[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 11 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1050-S1058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 298. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the reduction in the deductible portion of expenses for business meals
and entertainment; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal
the current 50 percent tax deduction for business meals and
entertainment expenses, and to restore the tax deduction to 80 percent
gradually over a five-year period. Restoration of this deduction is
essential to the livelihood of small and independent businesses as
[[Page S1051]]
well as the food service, travel, tourism, and entertainment industries
throughout the United States. These industries are being economically
harmed as a result of the 50 percent tax deduction.
Small businesses rely heavily on the business meal to conduct
business, even more so than larger corporations. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in releasing a study last May,
``The Impact of Tax Expenditure Policies on Incorporated Small
Business,'' found that small incorporated businesses benefit more than
their larger counterparts from the meal and entertainment tax
deduction. According to the study, small firms that take advantage of
the business-meal deduction reduce their effective tax rate by 0.75
percent on average, while larger firms only receive a 0.11 percent
reduction in their effective tax rate. More importantly, the study
strongly suggests that full reinstatement of the business meal and
entertainment deduction should be a major policy priority for small
businesses.
Small companies often use restaurants as ``conference space'' to
conduct meetings or close deals. Meals are their best and sometimes
only marketing tool. Certainly, an increase in the meal and
entertainment deduction would have a significant impact on a small
businesses bottom line. In addition, the effects on the overall economy
would be significant.
Accompanying my statement is the National Restaurant Association's,
NRA, State-by-State chart reflecting the estimated economic impact of
increasing the business meal deductibility from 50 percent to 80
percent. The NRA estimates that an increase to 80 percent would
increase business meal sales by $6 billion and create a $13 billion
increase to the overall economy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the NRA's State-by-State
chart and the text of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ESTIMATED IMPACT OF INCREASING BUSINESS MEAL DEDUCTIBILITY FROM 50% TO
80%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in
business meal Total economic
State spending, 50% to impact in the
80% deductibility state (in
(in millions) millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $86 $177
Alaska............................ 19 32
Arizona........................... 128 254
Arkansas.......................... 46 92
California........................ 970 2,149
Colorado.......................... 131 284
Connecticut....................... 90 168
Delaware.......................... 24 43
District of Columbia.............. 34 45
Florida........................... 376 768
Georgia........................... 215 481
Hawaii............................ 44 84
Idaho............................. 25 49
Illinois.......................... 315 738
Indiana........................... 136 279
Iowa.............................. 54 115
Kansas............................ 53 109
Kentucky.......................... 93 187
Louisiana......................... 98 191
Maine............................. 28 54
Maryland.......................... 133 277
Massachusetts..................... 207 411
Michigan.......................... 223 435
Minnesota......................... 123 278
Mississippi....................... 49 94
Missouri.......................... 133 302
Montana........................... 21 38
Nebraska.......................... 37 77
Nevada............................ 77 135
New Hampshire..................... 35 65
New Jersey........................ 196 407
New Mexico........................ 40 75
New York.......................... 439 858
North Carolina.................... 196 411
North Dakota...................... 13 24
Ohio.............................. 266 581
Oklahoma.......................... 74 158
Oregon............................ 86 178
Pennsylvania...................... 272 606
Rhode Island...................... 35 64
South Carolina.................... 98 195
South Dakota...................... 17 33
Tennessee......................... 140 306
Texas............................. 551 1,287
Utah.............................. 44 95
Vermont........................... 13 25
Virginia.......................... 164 346
Washington........................ 168 342
West Virginia..................... 31 54
Wisconsin......................... 115 249
Wyoming........................... 11 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Restaurant Association estimates, 2005.
S. 298
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND
ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by
striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``the applicable
percentage''.
(b) Applicable Percentage.--Section 274(n) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage
determined under the following table:
``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
2005.............................................................. 70
========
2006 or 2007...................................................... 75
========
2008 or thereafter.............................................80.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``Only 50 percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2004.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 299. A bill to make information regarding certain investments in
the energy sector in Iran available to the public, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the
state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around
the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the
currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders
above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and
hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran.
The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80
percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's
budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price
of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export
revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004,
giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year.
Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when
President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some
appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds
10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest
producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves,
behind Russia.
In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a
subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its
Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing
criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by
trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago,
Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees
from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its
ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just
won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its
subsidiary's activities in Iran.
Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not
have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed,
their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help
win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its
$550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in
1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999,
France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract
for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf
teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an
offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned
as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist
Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in
combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons.
Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon
sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan,
China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe.
