[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1415-S1432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 375. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
an influenza vaccine awareness campaign, ensure a sufficient influenza 
vaccine supply, and prepare for an influenza pandemic or epidemic, to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage vaccine production 
capacity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage increased 
production of influenza vaccines in the United States. I am happy to 
honor my commitment to reintroduce the Flu Protection Act of 2005, 
along with Senator Bayh.
  We dodged a bullet this year because we had a relatively mild flu 
season. Also, because the administration and public health officials 
did an excellent job of immediately addressing the vaccine shortage 
when it was announced in October. While this season's vaccine shortage 
didn't have as strong an impact as it might have, we should not go a 
day without looking for a path toward solving this problem so that we 
don't have the same issues in years to come. We may not always be so 
fortunate. Scientists believe that the return of an especially strong 
pandemic strain of flu is overdue. This legislation supports the 
administration's efforts to take steps to prepare for the imminent 
threat of avian flu.
  The Bush administration has made progress on this issue, but Congress 
needs to address the underlying problems. The United States is 
disturbingly underprepared to deal with a massive outbreak or a sudden 
shortage of vaccine. We don't want to get caught short next year. We 
must aggressively encourage vaccine companies to come into this market 
and pass building incentives for existing companies.
  I am encouraged that some sections of this legislation have been 
included in the majority's priority legislative package and look 
forward to working with other Members of Congress to ensure that the 
most comprehensive piece of legislation possible can be approved. We 
must move quickly to pass legislation that ensures sufficient flu 
vaccine supply, encourages an increase in production capacity, supports 
a flu vaccine awareness campaign, and prepares the United States to 
combat a pandemic or epidemic.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 376. A bill to improve intermodal shipping container 
transportation security; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
make much-needed improvements to our container security system. The 
Federal Government currently has no coordinated strategy which 
integrates the many aspects of inter-modal container shipping.
  We may not be able to physically screen every container on the move 
in our Nation's vast economy, but we should not leave vast shipments of 
cargo completely unchecked. My bill lays out a systematic plan to 
coordinate and expand existing methods of screening and securing 
materials using available technology.
  The cost to the U.S. economy of port closures on the West Coast due 
to a labor dispute last year was approximately $1 billion per day for 
the first five days, and rose sharply thereafter. These disruptions 
have become so costly because the container shipping system is designed 
for speed and efficiency; as a result, the U.S. and its global trading 
partners have in effect become hostages to a ``just-in-time'' 
distribution model where any disruption of the system has far reaching 
and immediate global impact.
  I am eager to prevent a similar situation from occurring, since in my 
home State the Port of Houston, a $15 billion petrochemical complex, is 
the second-largest port in the U.S. and first in international tonnage. 
Texas has 13 deepwater ports, many of which subsequently move freight 
by rail, a model typical nationwide.
  My bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to 
incorporate aviation, maritime, rail and highway security in a single 
plan. We need a coordinated strategy to make the most of federal, 
state, and local capabilities.
  The bill requires a ``smart box'' standard to reduce the cost of 
inspecting shipping containers and calls for all containers to meet 
this standard by 2009. It establishes penalties for commercial 
shippers, to hold them, and by extension their clients, responsible for 
properly documenting the contents of their shipments. Finally, it 
significantly increases U.S. Customs' presence overseas, because 
identifying a dirty bomb after it is unloaded onto U.S. soil may be too 
late.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was  ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

                                 S. 376

       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 ``Intermodal Shipping 
     Container Security Act''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY STRATEGY.

       In carrying out section 114(f) of title 49, United States 
     Code, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and 
     Transportation Security shall take into account the National 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan prepared under section 
     70103 of title 46, United States Code, by the Secretary of 
     the department in which the Coast Guard is operating when the 
     plan is prepared in order to ensure that the strategy for 
     dealing with threats to transportation security developed 
     under section 114(f)(3) of title 49, United States Code, 
     incorporates relevant aspects of the National Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan and addresses all modes of 
     commercial transportation to, from, and within the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERMODAL SHIPPING 
                   CONTAINER SECURITY.

       (a) Strategic Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure a strategic plan for 
     integrating security for all modes of transportation by which 
     intermodal shipping containers arrive, depart, or move in 
     interstate commerce in the United States that--
       (A) takes into account the security-related authorities and 
     missions of all Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies

[[Page S1416]]

     that relate to the movement of intermodal shipping containers 
     via air, rail, maritime, or highway transportation in the 
     United States; and
       (B) establishes as a goal the creation of a comprehensive, 
     integrated strategy for intermodal shipping container 
     security that encompasses the authorities and missions of all 
     those agencies and sets forth specific objectives, 
     mechanisms, and a schedule for achieving that goal.
       (2) Updates.--The Secretary shall revise the plan from time 
     to time
       (c) Identification of Problem Areas.--In developing the 
     strategic plan required by subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall consult with all Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies responsible for security matters that affect or 
     relate to the movement of intermodal shipping containers via 
     air, rail, maritime, or highway transportation in the United 
     States in order to--
       (1) identify changes, including legislative, regulatory, 
     jurisdictional, and organizational changes, necessary to 
     improve coordination among those agencies;
       (2) reduce overlapping capabilities and responsibilities; 
     and
       (3) streamline efforts to improve the security of such 
     intermodal shipping containers.
       (d) Establishment of Steering Group.--The Secretary shall 
     establish, organize, and provide support for an advisory 
     committee, to be known as the Senior Steering Group, of 
     senior representatives of the agencies described in 
     subsection (c). The Group shall meet from time to time, at 
     the call of the Secretary or upon its own motion, for the 
     purpose of developing solutions to jurisdictional and other 
     conflicts among the represented agencies with respect to the 
     security of intermodal shipping containers, improving 
     coordination and information-sharing among the represented 
     agencies, and addressing such other, related matters, as the 
     Secretary may request.
       (e) Annual Report.--The Secretary, after consulting the 
     Senior Steering Group, shall submit an annual report to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure describing the activities of the Senior 
     Steering Group and the Secretary under this section, 
     describing the progress made during the year toward achieving 
     the objectives of the plan, and including any 
     recommendations, including legislative recommendations, if 
     appropriate for further improvements in dealing with 
     security-issues related to intermodal shipping containers and 
     related transportation security issues.
       (f) Biennial Expert Critique.--
       (1) Expert Panel.--A panel of experts shall be convened 
     once every 2 years by the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to review 
     plans submitted by the Secretary under subsection (a).
       (2) Membership.--The panel shall consist of--
       (A) 4 individuals selected by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and by the chairman and ranking member of the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, respectively; and
       (B) 1 individual selected by the 4 individuals selected 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (3) Qualifications.--Individuals selected under paragraph 
     (2) shall be chosen from among individuals with professional 
     expertise and experience in security-related issues involving 
     shipping or transportation and without regard to political 
     affiliation.
       (4) Compensation and expenses.--An individual serving as a 
     member of the panel shall not receive any compensation or 
     other benefits from the Federal Government for serving on the 
     panel or be considered a Federal employee as a result of such 
     service. Panel members shall be reimbursed by the Committees 
     for expenses, including travel and lodging, they incur while 
     actively engaged in carrying out the functions of the panel.
       (5) Function.--The panel shall review plans submitted by 
     the Secretary under subsection (a), evaluate the strategy set 
     forth in the plan, and make such recommendations to the 
     Secretary for modifying or otherwise improving the strategy 
     as may be appropriate.

     SEC. 4. SHIPPING CONTAINER INTEGRITY INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 70117 as section 70118; and
       (2) by inserting after section 70116 the following:

     ``Sec. 70117. ENHANCED CONTAINER-RELATED SECURITY MEASURES.

       ``(a) Tracking Intermodal Container Shipments in the United 
     States.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Under 
     Secretary of Border and Transportation Security, shall 
     develop a system to increase the number of intermodal 
     shipping containers physically inspected (including non 
     instrusive inspection by scanning technology), monitored, and 
     tracked within the United States.
       ``(b) Smart Box Technology.--Under regulations to be 
     prescribed by the Secretary, beginning with calendar year 
     2007 no less than 50 percent of all ocean-borne shipping 
     containers entering the United States during any calendar 
     year shall incorporate `Smart Box' or equivalent technology 
     developed, approved, or certified by the Under Secretary of 
     Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security.
       ``(c) Development of International Standard for Smart 
     Containers.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) develop, and seek international acceptance of, a 
     standard for `smart' maritime shipping containers that 
     incorporate technology for tracking the location and 
     assessing the integrity of those containers as they move 
     through the intermodal transportation system; and
       ``(2) implement an integrated tracking and technology 
     system for such containers.
       ``(d) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure a report that contains--
       ``(1) a cost analysis for implementing this section; and
       ``(2) a strategy for implementing the system described in 
     subsection (c)(3).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     701 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 70117 and inserting the 
     following:
``70117. Enhanced container-related security measures.

