other Federal agencies, 
reserve component forces, contractors, United States allies and 
coalition partners, and indigenous personnel must help.
  This bill complements legislation I introduced last year, S. 2127, 
which calls for creation of a stabilization and reconstruction 
capability within the State Department. I am pleased the State 
Department created a new office for such activities. This bill is the 
important next step. It calls upon the President to issue a directive 
to develop an intensive planning process for stabilization and 
reconstruction activities, as well as the establishment of joint 
interagency task forces composed of senior Government executives and 
military officers to ensure coordination and integration of the 
activities of military and civilian personnel in a particular country 
or area of interest.
  In addition, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take 
immediate action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the 
Department of Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction 
activities as well as to support the development of core competencies 
in planning in other departments and agencies, principally the 
Department of State. It further calls for the Secretary of Defense to 
take certain actions to ensure that stabilization and reconstruction 
becomes a core competency of general purpose forces through training, 
leader development, doctrine development and the use of other force 
readiness tools.
  I recognize that the subject matter of this bill is extremely broad 
in scope, and that it properly falls within the purview of other 
committees in addition to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
However, I believe that the only way the United States will achieve 
long-term success in stabilization and reconstruction operations is if 
all resources of the United States Government are brought to bear on 
the country or area of concern. It is for that reason that I am 
introducing this bill, and I hope that my colleagues in this body, in 
particular Senators Warner and Levin, will agree to take a major role 
in examining the merits of those aspects of this bill that fall within 
their jurisdiction and expertise.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 192

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Armed Forces of the United States are extremely 
     capable of effectively projecting military force and 
     achieving conventional military victory. However, achieving 
     United States objectives not only requires military success 
     but also successful stabilization and reconstruction 
     operations in countries affected by conflict.
       (2) Without success in the aftermath of large-scale 
     hostilities, the United States will not achieve its 
     objectives. Success in the aftermath follows from success in 
     preparation before hostilities.
       (3) Providing safety, security, and stability is critical 
     to successful reconstruction efforts and for achieving United 
     States objectives. Making progress toward achieving those 
     conditions in a country is difficult when daily life in that 
     country is largely shaped by violence of a magnitude that 
     cannot be managed by indigenous police and security forces.
       (4) Reconstruction activities cannot and should not wait 
     until safety and security has been achieved. Many elements of 
     reconstruction, including restoration of essential public 
     services and creation of sufficient jobs to instill a sense 
     of well-being and self-worth in a population of a country, 
     are necessary precursors to achieving stabilization in a 
     country affected by conflict. Stabilization operations and 
     reconstruction operations are intrinsically intertwined.
       (5) Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has 
     begun new stabilization and reconstruction operations every 
     18 to 24 months. Because each such operation typically lasts 
     for five to eight years, cumulative requirements for human 
     resources can total three to five times the level needed for 
     a single operation.
       (6) History indicates that--
       (A) stabilization of societies that are relatively ordered, 
     without ambitious goals, may require five troops per 1,000 
     indigenous people; and
       (B) stabilization of disordered societies, with ambitious 
     goals involving lasting cultural change, may require 20 
     troops per 1,000 indigenous people.
       (7) That need, with the cumulative requirement to maintain 
     human resources for three to five overlapping stabilization 
     operations, presents a formidable challenge. It has become 
     increasingly clear that more people are needed in-theater for 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations than for combat 
     operations.
       (8) Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has 
     spent at least four times more on stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities than on large-scale combat 
     operations.
       (9) One overarching lesson from history is that the 
     quality, quantity, and kind of preparation in peacetime 
     determines success in a stabilization and reconstruction 
     operation before it even begins. If an operation starts 
     badly, it is difficult to recover.
       (10) It is clear from experience in Afghanistan and Iraq 
     that the United States must expect to encounter significant 
     challenges in its future stabilization and reconstruction 
     efforts, including efforts that seek to ensure stability, 
     democracy, human rights, and a productive economy in a nation 
     affected by conflict. Achieving these ends requires effective 
     planning and preparation in the years before the outbreak of 
     hostilities in order for the Armed Forces and civilian 
     agencies of the United States Government to have the 
     capabilities that are necessary to support stabilization and 
     reconstruction. Such capabilities are not traditionally found 
     within those entities.
       (11) The United States can be more effective in meeting the 
     challenges of the transition to and from hostilities, 
     challenges that require better planning, new capabilities, 
     and more personnel with a wider range of skills.
       (12) Orchestration of all instruments of United States 
     power in peacetime would obviate the need for many military 
     expeditions to achieve United States objectives, and better 
     prepare the United States to achieve its objectives during 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (13) Choosing the priority and sequence of United States 
     objectives, acknowledging that not everything is equally 
     important or urgent, and noting that in other cultures 
     certain social and attitudinal change may take decades, all 
     require explicit management-decisionmaking and planning in 
     the years before stabilization and reconstruction operations 
     might be undertaken in a region.
       (14) To be fully effective, the United States needs to have 
     Federal Government personnel deployed continuously abroad for 
     years-long tours of duty, far longer than the length of 
     traditional assignments, so that they become familiar with 
     the local scene and the indigenous people come to trust them 
     as individuals.
       (15) There is a significant need for skilled personnel to 
     be stationed abroad in support of stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities. The active components of the Armed 
     Forces cannot meet all of these requirements. Personnel from 
     other Federal agencies, reserve component forces, 
     contractors, United States allies and coalition partners, and 
     indigenous personnel must help.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) enhancing United States effectiveness in the transition 
     to and from hostilities will require--