If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the
globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am
introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give
the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those
[[Page S1052]]
who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing
in its energy sector.
First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American
companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran
sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy
sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list
of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy
deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any
more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American
public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable.
Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public
accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million
invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury
Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the
legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of
those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other
financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign
companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all
public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than
$100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because
unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the
field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on
Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign
investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign
governments.
Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s
Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to
abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a
public armed with information about which companies were doing business
there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money
elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios
of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the
apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent
tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American
investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are
supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold
investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American
investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by
continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the
Iranian oil and gas sector.
The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract
billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the
energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically
designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently
discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has
ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million
barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with
deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells,
it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help.
In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange
Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in
countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can
represent a material risk to United States investors and that such
investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this
information is disclosed to the American public.
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. 299
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 ``Investor in Iran
Accountability Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of State's Patterns of Global Terrorism
report for 2003 stated that ``Iran remained the most active
state sponsor of terrorism in 2003''.
(2) That report further stated that--
(A) Iran continues to provide funding, safehaven, training,
and weapons to known terrorist groups, including Hizballah,
HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine; and
(B) the Government of Iran's poor human rights record
continues to worsen.
(3) In 1979, in response to the Islamic Revolution in Iran
and the holding of United States citizens as hostages in
Iran, the United States imposed economic sanctions against
Iran that prohibit virtually all trade and investment
activities with Iran by citizens of the United States or
United States companies.
(4) The United States does not prohibit foreign
subsidiaries of United States companies from investing in
Iran if the foreign subsidiary is independent of the United
States parent company.
(5) A number of subsidiaries of United States companies
appear to be taking advantage of this condition and are
investing in the energy sector in Iran through such
subsidiaries.
(6) According to the Energy Information Administration of
the Department of Energy, Iran is the second largest oil
producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) and holds 10 percent of the world's proven
oil reserves.
(7) According to the Energy Information Administration, the
economy of Iran relies heavily on revenues generated by the
export of oil and such revenues account for approximately 80
percent of Iran's total annual export earnings, nearly one-
half of the annual budget of the Government of Iran, and as
much as one-fifth of the gross domestic product of Iran.
(8) According to the Energy Information Administration,
Iran is actively seeking significant new foreign investment
in the energy sector and experts believe that with sufficient
investment Iran could increase its crude oil production
capacity significantly.
(9) The Department of Justice is conducting a criminal
investigation into whether United States companies have
violated any law by trading or investing with Iran through a
subsidiary company that may not be completely independent of
the parent company.
(10) The Securities and Exchange Commission has determined
that significant corporate operations in countries subject to
economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material
risk to investors in the United States and that such
investments should be properly disclosed.
SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to enforce fully existing economic sanctions imposed by
United States law against Iran, including sanctions imposed
under the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C.
1701 note) on persons that make certain investments that
contribute to Iran's ability to develop and exploit its
petroleum and natural gas resources;
(2) to make available to the public information regarding a
United States person or a person that is controlled in fact
by a United States person who maintains any direct or
indirect investment in the energy sector in Iran; and
(3) to seek international cooperation in fully enforcing
economic sanctions against Iran and in prohibiting any direct
or indirect investment in Iran until Iran ceases to support
international terrorism.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Controlled in fact.--The term ``controlled in fact''
includes--
(A) with respect to a corporation, the holding of at least
50 percent (by vote or value) of the capital structure of the
corporation; and
(B) with respect to a legal entity other than a
corporation, the holding of interests representing at least
50 percent of the capital structure of the entity.
(2) Energy sector.--The term ``energy sector'' means any
research, exploration, development, production, sale,
distribution, or advertising of natural gas, oil, or
petroleum resources or nuclear power.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and
other territories or possessions of the United States.
(4) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' means any citizen of the United States, permanent
resident alien, or entity organized under the laws of the
United States or of any State, wherever located (including
foreign branches).
SEC. 5. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ON INVESTMENTS.
(a) Requirement to Publish.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall publish in the Federal Register and make
available to the public on the Internet website of the
Department of the Treasury--
(1) a list of each United States person or each person that
is controlled in fact by a United States person that
maintains any direct or indirect investment in the energy
sector in Iran;
(2) a list of each foreign person that owned investments in
the energy sector in Iran with a total value of more than
$1,000,000 during the 12-month period ending on the date of
the publication in the Federal Register; and
[[Page S1053]]
(3) a list of--
(A) any United States person that holds the securities of a
person described in paragraph (1) or (2) valued at more than
$100,000;
(B) any investment company registered under section 8 of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 that invests, reinvests,
or trades in the securities of a person described in
paragraph (1) or (2);
(C) any pension plan or other Federal or State retirement
plan that invests in the securities of persons described in
paragraph (1) or (2); and
(D) such other investors in the securities of persons
described in paragraph (1) or (2) as the Secretary determines
is appropriate to carry out the policy set out in section 3.