``70118. Civil penalties.''.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure a report that contains the following:
       (1) Recommendations about what analysis must be performed 
     and the cost to develop and field a cargo container tracking 
     and monitoring system within the United States which tracks 
     all aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo containers 
     equipped with smart container technology.
       (2) Recommendations on how the Department of Homeland 
     Security could help support the deployment of such a system.
       (3) Recommendations as to how current efforts by the 
     Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies 
     could be incorporated into the physical screening or 
     inspection of aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo 
     containers within the United States.
       (4) Recommendations about operating systems and standards 
     for those operating systems, to support the tracking of 
     aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo containers within 
     the United States that would include the location of 
     regional, State, and local operations centers.
       (5) A description of what contingency actions, measures, 
     and mechanisms should be incorporated in the deployment of a 
     nationwide aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo 
     containers tracking and monitoring system which would allow 
     the United States maximum flexibility in responding quickly 
     and appropriately to increased terrorist threat levels at the 
     local, State, or regional level.
       (6) A description of what contingency actions, measures, 
     and mechanisms must be incorporated in the deployment of such 
     a system which would allow for the quick reconstitution of 
     the system in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack 
     which affected part of the system.
       (7) Recommendations on how to leverage existing information 
     and operating systems within State or Federal agencies to 
     assist in the fielding of the system.
       (8) Recommendations on co-locating local, State, and 
     Federal agency personnel to streamline personnel 
     requirements, minimize costs, and avoid redundancy.
       (9) An initial assessment of the availability of private 
     sector resources which could be utilized, and incentive 
     systems developed, to support the fielding of the system, and 
     the maintenance and improvement as technology or terrorist 
     threat dictate.
       (10) Recommendations on how this system that is focused on 
     the continental United States would be integrated into any 
     existing or planned system, or process, which is designed to 
     monitor the movement of cargo containers outside the 
     continental United States.

     SEC. 6. IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTAINER TARGETING SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 
     a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure that provides a preliminary 
     plan for strengthening the Bureau of Customs and Border 
     Protection's container targeting system. The plan shall 
     identify the cost and feasibility of requiring additional 
     non-manifest documentation for each container, including 
     purchase orders, shipper's letters of instruction, commercial 
     invoices, letters of credit, or certificates of origin.
       (b) Reduction of Manifest Revision Window.--Within 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall issue regulations under which the 
     time period for revisions to a container cargo manifest 
     submitted to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
     shall be reduced from 60 days to 45 days after arrival at a 
     United States port.
       (c) Supply Chain Information.--Within 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S1417]]

     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a system to 
     share threat and vulnerability information with all of the 
     industries in the supply chain that will allow ports, 
     carriers, and shippers to report on security lapses in the 
     supply chain and have access to unclassified maritime threat 
     and security information such as piracy incidents.

     SEC. 7. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CUSTOMS INSPECTORS ASSIGNED 
                   OVERSEAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     substantially increase the number of United States Customs 
     Service inspectors assigned to duty outside the United States 
     under the Container Security Initiative of the United States 
     Customs Service with responsibility for inspecting intermodal 
     shipping containers being shipped to the United States.
       (b) Staffing Criteria.--In carrying out subsection (a) the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine the 
     appropriate level for assignment and density of customs 
     inspectors at selected international port facilities by a 
     threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis which, at a minimum, 
     considers--
       (1) the volume of containers shipped;
       (2) the ability of the host government to assist in both 
     manning and providing equipment and resources;
       (3) terrorist intelligence known of importer vendors, 
     suppliers or manufacturers; and
       (4) other criteria as determined in consult with experts in 
     the shipping industry, terrorism, and shipping container 
     security.
       (c) Minimum Number.--The total number of customs inspectors 
     assigned to international port facilities shall not be less 
     than the number determined as a result of the threat, 
     vulnerability, and risk assessment analysis which is 
     validated by the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
     Administration within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Plan.--The Secretary shall submit a plan to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, with timelines, for phasing inspectors into 
     selected port facilities within 180 days after the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 8. RANDOM INSPECTION OF CONTAINERS.

       (a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security 
     for Border and Transportation Security shall develop and 
     implement a plan for random inspection of shipping containers 
     in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection of such 
     containers required by law or regulation or conducted under 
     any other program conducted by the Under Secretary.
       (b) Civil Penalty for Erroneous Manifest.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     the Under Secretary determines on the basis of an inspection 
     conducted under subsection (a) that there is a discrepancy 
     between the contents of a shipping container and the manifest 
     for that container, the Under Secretary may impose a civil 
     penalty of not more than $1,000 for the discrepancy.
       (2) Manifest discrepancy reporting.--The Under Secretary 
     may not impose a civil penalty under paragraph (1) if a 
     manifest discrepancy report is filed with respect to the 
     discrepancy within the time limits established by Customs 
     Directive No. 3240-067A (or any subsequently issued directive 
     governing the matters therein) for filing a manifest 
     discrepancy report.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
  S. 377. A bill to require negotiation and appropriate action with 
respect to certain countries that engage in currency manipulation; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, February 15, 2005, I rise to 
introduce a bill, proposing we enact the Fair Currency Enforcement Act 
of 2005. The present legislation addresses the practice of some 
governments to intervene aggressively in currency markets, or to peg 
their currencies at a fixed--artificially low--exchange rate, thus 
subsidizing their export sales and raising price barriers to imports 
from the United States. I introduced similar legislation last Congress, 
yet the problem remains unsolved.
  In recent years, particularly China has been pressed to float their 
currency upward. Specifically, the Europeans, the International 
Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements have put 
pressure on the Chinese to at a minimum repeg their currency to a 
higher dollar value. The Administration has talked about this idea, but 
has been ineffective. As a consequence there has been no movement on 
the part of the Chinese.
  As a result of the heavy dollar buying, the Asian Central banks have 
allowed their foreign-exchange reserves to swell from less than $800 
billion at the start of 1999 to over $1.5 trillion in 2003. This is 
almost two-thirds of the global total.
  The world's seven biggest holders of foreign-exchange reserves are 
all in Asia.
  This legislation proposes that our Administration promptly open 
negotiations with the four Asian countries that exemplify this 
practice, with the intent to put a stop to it. These countries are: 
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This practice hurts American 
manufacturers: it impedes their ability to introduce new products and 
technologies and provide Americans with quality jobs. It has caused and 
continues to cause the current economic recovery to be a jobless one, 
particularly in the manufacturing sector.
  Experts indicate that the United States has the right and the power 
to address unfair competitive practices under the following laws, rules 
and agreements: 1. Section 3004 of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988 2. Article IV of the Articles of Agreement 
of the International Monetary Fund Article 3. XV of the Exchange 
Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 4. The 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade 
Organization (as described in section 101(d)(12)) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act. 5. Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade. 6. Sections 301 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974. 7. The 
provisions of the United States-China Bilateral Agreement on World 
Trade Organization Accession.
  These laws, rules and agreements provide us with ample process to do 
this right and it is important we act now. Therefore, beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act, the President will be required to start 
a 90 day period of negations. If these negotiations fail to bear fruit, 
he is required to seek redress through the various international trade 
laws by instituting appropriate proceedings, or report to congress in 
detail why this is not a proper course of action.
  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. 377

