[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.

                          ____________________