(b) Requirement of Update.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall update the lists described in paragraphs (1) through
(3) of subsection (a) at least once during each calendar
year. Such updates shall be published in the Federal Register
and made available to the public on the Internet website of
the Department of the Treasury.
SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
The President, acting through the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of State, or the head of any other
appropriate Federal department or agency, shall undertake
negotiations with the government of a foreign country to
prohibit any direct or indirect investment in the energy
sector in Iran by any person that is controlled in fact by
that foreign country.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF THE IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF
1996.
Section 13(b) of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996
(50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking ``10'' and
inserting ``15''.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Lugar, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Burns, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Bond, Mr. Thomas, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad,
and Mr. Leahy):
S. 300. A bill to extend the temporary increase in payments under the
medicare program for home health services furnished in a rural area; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Rural Home Health Payment Fairness Act to extend the additional payment
for home health services in rural areas for 2 years. This 5 percent
add-on payment is currently scheduled to sunset on April 1st of this
year.
Home health has become an increasingly important part of our health
care system. The kinds of highly skilled--and often technically
complex--services that our Nation's home health caregivers provide have
enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable older and disabled
citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they
want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes. I have
accompanied several of Maine's caring home health nurses on their
visits to some of their patients. I have seen first hand the difference
that they are making for Maine's elderly.
Surveys have shown that the delivery of home health services in rural
areas can be as much as 12 to 15 percent more costly because of the
extra travel time required to cover long distances between patients,
higher transportation expenses, and other factors. Because of the
longer travel times, rural caregivers are unable to make as many visits
in a day as their urban counterparts. The Executive Director of the
Visiting Nurses of Aroostook in Northern Maine, where I am from, tells
me her agency covers 6,600 square miles with a population of only
73,000. Her costs are understandably much higher than other agencies'
due to the long distances her staff must drive to see clients.
Moreover, her staff is not able to see as many patients in one day as
she would like.
Agencies in rural areas are also frequently smaller than their urban
counterparts, which means that their relative costs are higher. Smaller
agencies with fewer patients and fewer visits mean that fixed costs,
particularly those associated with meeting regulatory requirements, are
spread over a much smaller number of patients and visits, increasing
overall per-patient and per-visit costs.
Moreover, in many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary
caregivers for homebound beneficiaries with limited access to
transportation. These rural patients often require more time and care
than their urban counterparts, and are understandably more expensive
for agencies to serve. If the extra rural payment is not extended,
agencies may be forced to make decisions not to accept rural patients
with greater care needs. That could translate into less access to
health care for ill, homebound seniors. The result also would likely be
that these seniors would be hospitalized more frequently and would have
to seek care in nursing homes, adding considerable cost to the system.
Failure to extend the rural add-on payment will only put more
pressure on rural home health agencies that are already operating on
very narrow margins and could force some of these agencies to close
their doors altogether. Many home health agencies operating in rural
areas are the only home health providers in large geographic areas. If
any of these agencies were forced to close, the Medicare patients in
that region could lose all their access to home care.
The bipartisan legislation that I am introducing today with Senators
Feingold, Lugar, Bond, Landrieu, Burns, Murkowski, Thomas, Cochran,
Santorum, Lincoln, Jeffords, Conrad and Leahy will help to ensure that
Medicare patients in rural areas continue to have access to the home
health services they need. I urge all of our colleagues to join us as
cosponsors.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, and Mr.
Sununu):
S. 301. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide
assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and
recreational activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the
States of New Hampshire and Vermont; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Upper
Connecticut River Partnership Act. This legislation will help bring
recognition to New England's largest river ecosystem and one of our
Nation's fourteen American Heritage Rivers.
The purpose of this legislation is to help the communities along the
river protect and enhance their rich cultural history, economic
vitality, and the environmental integrity of the river.
From its origin in the mountains of northern New Hampshire, the
Connecticut River runs over 400 miles and eventually empties into Long
Island Sound. The river forms a natural boundary between my home state
of Vermont and New Hampshire, and travels through the States of
Massachusetts and Connecticut. The river and surrounding valley have
long shaped and influenced development in the New England region. This
river is one of America's earliest developed rivers, with European
settlements going back over 350 years. The industrial revolution
blossomed in the Connecticut River Valley, supported by new
technologies such as canals and mills run by hydropower.