       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 ``Fair Currency Enforcement 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The manufacturing sector is an important driver of the 
     United States economy, contributing almost 30 percent of our 
     economic growth during the 1990's, and twice the productivity 
     growth of the service sector during that period.
       (2) The manufacturing sector contributes significantly to 
     our Nation's development of new products and technologies for 
     world markets, performing almost 60 percent of all research 
     and development in the United States over the past two 
     decades.
       (3) The manufacturing sector provides high quality jobs, 
     with average weekly wages between 20 and 30 percent higher 
     than jobs in the service sector.
       (4) The manufacturing growth creates a significant number 
     of jobs and investments in other sectors of the economy, and 
     this ``multiplier effect'' is reckoned by economists to be 
     larger (2.43 to 1) than for any other significant sector of 
     the economy.
       (5) The ``jobless recovery'' from the recent recession has 
     witnessed the worst job slump since the Great Depression and 
     the weakest employment recovery on record.
       (6) The manufacturing sector has been hit the hardest by 
     the jobless recovery.
       (7) A significant factor in the loss of valuable United 
     States manufacturing jobs is the difficulty faced by United 
     States manufacturers in competing effectively against lower 
     priced foreign products.
       (8) A significant obstacle to United States manufacturers 
     in competing against foreign manufacturers is the practice of 
     some governments of intervening aggressively in currency 
     markets, or pegging their currencies at fixed rates, to 
     maintain their own currencies at artificially low valuations, 
     thus subsidizing their export sales and raising price 
     barriers to imports from the United States.
       (9) Certain Asian countries exemplify this practice. China, 
     Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan together have accumulated 
     approximately \1/2\ of the world's total currency reserves. 
     The vast majority of these reserves, perhaps as high as 90 
     percent, are in dollars. These same 4 countries account for 
     60 percent of the United States world trade deficit in 
     manufactured goods. These reserves are symptomatic of a 
     strategy of intervention to manipulate currency values.
       (10) The People's Republic of China is particularly 
     aggressive in intervening to maintain the value of its 
     currency, the renminbi, at an artificially low rate. China 
     maintains this rate by mandating foreign exchange sales at 
     its central bank at a fixed exchange rate against the dollar, 
     in effect, pegging the

[[Page S1418]]

     renminbi at this rate. This low rate represents a significant 
     reason why China has contributed the most to our trade 
     deficit in manufactured goods.
       (11) Economists estimate that as a result of this 
     manipulation of the Chinese currency, the renminbi is 
     undervalued by between 15 and 40 percent, effectively 
     creating a 15- to 40-percent subsidy for Chinese exports and 
     giving Chinese manufacturers a significant price advantage 
     over United States and other competitors.
       (12) The national currency of Japan is the yen. Experts 
     estimate that the yen is undervalued by approximately 20 
     percent or more, giving Japanese manufacturers a significant 
     price advantage over United States competitors.
       (13) In addition to being placed at a competitive 
     disadvantage by foreign competitors' exports that are 
     unfairly subsidized by strategically undervalued currencies, 
     United States manufacturers also may face significant 
     nontariff barriers to their own exports to these same 
     countries. For example, in the past in China, until 
     remediated, a complex system involving that nation's value 
     added tax and special tax rebates ensured that semiconductor 
     devices imported into China were taxed at 17 percent while 
     domestic devices are effectively taxed at 6 percent.
       (14) The United States has the right and power to redress 
     unfair competitive practices in international trade involving 
     currency manipulation.
       (15) Under section 3004 of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
     required to determine whether any country is manipulating the 
     rate of exchange between its currency and the dollar for the 
     purpose of preventing effective balance of payments 
     adjustments or gaining unfair advantage in international 
     trade. If such violations are found, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury is required to undertake negotiations with any 
     country that has a significant trade surplus.
       (16) Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the 
     International Monetary Fund prohibits currency manipulation 
     by a member for the purposes of gaining an unfair competitive 
     advantage over other members, and the related surveillance 
     provision defines ``manipulation'' to include ``protracted 
     large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange 
     market''.
       (17) Under Article XV of the Exchange Agreements of the 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, all contracting 
     parties ``shall not, by exchange action, frustrate the intent 
     of the provisions of this Agreement, nor by trade action, the 
     intent of the Articles of Agreement of the International 
     Monetary Fund''. Such actions are actionable violations. The 
     intent of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Exchange 
     Agreement, as stated in the preamble of that Agreement, 
     includes the objective of ``entering into reciprocal and 
     mutually advantageous arrangements directed to substantial 
     reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade,'' and 
     currency manipulation may constitute a trade barrier 
     disruptive to reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade 
     arrangements.
       (18) Deliberate currency manipulation by nations to 
     significantly undervalue their currencies also may be 
     interpreted as a violation of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
     Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization (as 
     described in section 101(d)(12)) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act, which could lead to action and remedy under 
     the World Trade Organization dispute settlement procedures.
       (19) Deliberate, large-scale intervention by governments in 
     currency markets to significantly undervalue their currencies 
     may be a nullification and impairment of trade benefits 
     precluded under Article XXIII of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade, and subject to remedy.
       (20) The United States Trade Representative also has 
     authority to pursue remedial actions under section 301 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974.
       (21) The United States has special rights to take action to 
     redress market disruption under section 406 of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 adopted pursuant to the provisions of the United 
     States-China Bilateral Agreement on World Trade Organization 
     Accession.
       (22) While large-scale manipulation of currencies by 
     certain major trading partners to achieve an unfair 
     competitive advantage is one of the most pervasive barriers 
     faces by the manufacturing sector in the United States, other 
     factors are contributing to the decline of manufacturing and 
     small and mid-sized manufacturing firms in the United States, 
     including but not limited to non-tariff trade barriers, lax 
     enforcement of existing trade agreements, and weak or under 
     utilized government support for trade promotion.

     SEC. 3. NEGOTIATION PERIOD REGARDING CURRENCY NEGOTIATIONS.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall begin bilateral and multilateral negotiations 
     for a 90-day period with those governments of nations 
     determined to be engaged most egregiously in currency 
     manipulation, as defined in section 7, to seek a prompt and 
     orderly end to such currency manipulation and to ensure that 
     the currencies of these countries are freely traded on 
     international currency markets, or are established at a level 
     that reflects a more appropriate and accurate market value. 
     The President shall seek support in this process from 
     international agencies and other nations and regions 
     adversely affected by these currency practices.

     SEC. 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT REGARDING CURRENCY 
                   MANIPULATION.

       (a) In General.--During the 90-day negotiation period 
     described in section 3, the International Trade Commission 
     shall--
       (1) ascertain and develop the full facts and details 
     concerning how countries have acted to manipulate their 
     currencies to increase their exports to the United States and 
     limit their imports of United States products;
       (2) quantify the extent of this currency manipulation;
       (3) examine in detail how these currency practices have 
     affected and will continue to affect United States 
     manufacturers and United States trade levels, both for 
     imports and exports;
       (4) review whether and to what extent reduction of currency 
     manipulation and the accumulation of dollar-denominated 
     currency reserves and public debt instruments might adversely 
     affect United States interest rates and public debt 
     financing;
       (5) make a determination of any and all available 
     mechanisms for redress under applicable international trade 
     treaties and agreements, including the Articles of Agreement 
     of the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization Agreements, 
     and United States trade laws; and
       (6) undertake other appropriate evaluations of the issues 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (5).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the International Trade Commission 
     shall provide a detailed report to the President, the United 
     States Trade Representative, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     and the appropriate congressional committees on the findings 
     made as a result of the reviews undertaken under paragraphs 
     (1) through (6) of subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING CURRENCY 
                   MANIPULATION.

       At the end of the 90-day negotiation period provided for in 
     section 3, if agreements are not reached by the President to 
     promptly end currency manipulation, the President shall 
     institute proceedings under the relevant provisions of 
     international law and United States trade laws including 
     sections 301 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to 
     those countries that, based on the findings of the 
     International Trade Commission under section 4, continue to 
     engage in the most egregious currency manipulation. In 
     addition to seeking a prompt end to currency manipulation, 
     the President shall seek appropriate damages and remedies for 
     the Nation's manufacturers and other affected parties. If the 
     President does not institute action, the President shall, not 
     later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     provide to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     detailed explanation and accounting of precisely why the 
     President has determined not to institute action.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) National Security.--Within 90 days of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     a detailed report to the appropriate congressional committees 
     evaluating the effects on our national security of countries 
     engaging in significant currency manipulations, and the 
     effect of such manipulation on critical manufacturing 
     sectors.
       (b) Other Unfair Trade Practices.--Within 90 days of the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the United States Trade 
     Representative and the International Trade Commission shall 
     evaluate and report in detail to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on other trade practices and trade 
     barriers by major East Asian trading nations potentially in 
     violation of international trade agreements, including the 
     practice of maintaining a value-added or other tax regime 
     that effectively discriminates against imports by 
     underpricing domestically produced goods, or setting 
     technology standards that effectively limit imports.
       (c) Trade Enforcement.--Within 90 days of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the United States Trade Representative 
     and the International Trade Commission shall report in detail 
     to the appropriate congressional committees on steps that 
     could be taken to significantly improve trade enforcement 
     efforts against unfair trade practices by competitor trading 
     nations, including making recommendations for additional 
     support for trade enforcement efforts.
       (d) Trade Promotion.--Within 90 days of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretaries of State and Commerce, 
     and the United States Trade Representative, shall prepare a 
     detailed report with recommendations on steps that could be 
     undertaken to significantly improve trade promotion for 
     United States goods and services, including recommendations 
     on additional support to improve trade promotion.