[[Page S602]]

       (A) management discipline, that is--
       (i) the extension of the management focus of the Armed 
     Forces (covering the full gamut of personnel selection, 
     training, and promotion;
       (ii) planning, budgeting, and resource allocation;
       (iii) education, exercises, games, modeling, and rehearsal, 
     performance and readiness measurement; and
       (iv) development of doctrine (now focused on combat 
     operations) to include peacetime activities, stabilization 
     and reconstruction operations and intelligence activities 
     that involve multi-agency participation and coordination; and
       (B) building and maintaining certain fundamental 
     capabilities that are critical to success in stabilization 
     and reconstruction, including training and equipping 
     sufficient numbers of personnel for stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities, strategic communication, 
     knowledge, understanding, and intelligence, and 
     identification, location, and tracking for asymmetric 
     warfare;
       (2) these capabilities, without management discipline, 
     would lack orchestration and be employed ineffectively, and 
     management discipline without these capabilities would be 
     impotent; and
       (3) the study of transition to and from hostilities, which 
     the Defense Science Board carried out in the summer of 2004 
     at the request of the Secretary of Defense, provides an 
     appropriate framework within which the Department of Defense 
     and personnel of other departments and agencies of the 
     Federal Government should work to plan and prepare for pre-
     conflict and post-conflict stability operations.

     SEC. 2. DIRECTION, PLANNING, AND OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that a new coordination and 
     integration mechanism is needed to bring management 
     discipline to the continuum of peacetime, combat, and 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (b) Presidential Action.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should issue a directive to develop an 
     intensive planning process for stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities, and that the directive should 
     provide for--
       (1) contingency planning and integration task forces, that 
     is, full-time activities that could continue for months or 
     years, to be staffed by individuals from all involved 
     agencies who have expertise in the countries of interest and 
     in needed functional areas to work under the general guidance 
     of the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs;
       (2) joint interagency task forces composed of senior 
     Government executives and military officers who operate in a 
     particular country or area of interest and are created to 
     ensure coordination and integration of the activities of all 
     United States personnel in that country or area; and
       (3) a national center for contingency support, that is, a 
     federally funded research and development center with country 
     and functional expertise that would support the contingency 
     planning and integration task forces and joint interagency 
     task forces and would augment skills and expertise of the 
     Government task forces, provide a broad range of in-depth 
     capability, support the planning process, and provide the 
     necessary continuity.
       (c) Actions by Secretary of Defense.--While a directive 
     described in subsection (b) is being implemented, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) take immediate action to strengthen the role and 
     capabilities of the Department of Defense for carrying out 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities;
       (2) actively support the development of core competencies 
     in planning in other departments and agencies, principally 
     the Department of State;
       (3) instruct regional combatant commanders to maintain a 
     portfolio of operational contingency plans for stabilization 
     and reconstruction activities similar in scope to that 
     currently maintained for combat operations; and
       (4) instruct each regional combatant commander to create a 
     focal point within their command for stabilization and 
     reconstruction planning and execution.

     SEC. 3. STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION CAPABILITIES.