I am pleased that the entire Senate delegations from Vermont and New
Hampshire have cosponsored this bill. For years, our offices and our
States have worked together to help communities on both sides of the
river develop local partnerships to protect the Connecticut River
valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. And, while great improvements have
been made to the river, its overall health remains threatened by water
and air pollution, habitat loss, hydroelectric dams, and invasive
species such as the zebra mussel.
Historically, the people throughout the Upper Connecticut River
Valley have functioned cooperatively and the river serves to unite
Vermont and New Hampshire communities economically, culturally and
environmentally.
Citizens on both sides of the river know just how special this region
is and have worked side by side for years to protect it. Efforts have
been underway for some time to restore the Atlantic salmon fishery,
protect threatened and endangered species, and support urban riverfront
revitalization
In 1993, Vermont and New Hampshire came together to create the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions--a unique partnership between the
states, local businesses, all levels of government within the two
states and citizens from all walks of life. This partnership helps
coordinate the efforts of towns, watershed managers and other local
groups to implement the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan.
This Plan has become the blueprint for how communities along the river
can work with one another with Vermont and New Hampshire and with
[[Page S1054]]
the federal government to protect the river's resources.
The Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act would help carry out the
recommendations of the Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan,
which was developed under New Hampshire law with the active
participation of Vermont citizens and communities.
This Act would also provide the Secretary of the Interior with the
ability to assist the States of New Hampshire and Vermont with
technical and financial aid for the Upper Connecticut River Valley
through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions. The Act would also
assist local communities with cultural heritage outreach and education
programs while enriching the recreational activities already active in
the Connecticut River Watershed of Vermont and New Hampshire.
Lastly, the bill will require that the Secretary of the Interior
establish a Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program
to help local community groups develop new projects as well as build on
existing ones to enhance the river basin.
Over the next few years, I hope this bill will help bring renewed
recognition and increased efforts to conserve the Connecticut River as
one of our nation's great natural and economic resources.
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. 301
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 ``Upper Connecticut River
Partnership Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the upper Connecticut River watershed in the States of
New Hampshire and Vermont is a scenic region of historic
villages located in a working landscape of farms, forests,
and the mountainous headwaters and broad fertile floodplains
of New England's longest river, the Connecticut River;
(2) the River provides outstanding fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, and hydropower generation for the New
England region;
(3) the upper Connecticut River watershed has been
recognized by Congress as part of the Silvio 0. Conte
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, established by the Silvio
O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act (16 U.S.C.
668dd note; Public Law 102-212);
(4) the demonstrated interest in stewardship of the River
by the citizens living in the watershed led to the
Presidential designation of the River as 1 of 14 American
Heritage Rivers on July 30, 1998;
(5) the River is home to the bistate Connecticut River
Scenic Byway, which will foster heritage tourism in the
region;
(6) each of the legislatures of the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire has established a commission for the
Connecticut River watershed, and the 2 commissions, known
collectively as the ``Connecticut River Joint Commissions''--
(A) have worked together since 1989; and
(B) serve as the focal point for cooperation between
Federal agencies, States, communities, and citizens;
(7) in 1997, as directed by the legislatures, the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, with the substantial
involvement of 5 bistate local river subcommittees appointed
to represent riverfront towns, produced the 6-volume
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan, to be used as a
blueprint in educating agencies, communities, and the public
in how to be good neighbors to a great river;
(8) this year, by Joint Legislative Resolution, the
legislatures have requested that Congress provide for
continuation of cooperative partnerships and support for the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions from the New England
Federal Partners for Natural Resources, a consortium of
Federal agencies, in carrying out recommendations of the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan;
(9) this Act effectuates certain recommendations of the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan that are most
appropriately directed by the States through the Connecticut
River Joint Commissions, with assistance from the National
Park Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(10) where implementation of those recommendations involves
partnership with local communities and organizations, support
for the partnership should be provided by the Secretary.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the
Secretary to provide to the States of New Hampshire and
Vermont (including communities in those States), through the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, technical and financial
assistance for management of the River.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) the State of New Hampshire; or
(B) the State of Vermont.
SEC. 4. CONNECTICUT RIVER GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a
Connecticut River Grants and Technical Assistance Program to
provide grants and technical assistance to State and local
governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector
to carry out projects for the conservation, restoration, and
interpretation of historic, cultural, recreational, and
natural resources in the Connecticut River watershed.
(b) Criteria.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, shall develop criteria
for determining the eligibility of applicants for, and
reviewing and prioritizing applications for, grants or
technical assistance under the program.