     SEC. 7. CURRENCY MANIPULATION DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``currency manipulation'' means--
       (1) large-scale manipulation of exchange rates by a nation 
     in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage as stated in 
     Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the International 
     Monetary Fund and related surveillance provisions;
       (2) sustained, large-scale currency intervention in one 
     direction, through mandatory foreign exchange sales at a 
     nation's central bank at a fixed exchange rate; or
       (3) other mechanisms, used to maintain a currency at a 
     fixed exchange rate relative to another currency.

[[Page S1419]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kyl, 
        and Mr. Allen):
  S. 378. A bill to make it a criminal act to willfully use a weapon 
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person 
while on board a passenger vessel, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing 
Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with the Chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee Senator Specter, and the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senators Kyl and 
Feinstein. My colleagues and I have worked on this legislation for the 
past four years and I am hopeful this package of common-sense criminal 
law improvements will be approved by the Senate early this Session.
  The bipartisan legislation we introduce today should be familiar to 
my colleagues. It was introduced as S. 2653 in the 108th Congress, 
where I worked closely with the then-Chairman of the Committee Senator 
Hatch and Senator Leahy to ensure they were comfortable with the bill's 
provisions. The language has been reviewed by the United States Coast 
Guard, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American 
Institute of Marine Underwriters, the Inland Marine Underwriters 
Association, the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, the 
Transportation Security Administration, and the AFL-CIO. Senator Kyl 
included this language in his Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004 and 
it was the subject of a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Terrorism on September 13, 2004. This Congress, identical language was 
introduced by Senator Gregg at Title IV of S. 3, the majority's 
Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005.
  Our bill will double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who 
fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront. The Interagency 
Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports concluded that 
``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the 
seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port 
security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's 
seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, 
sabotage or theft. Our bill will help deter those who seek unauthorized 
access to our ports by imposing stiffer penalties.
  Our bill would also increase penalties for noncompliance with certain 
manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including 
information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country 
from which the shipments originated. An estimated 95 percent of the 
cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and 
Mexico, arrives through our seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency 
Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports 
provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit 
cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets 
for terrorist attacks.'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, 
but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the 
gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in 
which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting 
and misreporting the content of cargo. Increased penalties can help 
here.
  The legislation we introduce today would also make it a crime for a 
vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by 
a Federal law enforcement officer, for any person on board a vessel to 
impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal 
law, or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information 
to a Federal law enforcement officer. The Coast Guard is the main 
Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability 
to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast 
Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, 
a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. This bill 
would create that offense.
  In addition, the Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids 
on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied 
upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are 
critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. They 
could be inviting targets for terrorists. Our legislation would make it 
a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any 
maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard, place in the 
waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, 
interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime 
commerce, or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters with the 
intent to endanger human life or welfare.
  Each year, thousands of ships enter and leave the U.S. through 
seaports, smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of 
maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people 
into this country. This legislation would make it a crime to use a 
vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any 
explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist 
act. The bill would also make it a crime to damage or destroy any part 
of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload 
cargo and passengers, commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime 
facility, or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the 
safety of a vessel. In addition, the Interagency Commission concluded 
that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, 
including cargo theft, at seaports. Our legislation would increase the 
maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or 
foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to 
outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and 
similar venues.
  These are improvements we should make to our criminal code. I am 
under no illusion, however, that enactment of our bill will guarantee 
the security of our seaports. We need to dramatically increase the 
financial assistance we are giving our ports so that they can harden 
their own facilities against potential attackers. I was disappointed to 
read in the Administration's budget that the President wants to 
eliminate the Department of Homeland Security's dedicated port security 
grant program. His budget instead will force our ports to compete 
against all other transit systems for scarce federal funds. We've spent 
only about $750 million to secure seaports since September 11th--the 
Coast Guard reports that is not nearly enough to meet the requirements 
of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. We also need to increase 
the number of inspections of ships and shipping containers that are 
coming into our ports. But the amendments to Federal criminal law that 
we propose here will provide an important deterrent effect and they 
will give Federal prosecutors new tools to go after terrorists who 
would target our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, 
and I look forward to its prompt consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Obama).
  S. 379. A bill to build capacity at community colleges in order to 
meet increased demand for community college education while maintaining 
the affordable tuition rates and the open-door policy that are the 
hallmarks on the community college system; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community 
College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the 
future--for first time students looking for an affordable college 
education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the 
workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise, 
more and more students are turning to community colleges for the 
education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs.
  Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being 
available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased 
enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices--
between raising tuition and turning students away. This important 
legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to 
increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the 
roof. My bill authorizes $500 million for a competitive grant program 
to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges 
could apply

[[Page S1420]]

for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating 
facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific 
equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding--
like distance learning.
  Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great 
American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore 
City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in 
our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door 
admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so 
many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by 
working all day and going to night school at night. After World War II, 
the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to 
local junior colleges.
  Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges. 
In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college 
education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at 
the University of Maryland is up by as much as 32 percent. That's 
causing many students to take a second look at community colleges 
because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training 
workers for 21st century jobs--from nurses to computer techies, and 
even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing 
a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In 
Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses.
  Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing 
faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community 
colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4-
year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding 
classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the 
internet. In my own State of Maryland, they are starting to turn 
students away because there isn't enough room. Almost 1,000 students 
were shut out of Montgomery College last spring because they couldn't 
get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost. 
Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective 
nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students.
  It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges. 
For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the 
education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the 
rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community 
colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in 
higher education. We need to make sure we always have institutions 
available to everyone who wants a college degree--or just a couple of 
courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can 
continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the 
next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 379

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

     SECTION 1. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAPACITY-BUILDING GRANT PROGRAM.

       Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1051 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part F as part G; and
       (2) by inserting after part E the following:

                      ``PART F--COMMUNITY COLLEGES

     ``SEC. 371. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAPACITY-BUILDING GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     399(a)(6) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants 
     to eligible entities, on a competitive basis, for the purpose 
     of building capacity at community colleges to meet the 
     increased demand for community colleges while maintaining the 
     affordable tuition rates and the open-door policy that are 
     the hallmarks of the community college system.
       ``(2) Duration.--Grants awarded under this section shall be 
     for a period not to exceed 3 years.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Community college.--The term `community college' 
     means a public institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 101(a)) whose highest degree awarded is predominantly 
     the associate degree.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     community college, or a consortium of 2 or more community 
     colleges, that demonstrates capacity challenges at not less 
     than 1 of the community colleges in the eligible entity, such 
     as--
       ``(A) an identified workforce shortage in the community 
     served by the community college that will be addressed by 
     increased enrollment at the community college;
       ``(B) a wait list for a class or for a degree or a 
     certificate program;
       ``(C) a faculty shortage;
       ``(D) a significant enrollment growth;
       ``(E) a significant projected enrollment growth;
       ``(F) an increase in the student-faculty ratio;
       ``(G) a shortage of laboratory space or equipment;
       ``(H) a shortage of computer equipment and technology;
       ``(I) out-of-date computer equipment and technology;
       ``(J) a decrease in State or county funding or a related 
     budget shortfall; or
       ``(K) another demonstrated capacity shortfall.
       ``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require by 
     regulation.
       ``(d) Award Basis.--In awarding grants under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration--
       ``(1) the relative need for assistance under this section 
     of the community colleges;
       ``(2) the probable impact and overall quality of the 
     proposed activities on the capacity problem of the community 
     college;
       ``(3) providing an equitable geographic distribution of 
     grant funds under this section throughout the United States 
     and among urban, suburban, and rural areas of the United 
     States; and
       ``(4) providing an equitable distribution among small, 
     medium, and large community colleges.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--Grant funds provided under subsection 
     (a) may be used for activities that expand community college 
     capacity, including--
       ``(1) the construction, maintenance, renovation, and 
     improvement of classroom, library, laboratory, and other 
     instructional facilities;
       ``(2) the purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or 
     laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including 
     instructional research purposes;
       ``(3) the development, improvement, or expansion of 
     technology;
       ``(4) preparation and professional development of faculty;
       ``(5) recruitment, hiring, and retention of faculty;
       ``(6) curriculum development and academic instruction;
       ``(7) the purchase of library books, periodicals, and other 
     educational materials, including telecommunications program 
     material;
       ``(8) the joint use of facilities, such as laboratories and 
     libraries; or
       ``(9) the development of partnerships with local businesses 
     to increase community college capacity.