       (a) Core Competency.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of State shall each--
       (1) make stabilization and reconstruction one of the core 
     competencies of the Department of Defense and the Department 
     of State, respectively;
       (2) achieve a stronger partnership and closer working 
     relationship between the two departments; and
       (3) augment their existing capabilities for stabilization 
     and reconstruction.
       (b) Department of Defense.--
       (1) Mission.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate the 
     planning for stabilization and reconstruction as a mission of 
     the Department of Defense that has the same priority as the 
     mission of the Department of Defense to carry out combat 
     operations.
       (2) Supporting actions.--In administering the planning, 
     training, execution, and evaluation necessary to carry out 
     the stabilization and reconstruction mission, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall--
       (A) designate the Army as executive agent for stabilization 
     and reconstruction;
       (B) ensure that stabilization and reconstruction 
     operational plans are fully integrated with combat 
     operational plans of the combatant commands;
       (C) require the Army and the Marine Corps to develop, below 
     the brigade level, modules of stabilization and 
     reconstruction capabilities to facilitate task organization 
     and exercise and experiment with them to determine where 
     combinations of these capabilities can enhance United States 
     effectiveness in stability operations;
       (D) require the Secretary of the Army to accelerate 
     restructuring of Army Reserve and Army National Guard forces 
     with an emphasis on providing the capability for carrying out 
     the stabilization mission; and
       (E) ensure that stabilization and reconstruction becomes a 
     core competency of general purpose forces through training, 
     leader development, doctrine development, and use of other 
     force readiness tools and, to do so, shall require that--
       (i) the Secretaries of the military departments and the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff integrate stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations into the professional military 
     education programs of each of the Armed Forces and the joint 
     professional military education programs, by including in the 
     curricula courses to increase understanding of cultural, 
     regional, ideological, and economic concerns, and to increase 
     the level of participation by students from other agencies 
     and departments in those programs;
       (ii) stabilization and reconstruction be integrated into 
     training events and exercises of the Armed Forces at every 
     level;
       (iii) the commander of the United States Joint Forces 
     Command further develop, publish, and refine joint doctrine 
     for stability and reconstruction operations;
       (iv) the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and 
     the senior acquisition executive of each of the military 
     departments develop and implement a process for achieving 
     more rapid and coherent exploitation of service and 
     departmental science and technology programs and increase the 
     investment in force-multiplying technologies, such as 
     language translation devices and rapid training;
       (v) the resources for support of stability operations be 
     increased; and
       (vi) a force with a modest stabilization capability of 
     sufficient size to achieve ambitious objectives in small 
     countries, regions, or areas, and of sufficient capability to 
     achieve modest objectives elsewhere be developed, and 
     consideration be given to the actual capability of that force 
     in making a decision to commit the force to a particular 
     stabilization and reconstruction operation or to expand the 
     force for that operation.
       (c) Department of State.--
       (1) Policy on reconstruction integration.--It is the policy 
     of the United States that the capabilities to promote 
     political and economic reform that exist in many civilian 
     agencies of the United States Government, in international 
     organizations, in nongovernmental and private voluntary 
     organizations, and in other governments be integrated based 
     upon a common vision and coordinated strategy.
       (2) Responsibilities of the secretary of state.--The 
     Secretary of State shall--
       (A) be the locus for carrying out the policy on 
     reconstruction integration set forth in paragraph (1); and
       (B) develop in the Department of State capabilities--
       (i) to develop, maintain, and execute a portfolio of 
     detailed and adaptable plans and capabilities for the 
     civilian roles in reconstruction operations;
       (ii) to prepare, deploy, and lead the civil components of 
     reconstruction missions; and
       (iii) to incorporate international and nongovernmental 
     capabilities in planning and execution.
       (d) Collaboration and Cooperation Between Departments of 
     Defense and State.--The Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) assist in bolstering the development of the Office of 
     Stabilization and Reconstruction of the Department of State 
     and otherwise support that objective through the sharing of 
     the extensive expertise of the Department of Defense in 
     crisis management planning and in the process of deliberate 
     planning;
       (2) work collaboratively with that office and assign to 
     that office at least 10 experts to provide the intellectual 
     capital and guidance on the relevant best practices that have 
     been developed within the Department of Defense; and
       (3) ensure that extensive joint and collaborative planning 
     for stabilization and reconstruction operations occurs before 
     commencement of a conflict that leads to such an operation.

     SEC. 4. STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION.