(c) Cost-sharing.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out a grant project under subsection (a) shall not
exceed 75 percent.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of a project may be provided in the form of in-kind
contributions of services or materials.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $1,000,000 for each fiscal year.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Frist, and
Mr. Bingaman):
S. 302. A bill to make improvements in the Foundation for the
National Institutes of Health; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Frist,
Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act.
Our bill makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established
the Foundation. Most significant, it assures the Foundation at least
$500,000 annually from the NIH to support its administrative and
operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its
own resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH
programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. As the bill
makes clear, the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs
are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors.
Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support
the research of the NIH. For every dollar the Foundation received from
the NIH in 2003, it raised $426 in private funds. Since its creation,
the Foundation has raised $270 million, or $68 in private support for
every dollar from the NIH.
The Foundation is currently managing 37 programs supported by $270
million generated from private contributions. For example, the Edmond
J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus gives families of patients
receiving in-patient treatment at the NIH Clinical Center a place to
stay, at no cost to them.
In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to
develop new cancer treatments, to identify biochemical signs of
osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's Disease, and to build on the promise of
genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped
accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also
collecting private funds to study drugs in children. In 2003, Bill
Gates announced a gift to the Foundation of $200 million over the next
10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the
Foundation's partnership with the NIH will grow productively in the
coming years.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so
that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and
mission of the NIH.
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. 302
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 ``Foundation for the National
Institutes of Health Improvement Act''.
[[Page S1055]]
SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH ESTABLISHMENT AND
DUTIES.
Section 499 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by amending subparagraph (D)(ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) Upon the appointment of the appointed members of the
Board under clause (i)(II), the terms of service as members
of the Board of the ex officio members of the Board described
in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) shall terminate.
The ex officio members of the Board described in clauses
(iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) shall continue to serve as
ex officio members of the Board.''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (G), by inserting ``appointed'' after
``that the number of'';
(B) by amending paragraph (3)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) Any vacancy in the membership of the appointed
members of the Board shall be filled in accordance with the
bylaws of the Foundation established in accordance with
paragraph (6), and shall not affect the power of the
remaining appointed members to execute the duties of the
Board.''; and
(C) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``appointed'' after
``majority of the'';
(2) in subsection (j)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(d)(2)(B)(i)(II)'' and
inserting ``(d)(6)''; and
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``of Health.'' and
inserting ``of Health and the National Institutes of Health
may accept transfers of funds from the Foundation.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (l) and inserting the following:
``(l) Funding.--From amounts appropriated to the National
Institutes of Health, for each fiscal year, the Director of
NIH shall transfer not less than $500,000 to the
Foundation.''.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 304. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
certain interstate conduct gng to exotic animals; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sportsmanship
in Hunting Act of 2005. This bill would prohibit the barbaric and
unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by
my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Kohl,
Durbin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Akaka.
Canned hunts, also called canned shoots, take place on private land
under circumstances that virtually assure a customer of a kill.
Although they are advertised under a variety of names, such as hunting
preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they
charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally
accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the
concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native
species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in
exotic--non-native--animals that are either bred on-site or bought from
dealers or breeders. Exotic animals include surplus animals bought from
wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer
both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society
of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned
hunt operations in at least 25 States.
Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the
skill, for normal sports hunting. They do not require skill in tracking
or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts quarantee a shooter a kill
of the animal of his or her choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for
up to $1,000, a water buffalo for $3,500, and a red deer for up to
$6,000.
The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure,
leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by
humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee
from shooters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts
use other practices to assure their customers a kill. For example, they
may bait them, using feeding stations to attract animals and make them
easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands. These practices are
prohibited by many State game commissions.
Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The
Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy
Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and
lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North
American game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an
improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in
canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,''
and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper
advantage'' over animals. As a result, many real hunters are opposed to
the practice of canned hunting, believing it to make a mockery of their
sport.
Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups.
Often, in order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' customers will
fire multiple shots into nonvital organs, condemning the animal to a
slow and painful death. Because the animal cannot escape, the shooter
has the time to place his shots. The Fund for animals has launched a
national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and
egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no
more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in
fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group
believes that Federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and
unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''
In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious
health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife.
Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches is not uncommon,
posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire
threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic
wasting disease, the deer equivalent of cow disease. In some states,
experts believe that canned hunts, with their high concentrations of
animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.
In recognition of these threats, several States have banned canned
hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most States lack laws to outlaw this
practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common,
federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.