     ``SEC. 372. APPLICABILITY.

       ``The provisions of part G (other than section 399) shall 
     not apply to this part.''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 399(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1068h(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Part f.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part F, $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Pryor, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Smith, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 380. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
State family support grant program to end the practice of parents 
giving legal custody of their seriously emotionally disturbed children 
to State agencies for the purpose of obtaining mental health services 
for those children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several 
of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman, 
Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This 
legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who 
are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure 
their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children 
solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.
  As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active 
participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last 
Congress held extensive hearings on this issue.
  What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families

[[Page S1421]]

made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order 
to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family 
should ever be forced to make that decision.
  Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental 
illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile 
justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the 
only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs.
  Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and 
adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American 
children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or 
behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact 
that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment 
are not getting it.
  Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do 
the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health 
needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do 
well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family 
members. These children are almost always involved with more than one 
social service agency, including the mental health, special education, 
child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at 
either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or 
accountable for helping these children and their families.
  My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of 
stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed 
the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting 
desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many 
families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching 
decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care 
that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and 
place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.
  When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a 
heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family 
includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to 
go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.
  Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental 
illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who 
have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to 
rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. 
While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a 
serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else 
for the family to turn.
  In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against 
their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in 
order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, 
``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices 
that some families face in their efforts to get help for their 
children's mental illness.
  In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report 
that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy 
that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into 
the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children 
could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the 
tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the 
largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.
  Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 
1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23 
percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by 
public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their 
children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done 
so.
  Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody 
relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, 
since it can leave children with mental illness and their families 
without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom 
of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable 
and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these 
children and their families.
  Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling 
testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only 
way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed 
was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or 
juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family 
should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of 
his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.
  The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care 
for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public 
and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of 
coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs 
that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate 
for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally 
located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in 
Illinois''--that was able to help.
  Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on 
every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone 
who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents 
to get services and treatment for their children.
  We also need to question what happens to these children when they are 
turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I 
released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found 
that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile 
detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while 
they wait for scarce mental health services.
  Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile 
detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities 
to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national 
problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young 
people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers 
surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental 
health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held 
without any charges pending against them, and the young people 
incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as 
seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention 
facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' 
money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they 
are waiting for mental health services.
  The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, 
will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states 
in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their 
children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.
  The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive 
grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain 
statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at 
risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving 
mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to 
serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help 
States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while 
keeping them at home with their families.

  The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that 
prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based 
services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs. 
This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the 
underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads 
to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested 
these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very 
few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions. 
Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by 
making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based 
services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care.
  And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal 
interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child 
welfare and juvenile

[[Page S1422]]

justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by 
children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force 
would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making 
recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, 
and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers 
that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.
  The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to 
meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional 
disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of 
mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance 
for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental 
Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child 
Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American 
Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the 
American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and 
Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of 
endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I 
urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                February 14, 2005.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Hon. Mark Pryor,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Ramstad,
     Hon. Nancy Johnson,
     Hon. Pete Stark,
     Hon. Patrick Kennedy,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Pryor and Representatives 
     Ramstad, Johnson, Stark, and Kennedy: As national 
     organizations representing mental health consumers, families, 
     advocates, professionals and providers dedicated to improving 
     the lives of children and adolescents living with mental 
     disorders and their families, we applaud your leadership in 
     reintroducing the Keeping Families Together Act in the 109th 
     Congress.
       This legislation promises to help end a scandal that has 
     lingered too long in states throughout our nation. As you 
     know, thousands of families every year are forced to give up 
     custody of their children to the state in order to secure 
     vitally necessary mental health services. This unthinkable 
     practice tears families apart, is devastating for parents and 
     caregivers and leaves children feeling abandoned in their 
     hour of greatest need.
       This practice occurs because most families have 
     discriminatory and restrictive caps on their private mental 
     health coverage or insurers fail to cover the required 
     treatment. The majority of these families are not eligible 
     for Medicaid coverage because of their income. This truly 
     unfortunate practice also exists because of the lack of 
     appropriate mental health services in many states and 
     communities for children and adolescents with mental 
     disorders. This was well documented in President Bush's New 
     Freedom Commission report on mental health (July 2003).
       This legislation promises to help end this growing crisis 
     by providing grants to states to establish interagency 
     systems of care for children and adolescents with serious 
     mental disorders. The grants will allow states to build more 
     efficient and effective mental health systems for children 
     and families. It also eliminates barriers to home and 
     community-based care for children by enabling a greater 
     number of children to receive mental health services under 
     the Section 1915(c) Medicaid home- and community-based 
     waiver. The waiver promises to make appropriate services 
     available to children in their homes and communities and 
     close to their loved ones at a considerable cost savings over 
     providing those services in an institutional setting.
       The legislation also calls for the creation of a federal 
     interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the 
     child welfare and juvenile justice systems. A GAO report 
     released in April 2003 showed that when parents give up 
     custody of their child to secure mental health services, 
     those children are placed in one of these two systems--
     neither of which is designed to be a mental health service 
     agency.
       No family in our nation should ever be asked to make the 
     heart-wrenching decision to give up parental rights of their 
     seriously ill child in exchange for mental health treatment 
     and services.
       We welcome this legislation as a critical step toward 
     ending this practice and toward delivering more cost 
     effective and appropriate services for children and families.
       Once again, we thank you for your leadership and commitment 
     to ending this practice and for continuing to stand up for 
     children, families and common sense.
           Sincerely,
       Adoptions Together, Inc.
       Alabama Foster and Adoptive Association.
       Alliance for Children and Families.
       American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
       American Correctional Association.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Mental Health Counselors Association.
       American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
       American Psychiatric Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation.
       Children's Action Alliance.
       Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity 
     Disorder.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children Awaiting Parents.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Depression and Bipolar Alliance.
       Family Voices.
       Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health.
       Foster Family-based Treatment Association.
       Girls Incorporated of Memphis.
       Learning Disabilities Association of America.
       Lutheran Children and Family Service.
       National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
       National Association for Children of Alcoholics.
       National Association for Children's Behavioral Health.
       National Association of County Behavioral Health and 
     Disability Directors.
       National Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory 
     Councils.
       National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
       National Association of School Psychology.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Association of State Mental Health Program 
     Directors.
       National CASA Association (Court Appointed Special 
     Advocates).
       National Foster Parent Association.
       National Independent Living Association.
       National Mental Health Association.
       National Respite Coalition.
       Physicians for Human Rights.
       School Social Work Association of America.
       Suicide Prevention Action Network USA.
       Supportive Child Adult Network, Inc. (Stop Child Abuse Now, 
     Inc.)
       The Rebecca Project for Human Rights.
       Voice for Adoption.
       Volunteers of America.
       Youth Law Center.
                                  ____