       (a) Presidential Directive.--Recognizing an increase in 
     anti-American attitudes around the world, particularly in 
     Islamic and Middle-Eastern countries, the use of terrorism, 
     and the implications of terrorism for national security 
     issues, it is the sense of Congress that the President should 
     issue a directive to strengthen the United States 
     Government's ability--
       (1) to better understand global public opinion about the 
     United States, and to communicate with global audiences;
       (2) to coordinate all components of strategic 
     communication, including public diplomacy, public affairs, 
     and international broadcasting; and
       (3) to provide a foundation for new legislation on the 
     planning, coordination, conduct, and funding of strategic 
     communication.

[[Page S603]]

       (b) NSC Organization.--It is, further, the sense of 
     Congress that the President should establish a permanent 
     organizational structure within the National Security Council 
     to oversee the efforts undertaken pursuant to a directive 
     described in subsection (a) and that such structure should 
     include--
       (1) a deputy national security advisor for strategic 
     communication to serve as the President's principal advisor 
     on all matters relating to strategic communication;
       (2) a strategic communication committee, chaired by the 
     deputy national security advisor for strategic communication 
     and with a membership drawn from officers serving at the 
     under secretary level of departments and agencies, to develop 
     an overarching framework for strategic communication 
     (including brand identity, themes, messages, and budget 
     priorities) and to direct and coordinate interagency programs 
     to maintain focus, consistency, and continuity; and
       (3) an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan center for 
     strategic communication to serve as a source of independent, 
     objective expertise to support the National Security Council 
     and the strategic communication committee, by (among other 
     actions) providing information and analysis, developing and 
     monitoring the effectiveness of themes, messages, products, 
     and programs, determining target audiences, contracting with 
     commercial sector sources for products and programs, and 
     fostering cross-cultural exchanges of ideas, people, and 
     information.
       (c) Actions by Departments of State and Defense.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the Secretary 
     of Defense shall each allocate substantial funding to 
     strategic communication.
       (2) Department of state.--Within the Department of State, 
     the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public 
     Affairs shall be the principal policy advisor and manager for 
     strategic communication.
       (3) Department of defense.--Within the Department of 
     Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall 
     serve as that department's focal point for strategic 
     communication.