My bill is essentially the same as legislation that was introduced in
the 108th Congress, S. 2731, and legislation reported by the Judiciary
Committee in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden, S.
1655. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S.
1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation
that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities
that allow the hunting of exotic (nonnative) mammals. It is important
to note what the bill does and does not do: 1. The bill does not
regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; 2. The
bill does not regulate the hunting of any birds; 3. The bill protects
only exotic (non-native) mammals in areas where they do not have an
opportunity to avoid hunters, smaller than 1000 acres; and 4. The bill
regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in
exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned
hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and
trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy
hunts.
The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target
of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans.
In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned
hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not
belong in society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation, which will help end this needless practice.
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. 304
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 ``Sportsmanship in Hunting Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The ethic of hunting involves the consideration of fair
chase, which allows the animal the opportunity to avoid the
hunter.
(2) At more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations
across the country, trophy
[[Page S1056]]
hunters pay a fee to shoot captive exotic animals, from
African lions to giraffes and blackbuck antelope, in fenced-
in enclosures.
(3) Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high
densities, confined exotic animals attract disease more
readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam
freely.
(4) The transportation of captive exotic animals to
commercial canned hunt operations can facilitate the spread
of disease across great distances.
(5) The regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic
animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional
domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and
game agencies.
(6) This Act is limited in its purpose and will not limit
the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or
exotic birds.
(7) This Act does not aim to criticize those hunters who
pursue animals that are not enclosed within a fence.
(8) This Act does not attempt to prohibit slaughterhouse
activities, nor does it aim to prohibit the routine
euthanasia of domesticated farm animals.
SEC. 3. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR
PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 49. Exotic animals
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in or substantially affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers,
transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the
purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal
for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
both.
``(2) Exception.--This section shall not apply to the
killing or injuring of an exotic animal in a State or Federal
natural area reserve undertaking habitat restoration.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a
species not historically indigenous to the United States,
that has been held in captivity, whether or not the defendant
knows the length of the captivity, for the shorter of--
``(A) the majority of the animal's life; or
``(B) a period of 1 year; and
``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period
during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
``(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally
occurring food;
``(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than
1,000 acres; and
``(C) having the opportunity to avoid hunters.
``(c) Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--Any person authorized by the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, may--
``(A) without a warrant, arrest any person that violates
this section (including regulations promulgated under this
section) in the presence or view of the arresting person;
``(B) execute any warrant or other process issued by an
officer or court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this
section; and
``(C) with a search warrant, search for and seize any
animal taken or possessed in violation of this section.
``(2) Forfeiture.--Any animal seized with or without a
search warrant shall be held by the Secretary or by a United
States marshal, and upon conviction, shall be forfeited to
the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the
Interior in accordance with law.
``(3) Assistance.--The Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service may use by agreement, with or without
reimbursement, the personnel and services of any other
Federal or State agency for the purpose of enforcing this
section.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 49. Exotic animals.''.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 305. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit
volunteers to assist with or facilitate the activities of various
agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Department of
Interior Volunteer Recruitment Act of 2005. This bill would allow the
Department of the Interior to recruit and use volunteers in the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the Offices of the Secretary. It also addresses
some problems with existing volunteer authorities at the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Department of the Interior is a leader in the Federal Government
in providing opportunities for volunteer service, and this bill
significantly enhances our ability to provide volunteer opportunities
to interested Americans. The bill provides for appropriate ethics and
tort claims coverage for DOI volunteers and ensures against the
displacement of employees by volunteers. Last, the bill contains
provisions which explicitly protect private property rights.
By making it easier for people to volunteer in more Department of the
Interior bureaus, this legislation contributes a crucial piece to the
President's call to all Americans to volunteer in their communities and
to the Secretary's Take Pride in America program, which is working in
concert with that call. There is wide support for the bill and there is
no known opposition.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this excellent
bill through the legislative process quickly.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Talent, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and
Mrs. Clinton):
S. 306. A bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic
information with respect to health insurance and employment; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. SNOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005 and I am joined in doing so
by a number of my colleagues including, Majority Leader Frist, Senator
Jeffords, Senator Gregg as well as the chairman and ranking member of
the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Enzi and Kennedy. The bill we are
introducing today is the result of a collaborative effort spanning more
than 8 years and I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that it is
my hope that this bill will again receive the unanimous support of the
Senate this year and that this will allow the House of Representatives
to act swiftly in considering this bill this session.
This day has been a long time coming and, over the years, we have not
only retraced our steps in some respects but--most importantly--forged
ahead on new ground.