                                  Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2005.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the more than 2,000 
     sheriffs, police chiefs, prosecutors, and victims of violence 
     who constitute the national anti-crime group FIGHT CRIME: 
     INVEST IN KIDS, thank you for introducing the Keeping 
     Families Together Act. This bill would take an important step 
     toward ending the practice of inappropriately placing kids in 
     juvenile detention facilities solely because of the absence 
     of affordable and accessible mental health treatment for 
     them. These placements drain significant resources from an 
     already underfunded juvenile justice system, diverting 
     funding that would otherwise support effective violence 
     prevention programs for at-risk kids and intervention 
     programs for kids who have already committed a criminal or 
     delinquent act.
       A July 2003 General Accounting Office report, Child Welfare 
     and Juvenile Justice: Several Factors Influence the Placement 
     of Children Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services, revealed 
     that over 9,000 kids in selected counties in 17 states were 
     placed in the juvenile justice system merely to obtain mental 
     health services. Furthermore, a House Committee on Government 
     Reform report demonstrated that two-thirds of juvenile 
     detention facilities inappropriately hold kids waiting for 
     mental health services. In 33 states, kids who did not have 
     any criminal charges were held in detention facilities while 
     awaiting community mental health treatment. Other kids had 
     been charged with an offense but would not have been placed 
     in detention but for the lack of available mental health 
     treatment. In fact, the House Committee report revealed that, 
     each night, nearly 2,000 kids wait in detention for community 
     mental health services, representing 7 percent of all youth 
     held in juvenile detention. It is estimated that juvenile 
     detention facilities spend approximately $100 million each 
     year to keep kids who are inappropriately placed as they wait 
     for mental health treatment. This cost does not account for 
     the additional service provision and staff time often needed 
     in juvenile facilities to care for kids with severe mental 
     health problems, although over half of responding facilities 
     reported that staff receives poor, very poor, or no mental 
     health training.
       Every year, 1.4 million kids are charged with an offense 
     for which an adult could be tried in a criminal court. The 
     juvenile justice system is responsible for rehabilitating 
     these kids so that they can leave the system and become 
     productive citizens instead of continuing a life of crime, as 
     well as for preventing such acts in the first place. 
     Inappropriately placing kids who need mental health treatment 
     in juvenile detention facilities places an unnecessary 
     financial burden on the inadequately-resourced juvenile

[[Page S1423]]

     justice system, and jeopardizes the safety of our 
     communities. The Keeping Families Together Act would provide 
     grants to help states provide and coordinate the needed array 
     of mental health services to children so that families do not 
     need to relinquish their kids to the juvenile justice system. 
     This legislation would also establish a federal interagency 
     task force to examine mental health issues in the child 
     welfare and juvenile justice systems.
       We are proud that our Senator introduced the Keeping 
     Families Together Act to help keep families together, focus 
     juvenile justice resources on delinquent and at-risk kids, 
     and make our communities safer.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Westrum,
                                    Sheriff, Sagadahoc County, ME.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator 
Collins and Senator Pryor, in introducing the ``Keeping Families 
Together Act''. This bill will expand Medicaid's home and community 
based services waiver to cover children and adolescents in residential 
treatment facilities. Currently, most state Medicaid agencies, 
including Oregon, do not cover this intensive treatment.
  In 2001, 101 Oregon children and adolescents were placed in State 
custody because this was the only way they could get the mental health 
treatment they need. This situation occurs most often in middle-income 
families, where the family's employer-based insurance does not cover 
intensive treatment for serious mental illness, but the family income 
is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid services. With no other 
way to get their child treatment, parents are forced to choose between 
custody and care. Passage of this legislation is urgently needed so 
that thousands of parents are not forced to relinquish their custody 
rights to State child welfare or juvenile agencies in order to obtain 
mental health care for their seriously mentally ill children.
  In Oregon, children with serious mental illnesses are being taken 
away from their families at a time when they most need to be close to 
home. The availability of family support services, community-based 
services and other effective interventions will help reduce the need 
for costly residential care and consequently reduce the need to place 
children in a setting away from their homes, families and communities. 
Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency 
task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and 
juvenile justice systems so that we can hopefully see an end to this 
practice, not just in Oregon, but in every State in our nation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 381. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage guaranteed lifetime income payments from annuities and 
similar payments of life insurance proceeds at dates later than death 
by excluding from income a portion of such payments; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, America will soon be facing a new and 
serious retirement challenge. Americans are living longer. Yet, recent 
economic and demographic shifts will put the retirement security of 
many retirees at risk. Current projections regarding the solvency of 
the Social Security program are not favorable. And, with 77 million 
baby boomers set to begin retiring in 2008, the number of retirees in 
the Social Security program is expected to double. In addition, fewer 
retirees in the future will be able to depend on monthly pension checks 
that many employers once paid. A growing number of retirees will be 
facing the difficult challenge of managing their own savings.
  In response to these trends, I am offering legislation aimed at 
assisting Americans maintain their financial independence and their 
standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for 
them to secure a steady income for life. Under the Retirement Security 
for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax 
incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide 
themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income. Specifically, the 
proposal would exclude from federal taxes one-half of the income 
payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars, a so- called 
non-qualified annuity.
  Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more 
that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the 
25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax 
savings of up to $5,000. I believe that this modest tax incentive will 
enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest 
egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income.
  In recent years, the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has 
almost entirely focused on the need to accumulate a nest egg prior to 
retirement. And, Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving 
and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our 
successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging more 
savings is an important step, but it is not enough. What has received 
little attention is the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the 
retirement security equation. That is, we need to be thinking about the 
management of market and longevity risk so that a life's savings can 
provide a secure retirement. Longevity risk--the risk of outliving 
one's savings--is one of the biggest risks facing retirees. While we 
have some control over when we retire, we have very little control over 
how long we will live. It is my goal that Americans will be able to 
enjoy a lifetime of income from their hard-earned savings long after 
they have put their years in the workforce behind them.
  Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in 
providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 381

       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 ``Retirement Security for Life 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR LIFETIME ANNUITY PAYMENTS.

       (a) Lifetime Annuity Payments Under Annuity Contracts.--
     Section 72(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to exclusion ratio) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Exclusion for lifetime annuity payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of lifetime annuity payments 
     received under one or more annuity contracts in any taxable 
     year, gross income shall not include 50 percent of the 
     portion of lifetime annuity payments otherwise includible 
     (without regard to this paragraph) in gross income under this 
     section. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount 
     excludible from gross income in any taxable year shall not 
     exceed $20,000.
       ``(B) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2006, the $20,000 amount 
     in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal 
     to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2005' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is 
     not a multiple of $500, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lower multiple of $500.
       ``(C) Application of paragraph.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     apply to--
       ``(i) any amount received under an eligible deferred 
     compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)) or under a 
     qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)),
       ``(ii) any amount paid under an annuity contract that is 
     received by the beneficiary under the contract--

       ``(I) after the death of the annuitant in the case of 
     payments described in subsection (c)(5)(A)(ii)(III), unless 
     the beneficiary is the surviving spouse of the annuitant, or
       ``(II) after the death of the annuitant and joint annuitant 
     in the case of payments described in subsection 
     (c)(5)(A)(ii)(IV), unless the beneficiary is the surviving 
     spouse of the last to die of the annuitant and the joint 
     annuitant, or

       ``(iii) any annuity contract that is a qualified funding 
     asset (as defined in section 130(d)), but without regard to 
     whether there is a qualified assignment.
       ``(D) Investment in the contract.--For purposes of this 
     section, the investment in the contract shall be determined 
     without regard to this paragraph.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Subsection (c) of section 72 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Lifetime annuity payment.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(5), the 
     term `lifetime annuity payment' means any amount received as 
     an annuity under any portion of an annuity contract, but only 
     if--

[[Page S1424]]

       ``(i) the only person (or persons in the case of payments 
     described in subclause (II) or (IV) of clause (ii)) legally 
     entitled (by operation of the contract, a trust, or other 
     legally enforceable means) to receive such amount during the 
     life of the annuitant or joint annuitant is such annuitant or 
     joint annuitant, and
       ``(ii) such amount is part of a series of substantially 
     equal periodic payments made not less frequently than 
     annually over--

       ``(I) the life of the annuitant,
       ``(II) the lives of the annuitant and a joint annuitant, 
     but only if the annuitant is the spouse of the joint 
     annuitant as of the annuity starting date or the difference 
     in age between the annuitant and joint annuitant is 15 years 
     or less,
       ``(III) the life of the annuitant with a minimum period of 
     payments or with a minimum amount that must be paid in any 
     event, or
       ``(IV) the lives of the annuitant and a joint annuitant 
     with a minimum period of payments or with a minimum amount 
     that must be paid in any event, but only if the annuitant is 
     the spouse of the joint annuitant as of the annuity starting 
     date or the difference in age between the annuitant and joint 
     annuitant is 15 years or less.