     SEC. 5. KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, AND INTELLIGENCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The knowledge necessary to be effective in conducting 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations is different from 
     the military knowledge required to prevail during 
     hostilities, but is no less important.
       (2) To successfully achieve United States political and 
     military objectives, knowledge of culture and development of 
     language skills must be taken as seriously as development of 
     combat skills.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the collection, analysis, and integration of cultural 
     knowledge and intelligence should be ongoing to ensure its 
     availability far in advance of stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations for which such knowledge and 
     intelligence are needed; and
       (2) a new approach is needed to establish systematic ways 
     to access and coordinate the vast amount of knowledge 
     available within the United States Government.
       (c) Commanders of Combatant Commands.--
       (1) Intelligence plans.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     require the commanders of the combatant commands to develop 
     intelligence plans as a required element of their planning 
     process. Each such plan shall satisfy information needs for 
     peacetime, combat, and stabilization and reconstruction 
     (including support to other departments and agencies) and be 
     developed by use of the same kinds of tools that are useful 
     in traditional pre-conflict and conflict planning.
       (2) Resources.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     resources to the regional combatant commands for the 
     establishment of offices for regional expertise outreach to 
     support country and regional planning and operations, and to 
     provide continuity, identify experts, and build relationships 
     with outside experts and organizations.
       (3) Area experts.--In order to increase the number of 
     competent area experts, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Personnel and Readiness shall lead a process to set 
     requirements and develop career paths for foreign area 
     officers and a new cadre of enlisted area specialists, a 
     process based on a more formal, structured definition of 
     requirements by the commanders of the combatant commands.
       (4) Military education.--The Secretaries of the military 
     departments shall improve the regional and cultural studies 
     curricula in the joint professional military education 
     system, as well as in online regional and cultural self-study 
     instruction, in order to broaden cultural knowledge and 
     awareness.
       (d) Intelligence Reform.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States should shift the focus of intelligence 
     reform from reorganization to the solving of substantive 
     problems in intelligence.
       (2) Actions.--The Director of National Intelligence, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall--
       (A) establish a human resource coordination office charged 
     with the responsibility to develop a comprehensive human 
     resource strategy for planning, management, and deployment of 
     personnel that would serve as the basis for optimizing the 
     allocation of resources against critical problems;
       (B) adopt a new counterintelligence and security approach 
     that puts the analyst in the role of determining the balance 
     between need-to-share and need-to-know that will enable the 
     intelligence community to enlarge its circle of trust from 
     which to draw information and skills;
       (C) improve integration between networks and data 
     architectures across the intelligence community to facilitate 
     enterprise-wide collaboration;
       (D) harmonize special operations forces, covert action, and 
     intelligence, and ensure that sufficient capabilities in 
     these specialized areas are developed;
       (E) accelerate the reinvention of defense human 
     intelligence and ensure that there are enough such personnel 
     assigned and sustained for a sufficient number of years in 
     advance of the nation's need for their services; and
       (F) enhance the analysis of intelligence collected from all 
     sources, including by improving the selection, recruitment, 
     training, and continuing education of analysts, producing 
     regular and continuous assessment and post-operation 
     appraisal of intelligence products, and creating incentives 
     to promote the creativity and independence of analysts.
       (e) Foreign Language Proficiency.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that the utilization of 
     individuals with foreign language skills is critical to 
     understanding a country or a region, yet the Department of 
     Defense lacks sufficient personnel with critical foreign 
     language skills.
       (2) Actions by secretary of defense.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall--
       (A) prescribe the specific foreign language and regional 
     specialist requirements that must be met in order to meet the 
     needs of the Department of Defense, including the needs of 
     the commander of the United States Joint Forces Command and 
     the commanders of the other combatant commands and the needs 
     of the Armed Forces generally, and shall provide the 
     resources for meeting these requirements in the annual budget 
     submissions; and
       (B) develop a more comprehensive system for identifying, 
     testing, tracking, and accessing personnel with critical 
     foreign language skills.
       (f) Exploitation of Open Sources of Information.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that open sources of 
     information--
       (A) can provide much of the information needed to support 
     peacetime needs and stabilization and reconstruction needs; 
     and
       (B) can be used to develop a broad range of products needed 
     for stabilization and reconstruction operations, including 
     such products as genealogical trees, electricity generation 
     and transmission grids, cultural materials in support of 
     strategic communication plans, and background information for 
     noncombatant evacuation operations.
       (2) Executive agent for department of defense.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall designate the Director of the 
     Defense Intelligence Agency to serve as executive agent of 
     the Department of Defense for the development and 
     administration of a robust and coherent program for the 
     exploitation of open sources of information.

     SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND TRACKING IN ASYMMETRIC 
                   WARFARE.

       The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director 
     of National Intelligence, shall immediately develop a program 
     administered by a new organization established by those 
     officers to provide--
       (1) an overall technical approach to--
       (A) the identification, location, and tracking of 
     asymmetric warfare operations carried out against the Armed 
     Forces of the United States or allied or coalition armed 
     forces; and
       (B) tracking targets in asymmetric warfare in which the 
     Armed Forces of the United States, or allied or coalition 
     armed forces may be engaged;
       (2) the systems and technology to implement the approach;
       (3) the analysis techniques for translating sensor data 
     into useful identification, location, and tracking 
     information;
       (4) the field operations to employ, utilize, and support 
     the hardware and software produced; and
       (5) feedback to the Secretary of Defense and the Director 
     of National Intelligence on the impact of related policy 
     decisions and directives on the creation of a robust 
     identification, location, and tracking capability.

     SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

       (a) Requirement for Plans.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of State shall each submit to 
     Congress a management plan for carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense (and the duties 
     of other officials of the Department of Defense) and the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary of State (and the duties of 
     other officials of the Department of State), respectively, 
     under this Act.
       (b) Content.--Each plan submitted under this section shall 
     include objectives, schedules, and estimates of costs, 
     together with a discussion of the means for defraying the 
     costs.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Department of Defense.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for the Office for 
     Stability Operations such sums as may be necessary to enable 
     that office to carry out the planning, oversight, and related 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities required of the 
     Department of Defense under this Act.