Since April of 1996, when I introduced for the first time the Genetic
Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act, science has
continued to hurtle forward, further opening the door to early
detection and medical intervention through the discovery and
identification of specific genes linked to diseases like breast cancer,
Huntington's Disease, glaucoma, colon cancer, and cystic fibrosis. That
1996 bill recognized that with progress in the field of genetics
accelerating at a breathtaking pace, we needed to ensure that with the
scientific advances to come, we would advance the treatment and
prevention of disease--without advancing a new basis for
discrimination.
The following year, with the commitment of Senators Frist and
Jeffords to addressing this issue, I introduced a bill to ensure we
would effectively address the need for protections against genetic
discrimination in the health insurance industry. In turn, that bill was
the basis for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, to the fiscal
year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services
Appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 58-40.
While that victory was a notable step forward, unfortunately, it was
not followed by the enactment of our bill. It did, however, respark the
debate--which helped lay the foundation for our subsequent efforts.
Indeed, in March 2002, I was again joined by Senators Frist and
Jeffords in introducing an updated version of our bill with the new
support of Senators Gregg and Enzi. That bill not only addressed what
had become the real threat of employment discrimination but also
captured the changing world of science as this was the first bill to
include what we had learned with the completion of the Genome Project.
I think back to when Representative Louise Slaughter and I had first
introduced our bills in the 103rd Congress, and the completion of the
Genome still seemed years away. Yet it was only four years later when
everything changed with the unveiling of the first working draft of our
entire genetic code. As we had known--and as with so many other
scientific breakthroughs in history--the completion of the Genome not
only brought about
[[Page S1057]]
the prospect of medical advances, such as improved detection and
earlier intervention, but also the potential for harm and abuse. Every
day since--absent enactment of a law such as the bill we are
introducing--has been a day the American people have been left
unprotected from this type of discrimination. Every day since we have
left the full potential of the Genome untapped.
The very real fear of repercussions from one's genetic makeup was
brought home to me through the real life experience of one of my
constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote me about her
fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though she has
nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast
cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear
of having the BRCA test, because she worried it will ruin her
daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. And Bonnie Lee
isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of
Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who
were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing
concerns about health insurance discrimination. What good is scientific
progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit?
I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the
Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom
we wouldn't have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for
those involved in the Genome project, he explained that the project's
scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the
connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to
apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr.
Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the
involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more
precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a
particular outcome.'' Well, this effort cannot be successful if people
are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic
testing.
The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two
separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by
health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination
based simply upon an individual's genetic information.
The bill we are introducing again today addresses both these issues
based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health
insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate
has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger
privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed
the issues of privacy of medical information.
Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues
must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy
rule which was mandated by HIPAA--and our legislation does just that.
Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well
as information about the request or receipt of genetic tests, from
being used by the insurer against the patient.
Because the fact of the matter is, genetic information only detects
the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder--and
potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. At the same time, it
is critical that this information be available to doctors and other
health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an
illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment, as we
discuss ways to protect patients from potential discriminatory
practices by insurers.
On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative
history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding
protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as
extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections
in the workplace--and there should be no question of this need.
As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of
employment discrimination is very real, and therefore it is essential
that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the
use of this information becomes widespread. While Congress has not yet
debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a
great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to
build.
Indeed, as we considered the need for this type of protection, we
agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to
genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law
and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of
genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from
those available to people under current law--for instance under the ADA
or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by
paralleling current law and clarifies the remedies available to victims
of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is
discriminated against because of their religion, their race or their
DNA, these people will all receive the same strong protections under
the law.
It has been more than 3 years since the completion of the working
draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the
wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to
take advantage of it. This bill is the product of more than 16 months
of bipartisan negotiations and is a shining example of what we can
accomplish if we set aside partisan differences in order to address the
challenges facing the American people. Certainly this bill was only
possible due to the commitment of each of the Members here today to
work together to come to a successful end and for that I am grateful.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill as they have in the past
and that its broad support will be seen as a clarion call by the House
of Representatives that it is time for us to do our part so that the
President can sign this bill into law and finally ensure the American
public is protected from this newest form of discrimination.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Snowe,
Senator Prist, Senator Gregg, and Senator Enzi in introducing the
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act. Today we take another step
in our national journey to a fairer and more just America.
I particularly commend our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for
her dedication to this vital issue. Senator Snowe first proposed
legislation on genetic discrimination in 1996. Hopefully, the
bipartisan momentum we have built up in recent years will produce a
consensus bill we can enact into law this year.