       ``(iii) Exceptions.--For purposes of clause (ii), annuity 
     payments shall not fail to be treated as part of a series of 
     substantially equal periodic payments--

       ``(I) because the amount of the periodic payments may vary 
     in accordance with investment experience, reallocations among 
     investment options, actuarial gains or losses, cost of living 
     indices, a constant percentage applied not less frequently 
     than annually, or similar fluctuating criteria,
       ``(II) due to the existence of, or modification of the 
     duration of, a provision in the contract permitting a lump 
     sum withdrawal after the annuity starting date, or
       ``(III) because the period between each such payment is 
     lengthened or shortened, but only if at all times such period 
     is no longer than one calendar year.

       ``(B) Annuity contract.--For purposes of subparagraph (A) 
     and subsections (b)(5) and (w), the term `annuity contract' 
     means a commercial annuity (as defined by section 
     3405(e)(6)), other than an endowment or life insurance 
     contract.
       ``(C) Minimum period of payments.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `minimum period of payments' means 
     a guaranteed term of payments that does not exceed the 
     greater of 10 years or--
       ``(i) the life expectancy of the annuitant as of the 
     annuity starting date, in the case of lifetime annuity 
     payments described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(III), or
       ``(ii) the life expectancy of the annuitant and joint 
     annuitant as of the annuity starting date, in the case of 
     lifetime annuity payments described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)(IV).

     For purposes of this subparagraph, life expectancy shall be 
     computed with reference to the tables prescribed by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (3). For purposes of subsection 
     (w)(1)(C)(ii), the permissible minimum period of payments 
     shall be determined as of the annuity starting date and 
     reduced by one for each subsequent year.
       ``(D) Minimum amount that must be paid in any event.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `minimum amount that 
     must be paid in any event' means an amount payable to the 
     designated beneficiary under an annuity contract that is in 
     the nature of a refund and does not exceed the greater of the 
     amount applied to produce the lifetime annuity payments under 
     the contract or the amount, if any, available for withdrawal 
     under the contract on the date of death.''.
       (c) Recapture Tax for Lifetime Annuity Payments.--Section 
     72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (x) as subsection (y) and by 
     inserting after subsection (x) the following new subsection:
       ``(x) Recapture Tax for Modifications to or Reductions in 
     Lifetime Annuity Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any amount received under an annuity 
     contract is excluded from income by reason of subsection 
     (b)(5) (relating to lifetime annuity payments), and--
       ``(A) the series of payments under such contract is 
     subsequently modified so any future payments are not lifetime 
     annuity payments,
       ``(B) after the date of receipt of the first lifetime 
     annuity payment under the contract an annuitant receives a 
     lump sum and thereafter is to receive annuity payments in a 
     reduced amount under the contract, or
       ``(C) after the date of receipt of the first lifetime 
     annuity payment under the contract the dollar amount of any 
     subsequent annuity payment is reduced and a lump sum is not 
     paid in connection with the reduction, unless such reduction 
     is--
       ``(i) due to an event described in subsection 
     (c)(5)(A)(iii), or
       ``(ii) due to the addition of, or increase in, a minimum 
     period of payments within the meaning of subsection (c)(5)(C) 
     or a minimum amount that must be paid in any event (within 
     the meaning of subsection (c)(5)(D)), then gross income for 
     the first taxable year in which such modification or 
     reduction occurs shall be increased by the recapture amount.
       ``(2) Recapture amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     recapture amount shall be the amount, determined under rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary, equal to the amount that (but 
     for subsection (b)(5)) would have been includible in the 
     taxpayer's gross income if the modification or reduction 
     described in paragraph (1) had been in effect at all times, 
     plus interest for the deferral period at the underpayment 
     rate established by section 6621.
       ``(B) Deferral period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `deferral period' means the period beginning with 
     the taxable year in which (without regard to subsection 
     (b)(5)) the payment would have been includible in gross 
     income and ending with the taxable year in which the 
     modification described in paragraph (1) occurs.
       ``(3) Exceptions to recapture tax.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply in the case of any modification or reduction that 
     occurs because an annuitant--
       ``(A) dies or becomes disabled (within the meaning of 
     subsection (m)(7)),
       ``(B) becomes a chronically ill individual within the 
     meaning of section 7702B(c)(2), or
       ``(C) encounters hardship.''.
       (d) Lifetime Distributions of Life Insurance Death 
     Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(d) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to payment of life insurance proceeds 
     at a date later than death) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Exclusion for lifetime annuity payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of amounts to which this 
     subsection applies, gross income shall not include the lesser 
     of--
       ``(i) 50 percent of the portion of lifetime annuity 
     payments otherwise includible in gross income under this 
     section (determined without regard to this paragraph), or
       ``(ii) the amount in effect under section 72(b)(5).
       ``(B) Rules of section 72(b)(5) to apply.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, rules similar to the rules of section 
     72(b)(5) and section 72(x) shall apply, substituting the term 
     `beneficiary of the life insurance contract' for the term 
     `annuitant' wherever it appears, and substituting the term 
     `life insurance contract' for the term `annuity contract' 
     wherever it appears.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 101(d)(1) of such Code 
     is amended by inserting ``or paragraph (4)'' after ``to the 
     extent not excluded by the preceding sentence''.
       (e) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to amounts received in calendar years beginning after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Special rule for existing contracts.--In the case of a 
     contract in force on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     that does not satisfy the requirements of section 72(c)(5)(A) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this 
     section), or requirements similar to such section 72(c)(5)(A) 
     in the case of a life insurance contract), any modification 
     to such contract (including a change in ownership) or to the 
     payments thereunder that is made to satisfy the requirements 
     of such section (or similar requirements) shall not result in 
     the recognition of any gain or loss, any amount being 
     included in gross income, or any addition to tax that 
     otherwise might result from such modification, but only if 
     the modification is completed prior to the date that is 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 383. A bill to shorten the term of broadcasting licenses under the 
Communications Act of 1934 from 8 to 3 years, to provide better public 
access to broadcasters' public interest issues and programs lists and 
children's programming reports, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Localism 
in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.'' This legislation would reduce the 
license term for broadcasters from 8 years to 3 years, thereby 
requiring broadcasters to provide the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC or Commission) with information every 3 years on why their license 
should be renewed. Prior to 1981, broadcast licenses were granted for a 
term of 3 years.
  The bill would require the full Commission to review 5 percent of all 
license and renewal applications. Currently, the Media Bureau randomly 
audits 5 percent of all license renewal applications. The FCC first 
started an audit process back in the 1980s when the FCC changed its 
license renewal process from one where stations submitted evidence of 
``public interest'' obligations compliance to one where stations self 
certify compliance, critics call it a ``post card renewal''. This 
section would take the audit process a step further by requiring the 
Commissioners to review the applications selected for audit rather than 
the Media Bureau.
  The bill would command broadcasters to post on their Internet sites 
information detailing their commitment to local public affairs 
programming and children's programming. The bill also calls for the FCC 
to complete

[[Page S1425]]

its proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to 
broadcasters in the digital era.
  To ensure that viewers or listeners can fully participate in a 
broadcaster's license renewal, the bill would codify the Commission's 
rule that a viewer or listener has standing to challenge a license if 
he demonstrates either that he resides in the station's service area or 
that he regularly listens or views the station and that such listening 
or viewing is not the result of transient contacts with the station.
  Lastly, the bill would allow the Commission, during a license renewal 
proceeding, to review not only the performance of the station seeking 
renewal, but also the performance of all stations owned by the licensee 
seeking renewal. The current statute restricts the Commission's review 
only to that station seeking the renewal.
  Last June, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I challenged all local 
broadcast television and radio stations to provide their local 
communities with significant information on the local political issues 
facing communities, the local candidates' campaign platforms, and the 
local candidate debates during the 2004 election. In response to the 
challenge, many broadcasters sent volumes of material detailing their 
extensive election coverage and committing to increase their coverage 
in 2004. Today, the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for 
Communication at the University of Southern California released 
findings showing that local news coverage of local political campaigns 
is dismal. Specifically, the study found that 92 percent of the news 
broadcasts studied contained no stories about races for the U.S. House, 
State senate or assembly, mayor, city council, law-enforcement posts, 
judgeships, education offices, or regional or county offices.
  Therefore, I feel it is now time to introduce legislation to bring 
local back into local broadcasting. I believe this legislation is a 
step in the right direction. It will have a small impact on those 
stations that are currently meeting their public interest obligations, 
but it should have a large impact on those citizens whose local 
broadcaster is not meeting its obligations. I refuse to believe that 
the ``public interest'' is served by minimal campaign coverage, such as 
a 12 second sound bite on from a candidate during a half-hour local 
news program as found in the study. Citizens deserve more from their 
local broadcaster.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 383

       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 ``Localism in Broadcasting 
     Reform Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. 3-YEAR TERM FOR BROADCAST LICENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 307(c)(1) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``8'' each place it appears and inserting ``3''.
       (b) Existing Licenses.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to licenses granted or renewed after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. FULL COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR 5 PERCENT OF 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       Section 309(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     determination required by this subsection shall be made by 
     the full Commission en banc in no fewer than 5 percent of the 
     applications filed with it in each calendar year to which 
     section 308 applies.''.