[[Page S604]]

       (b) Department of State.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Department of State such sums as may be 
     necessary for carrying out the planning, oversight, and 
     related stabilization and reconstruction activities required 
     of the Department of State under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 194. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 to permit the planting of chicory on base acres; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am offering 
legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and 
vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical 
Program, DCP, base acres.
  Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the 
country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them 
more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should 
include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative 
crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry, 
creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture 
production.
  The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing 
facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from 
producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of 
chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high 
profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted 
in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for 
growth in the chicory industry.
  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides 
three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV 
planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this 
list of exceptions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Obama, Ms. 
        Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 195. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress 
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No 
Taxation Without Representation Act of 2005 in an effort to right a 
persistent injustice experienced by the 600,000 citizens of the 
District of Columbia, who have historically been denied voting 
representation in Congress.
  This injustice is felt directly by District residents, but it is also 
a shadow overhanging the democratic traditions of our Nation as a 
whole. It is absurd that, in this day and age, ours is the only 
democracy in the world in which citizens of the capital city are not 
represented in the national legislature with a vote. The right to vote 
is a civic entitlement of every American citizen, no matter where he or 
she resides. It is democracy's most essential right.
  I am proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of this bill, which 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is introducing today in the House, 
because it makes us the fully representative democracy we claim to be. 
And I am delighted that Senators Obama, Schumer, Mikulski, Sarbanes, 
Feingold, Dayton, Corzine, Dodd and Durbin are joining me as original 
co-sponsors. The point of the legislation is simple: It would provide 
the residents of the District with full voting representation by two 
Senators and a House Member, guaranteeing the residents of the Nation's 
capital with the same right to partake in our democracy that the 
citizens of all 50 States enjoy. Despite this bill's title, it would 
not exempt residents of the District from paying taxes.
  In May 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then 
chaired, held the first hearing since 1994 on this issue. Five months 
later, in October, the committee reported out legislation similar to 
the bill we introduce today. I was and am still proud of that 
accomplishment. Unfortunately, it was not enough. The bill died on the 
Senate floor, and with it, the hope of D.C. residents for equal voting 
rights.
  The people of this city literally fight and die for their country. 
They help pay for the benefits to which all Americans are entitled. And 
yet, they are denied voting representation.
  It is painfully ironic that we are introducing this legislation even 
as the young men and women, including many from the District of 
Columbia, are dying in Iraq so that Iraqis may live and vote in a 
representative democracy. About 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen 
and women from the District have been called upon to help fight the war 
on terrorism. Three have died in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Yet, to 
our shame, these brave men and women cannot choose representatives to 
the Federal legislature that governs them and thus have no say in when 
or whether the nation should go to war.
  The people of this city, more than most, live under the near constant 
threat of terrorism, and have been mightily inconvenienced by security 
precautions because of that threat. And despite Congresswoman Norton's 
ability to vote in committee, residents of D.C. have no one who can 
vote when homeland and national security policies are being crafted. A 
representative without the power to vote on the floor of the House 
simply isn't a real representative.
  Furthermore, the citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just 
like everyone else. Only, they pay more. Per capita, District residents 
have the third highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no 
voice in how high those taxes will be nor how they will be spent.
  The vast majority of Americans believe that D.C. residents have 
voting representation in the Congress. When informed that they don't, 
82 percent of Americans, according to one poll, by the advocacy group 
D.C. Vote, say that they should.
  In righting this wrong, we won't only be following the will of the 
American people. We will be following the imperative of our history. 
When they placed our Capital, which was not yet established in their 
day, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, the Framers of our 
Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility 
of assuring that the rights of D.C. citizens would be protected in the 
future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all 
citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet 
this obligation for more than 200 years, and I, for one, am not 
prepared to make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years.
  In the words of this city's namesake, our first President, 
``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be 
braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the 
Constitution be reprehended: If defective let it be amended, but not 
suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.''
  The people of D.C. have suffered from this Constitutional defect for 
far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it together. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this essential legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 195

       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 ``No Taxation Without 
     Representation Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The residents of the District of Columbia are the only 
     Americans who pay Federal income taxes and who have fought 
     and died in every American war but are denied voting 
     representation in the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (2) The residents of the District of Columbia suffer the 
     very injustice against which our Founding Fathers fought, 
     because they do not have voting representation as other 
     taxpaying Americans do and are nevertheless required to pay 
     Federal income taxes unlike the Americans who live in the 
     territories.
       (3) The principle of one person, one vote requires that 
     residents of the District of Columbia are afforded full 
     voting representation in the House and the Senate.
       (4) Despite the denial of voting representation, Americans 
     in the Nation's Capital are third among residents of all 
     States in per capita income taxes paid to the Federal 
     Government.
       (5) Unequal voting representation in our representative 
     democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the 
     Nation and the strongly held principles of the American 
     people today.