Two years ago, we celebrated an accomplishment that once seemed
unimaginable--deciphering the entire sequence of the human DNA code.
This amazing accomplishment will affect the 21st century as profoundly
as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected
the 20th century. But the extraordinary promise of science to improve
health and relieve suffering is in jeopardy if our laws fail to provide
adequate protections against misuse of genetic information.
Our bipartisan legislation prohibits health insurers from using
genetic information to deny health coverage or raise premiums. It bars
employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions.
Few kinds of information are more personal or more information than a
person's genetic makeup. This information should not be shared by
insurers or employers or be used in decisions about health coverage or
a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to help
them make the best possible decisions on diagnosis and treatment.
Breakthroughs in genetic science are bringing remarkable new
opportunities for improving health care. But it also carries the danger
that genetic information will be used as a basis for discrimination. I
hope we can all agree that discrimination on the basis of a person's
genetic traits is as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of
race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or
fired from a job because of a genetic test.
The vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health care may go
unfulfilled, if patients fear that information about their genetic
characteristics will be used against them. Congress has a
responsibility to guarantee
[[Page S1058]]
that genetic information remains private and is not used for improper
purposes.
Experts in genetics are united in calling for strong protections to
prevent this misuse and abuse of science. The HHS advisory panel on
genetic testing--with experts in law, science, medicine, and business--
recommended unambiguously that Federal legislation is needed to
prohibit discrimination in employment or health insurance based on
genetic information. Last fall, witnesses testified about their first
hand accounts of genetic discrimination. Heidi Williams' children were
denied health insurance because they were carriers for a genetic
disorder. Phil Hardt's children feared discrimination so much that they
sought genetic tests in secret, paying out of their own pockets and not
using their real names.
Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human
genome, said, ``Genetic information and genetic technology can be used
in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Already, people have lost their
jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being
because of the misuse of genetic information.''
Genetic tests are becoming even cheaper and more widely available. If
we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers
to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for
disease.
When Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination
in employment health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the
benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal
genetic information will be used against them. If Congress fails to see
that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we will
squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the Nation's
health.
Effective enforcement will be essential. It makes no sense to enact
legislation giving the American people the promise of protection
against this form of discrimination and then deny them the reality of
that protection.
President Bush recognizes the seriousness of this problem, and
supports a ban on genetic discrimination. In his words, ``genetic
information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not
an excuse for discrimination. Just as our Nation addressed
discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based
on genetic information.'' I commend the President for his support, and
I look forward to working with the administration to see that a strong
bill on genetic discrimination is signed into law this year.
It is time for Congress to act, and I urge the Senate to do so
without delay.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 307. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 to extend national dairy market loss payments; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise today to introduce a bill to
extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC program, the MILC Extension
Act. In the 106th Congress, I called for a programmatic solution to
market instability, when I introduced S. 2706, the National Dairy
Farmers Fairness Act of 2000. S. 2706 was designed to eliminate the
need for Congress to provide supplemental market loss payments to dairy
producers by setting up a counter cyclical payment based on the market
price of class III milk. Elements of S. 2706 were later borrowed to
construct the MILC program, which was included in the 2002 Farm Bill.
My bill would extend MILC for 2 years at current support levels. All
commodity support programs, except MILC, were authorized for the full
length of the current Farm Bill. As constructed, the MILC program
provides a safety net for all dairy producers by providing a payment
whenever the minimum monthly market price for Class I milk price in
Boston falls below $16.94 per hundredweight, cwt. MILC represents a
broad regional compromise and while it is not perfect, I recognize its
importance as a safety net for dairy producers. As such I am working to
extend the program until 2007 when Congress will consider the next Farm
Bill.
Budget constraints and compliance with our trade agreements requires
us to reexamine the role of the federal government in agriculture.
During this session of Congress I will engage in a focused effort to
decrease direct payments and countercyclical programs. These
discussions and reforms will be forthcoming, but allowing an important
program that acts as a safety net for small farmers to expire would be
too drastic of a first step.
Others have suggested that we grow this program. I will be steadfast
in my opposition to growing this program. Growing the size of this
program sends a potentially dangerous signal to our producers. At a
time when the experts are predicting that the market may soften over
coming months, Congress should not send a signal to producers to
increase production. Dairy producers should look to the market, not to
Washington, DC, for guidance as they manage their businesses.
As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who represents the
fourth largest dairy producing state in the nation, I am committed to
preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This
legislative proposal represents a commonsense approach in the often-
heated debate of dairy policy. I look forward to working with my
colleagues, the President and the Secretary of Agriculture to extend
this important program.
____________________