[[Page S605]]

     SEC. 3. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       For the purposes of congressional representation, the 
     District of Columbia, constituting the seat of government of 
     the United States, shall be treated as a State, such that its 
     residents shall be entitled to elect and be represented by 2 
     Senators in the United States Senate, and as many 
     Representatives in the House of Representatives as a 
     similarly populous State would be entitled to under the law.

     SEC. 4. ELECTIONS.

       (a) First Elections.--
       (1) Proclamation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     shall issue a proclamation for elections to be held to fill 
     the 2 Senate seats and the seat in the House of 
     Representatives to represent the District of Columbia in 
     Congress.
       (2) Manner of elections.--The proclamation of the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia required by paragraph (1) shall 
     provide for the holding of a primary election and a general 
     election and at such elections the officers to be elected 
     shall be chosen by a popular vote of the residents of the 
     District of Columbia. The manner in which such elections 
     shall be held and the qualification of voters shall be the 
     same as those for local elections, as prescribed by the 
     District of Columbia.
       (3) Classification of senators.--In the first election of 
     Senators from the District of Columbia, the 2 senatorial 
     offices shall be separately identified and designated, and no 
     person may be a candidate for both offices. No such 
     identification or designation of either of the 2 senatorial 
     offices shall refer to or be taken to refer to the terms of 
     such offices, or in any way impair the privilege of the 
     Senate to determine the class to which each of the Senators 
     elected shall be assigned.
       (b) Certification of Election.--The results of an election 
     for the Senators and Representative from the District of 
     Columbia shall be certified by the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia in the manner required by law. The Senators and 
     Representative elected shall be entitled to be admitted to 
     seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of 
     Senators and Representatives of the States in the Congress of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 5. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Upon the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the District of Columbia shall be entitled to 1 
     Representative until the taking effect of the next 
     reapportionment. Such Representative shall be in addition to 
     the membership of the House of Representatives as now 
     prescribed by law.
       (b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
     Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the permanent 
     membership of the House of Representatives shall increase by 
     1 seat for the purpose of future reapportionment of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Reapportionment.--Upon reapportionment, the District of 
     Columbia shall be entitled to as many seats in the House of 
     Representatives as a similarly populous State would be 
     entitled to under the law.
       (d) District of Columbia Delegate.--Until the first 
     Representative from the District of Columbia is seated in the 
     House of Representatives, the Delegate in Congress from the 
     District of Columbia shall continue to discharge the duties 
     of his or her office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the taxation of income of controlled foreign corporations 
attributable to imported property; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Mikulski of 
Maryland and seven of our colleagues in introducing legislation to 
repeal one of the most egregious tax subsidies found in the U.S. Tax 
Code. Believe it or not, U.S. companies that move their manufacturing 
plants and good-paying jobs overseas will be rewarded with billions of 
dollars in tax breaks over the next 10 years. Unfortunately for both 
American workers and American taxpayers, this is absolutely true. Our 
bill will repeal this wrong-headed fiscal policy that has worked 
against the interest of American manufacturers for so many years.
  Let me describe how this perverse tax subsidy works. Imagine two 
competing U.S. companies manufacturing a product for sale in this 
country. Company A has a plant with American workers. It sells its 
product here at home, immediately paying U.S. taxes on its profits. 
Company B, however, decides to shut down its U.S. plant, fire its 
American workers and build a new plant in a foreign country because it 
can produce the same goods at lower cost there, using underpaid foreign 
workers. Moreover, Company B pays almost no taxes in the foreign 
country and no taxes currently in the United States because it is 
entitled to tax ``deferral'' under our income tax laws. The Federal Tax 
Code allows firms like Company B to defer paying any U.S. income taxes 
on the earnings from those now foreign-manufactured products until 
those profits are returned, if ever, to this country.
  In other words, when United States companies close down a 
manufacturing plant such as Huffy bicycles or Radio Flyer little red 
wagons, fire their American workers and move those good-paying jobs to 
countries like China, United States tax law actually gives these 
companies a large tax break. This tax break is not available to 
American companies that make the very same products here on American 
soil. So the U.S. company that decides to stay at home suffers a 
competitive disadvantage, a disadvantage that our tax laws have helped 
to create.
  The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation says that this tax 
``deferral'' loophole will dole out some $6.5 billion in tax breaks 
over the next decade to U.S. manufacturing companies that pack up their 
operations and relocate abroad. This tax loophole likely contributed to 
a loss of some 2.7 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2000 and 
encouraged the creation of over 1 million new jobs in the foreign 
manufacturing affiliates of U.S companies since 1993.
  Last May, Senator Mikulski and I offered an amendment on the Senate 
floor to try to shut down this perverse $6.5 billion tax break. Our 
effort was supported by a number of organizations concerned about the 
loss of good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs, including the 
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural 
Implement Workers of America--UAW; the AFL-CIO; the International 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers 
and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and 
the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Workers, UNITE.
  Regrettably, our amendment failed to get the votes it needed to pass. 
The powerful lobby for large multinational firms was able to keep this 
tax loophole fully intact. But I intend to offer this proposal again 
and again until this tax subsidy is finally repealed.
  Frankly, I strongly disagree with the majority in the Senate that 
voted to retain this ill-conceived tax break, which hurts American 
businesses and workers. By their vote, our opponents essentially said 
let's continue to give enormous tax breaks that encourage U.S. 
companies to move their operations overseas and contributes to the 
dislocation of thousands of American workers.
  The bill we are introducing today, like last year's amendment, is 
carefully targeted. It applies only to U.S. firms that move production 
overseas to low-tax countries and then turn around and import those 
products for sale here in the United States. Repealing this U.S. jobs 
export tax subsidy will not hurt the ability of U.S. firms to compete 
against foreign competitors in foreign markets.
  In the final analysis, the approach taken in our legislation is 
measured and long overdue. As we work in Congress to reform the tax 
system in the coming year and shut down a number of arcane tax 
loopholes, this one should be at the top of the list. I urge you to 
cosponsor this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 197. A bill to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion at 
grade crossings; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic 
commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available 
at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100 
injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a 
team to investigate.
  I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need 
for grade separations for several years.
  According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings 
are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the 
railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade 
crossings.
  In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from 
California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard 
on many communities

[[Page S606]]

in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely 
delayed at these grade crossings.
  In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed 
ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more 
people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and 
larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, 
imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get 
across the tracks.
  To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards 
at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part 
of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger 
railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee.
  This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in 
consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a 
study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the 
ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security 
duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and 
other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during 
emergencies.
  The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the 
Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local 
governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build 
bridges and tunnels.
  Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our 
streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
  S. 200. A bill to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage 
Area in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President a mere 20 minutes away from the hustle 
and bustle of the booming city of Atlanta, GA, lies a quiet refuge that 
cradles historical remnants and nature's beauty. This area around 
Arabia Mountain houses the ecosystems of endangered species, historic 
structures, and archeological sites--a treasure deserving of our 
protection and our admiration.
  Arabia Mountain's proximity to Atlanta makes it accessible to 
millions of Americans, but it also puts this national treasure in 
danger of urban sprawl. No condominium development should destroy the 
ancient soapstone quarry which attracted Native Americans over 
thousands of years ago. Nor should a strip mall tarnish the pristine 
land which contains farms from the days when the area was the heart of 
Georgia's dairy industry and which contains remnants of Georgia's Gold 
Rush in the 1820s.
  I, along with my colleague Senator Isakson, have introduced 
legislation to designate Arabia Mountain, which encompasses land in 
DeKalb County, Rockdale County, and Henry County, as a National 
Heritage Area. This designation will help preserve the rare and 
endangered species that inhabit the land, and it will save historic 
buildings from the wrecking ball that often comes with modernization.
  Arabia Mountain and its surrounding area is the product of 
significant geological changes. Starting several thousand years ago 
with the quarrying and trading of soapstone, the history of human 
settlement in the area is closely connected to its geological 
resources. It would be a shame to allow a decade of uncontrolled growth 
to deny future generations from enjoying the history and natural beauty 
of this land.
  The quest to obtain National Heritage designation for Arabia Mountain 
began as a concept between conservationists, neighborhood activists, 
landowners, and concerned citizens, and support has grown ever since. 
Local Georgians even voted to tax themselves to support the project. 
Support has come from both sides of the aisle in both houses of 
Congress.
  I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard for this 
designation--Kelly Jordan, Chair of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area 
Alliance; Mayor Marcia Glenn, of Lithonia; Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb 
County; Mark Towe and Glen Culpepper; and Senator Zell Miller and 
Congresswoman Denise Majette for their efforts in the 108th Congress on 
this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the preservation of this 
truly deserving area.

                          ____________________