     SEC. 4. ISSUES AND PROGRAMS REPORTS; CHILDREN'S TELEVISION 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Electronic filing.--The Commission shall amend its 
     regulations to require every broadcaster to file, 
     electronically, a copy of its public interest issues and 
     programs list and its children's programming reports with the 
     Commission, in such form as the Commission may require, 
     within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
       (2) Waiver.--The Commission may waive or defer compliance 
     with the regulations promulgated in paragraph (1) by a 
     broadcaster in any specific instance for good cause shown 
     where such action would be consistent with the public 
     interest.
       (b) Licensee Website Requirement.--The Commission shall 
     amend its regulations to require every broadcast station for 
     which there is a publicly accessible website on the 
     Internet--
       (1) to make its public interest issues and programs list 
     and its children's programming reports available to the 
     public on that website; or
       (2) to provide a hyperlink on that website to that 
     information on the Commission's website.
       (c) Commission Website Requirement.--The Commission shall 
     provide access to the public to the public interest issues 
     and programs lists and children's programming reports filed 
     electronically by broadcasting stations with the Commission.
       (d) Timeframe.--The Commission shall amend its regulations 
     to carry out the requirements of this section not later than 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. STANDARDS FOR BROADCAST STATION RENEWAL TO INCLUDE 
                   REVIEW OF LICENSEE'S OTHER STATIONS.

       Section 309(k)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 309(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``with respect to that station,'' and 
     inserting ``with respect to that station (and all stations 
     operated by the licensee),'';
       (2) by striking ``its'' and inserting ``that station's''; 
     and
       (3) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the station has'' 
     and inserting ``the station has, and such other stations 
     have,''.

     SEC. 6. PARTY IN INTEREST REQUIREMENT FOR PETITIONS TO OPPOSE 
                   THE GRANT OR RENEWAL OF A LICENSE.

       Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     309(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `party in 
     interest' includes any individual who--
       ``(A) is a listener or viewer of the specific station to 
     which the application relates (determined without regard to 
     such individual's place of residence);
       ``(B) asserts an interest in vindicating the general public 
     interest; and
       ``(C) makes the specific allegations and showings required 
     by this subsection.''.

     SEC. 7. COMPLETION OF CERTAIN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action 
     on--
       (1) In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure 
     Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public 
     Interest Obligations, MM Docket No. 00-168; and
       (2) In the Matter of Public Interest Obligations of 
     Television Broadcast Licensees, MM Docket No. 99-360.
       (b) Standardized Forms for Electronically Filed Reports.--
     As part of the proceedings described in subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) give consideration to requiring standardized forms for 
     broadcasters to use in preparing public interest issues and 
     programs lists for electronic filing; and
       (2) if it determines that such standardized forms would be 
     in the public interest, develop and promulgate such forms and 
     require their use by permittees and licensees.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Broadcaster.--The term ``broadcaster'' means a 
     permittee or licensee of a commercial or non-commercial 
     television or radio broadcast station.
       (2) Children's programming reports.--The term ``children's 
     programming reports'' means the information that a 
     broadcaster is required to provide for public inspection by 
     paragraph (e)(11)(iii) of section 73.3526 of title 47, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (4) Public interest issues and programs list.--The term 
     ``public interest issues and programs list'' means the 
     information that--
       (A) a commercial broadcast station is required to provide 
     for public inspection by paragraphs (e)(11)(i) and (12) of 
     section 73.3526 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations; and
       (B) a non-commercial broadcast station is required to 
     provide for public inspection by paragraph (e)(8) of section 
     73.3527 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 385. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore 
integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity 
payments and benefits; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the 
importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide 
an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however, 
assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.
  Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms 
reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the 
payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is 
good reason to be critical of our farm programs.
  What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit 
small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own 
demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land 
prices

[[Page S1426]]

and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices, 
driving many family farmers off the farm.
  The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the 
2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that 
targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers 
is the right thing to do.
  It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee 
dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish 
legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment 
limits bill we introduced last session.
  While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question 
that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a 
two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this 
issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the 
President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal.
  The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's 
proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667 
that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge 
surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic 
certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who 
should and should not be receiving farm subsidies.
  I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue. 
With the President's support I believe we will have success.
  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. 385

       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 ``Rural America Preservation 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$40,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``$65,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d)'' and all that 
     follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency 
     Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--
       ``(1) Loan commodities.--The total amount of the following 
     gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed $75,000:
       ``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities 
     under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower 
     level than the original loan rate established for the loan 
     commodity under that subtitle.
       ``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance 
     loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by 
     forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the 
     repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by 
     repayment instead of forfeiture.
       ``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more 
     loan commodities under that subtitle.
       ``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity 
     certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1 
     or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary, 
     including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a 
     marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle, with the 
     gain reported annually to the Internal Revenue Service and to 
     the taxpayer in the same manner as gains under subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).'';
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Single Farming Operation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) through 
     (d), subject to paragraph (2), if a person participates only 
     in a single farming operation and receives, directly or 
     indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section 
     through the farming operation, the total amount of payments 
     or gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the 
     person may receive during any crop year may be up to but not 
     exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d).
       ``(2) Individuals.--The total amount of payments or gains 
     (as applicable) covered by this section that an individual 
     person may receive during any crop year may not exceed 
     $250,000.
       ``(i) Spouse Equity.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) 
     through (d), except as provided in subsection (e)(2)(C)(i), 
     if an individual and spouse are covered by subsection 
     (e)(2)(C) and receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or 
     gain covered by this section, the total amount of payments or 
     gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the 
     individual and spouse may jointly receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts 
     specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d).
       ``(j) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate regulations--
       ``(A) to ensure that total payments and gains described in 
     this section made to or through joint operations or multiple 
     entities under the primary control of a person, in 
     combination with the payments and gains received directly by 
     the person, shall not exceed twice the applicable dollar 
     amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       ``(B) in the case of a person that in the aggregate owns, 
     conducts farming operations, or provides custom farming 
     services on land with respect to which the aggregate payments 
     exceed the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections 
     (b), (c), and (d), to attribute all payments and gains made 
     on crops produced on the land to--
       ``(i) a person that rents land as lessee or lessor through 
     a crop share lease and receives a share of the payments that 
     is less than the usual and customary share of the crop 
     received by the lessee or lessor, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(ii) a person that provides custom farming services 
     through arrangements under which--

       ``(I) all or part of the compensation for the services is 
     at risk;
       ``(II) farm management services are provided by--

       ``(aa) the same person;
       ``(bb) an immediate family member; or
       ``(cc) an entity or individual that has a business 
     relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as 
     determined by the Secretary; or

       ``(III) more than \2/3\ of the farming operations are 
     conducted as custom farming services provided by--

       ``(aa) the same person;
       ``(bb) an immediate family member; or
       ``(cc) an entity or individual that has a business 
     relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as 
     determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(iii) a person under such other arrangements as the 
     Secretary determines are established to transfer payments 
     from persons that would otherwise exceed the applicable 
     dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d); 
     and
       ``(C) to ensure that payments attributed under this section 
     to a person other than the direct recipient shall also count 
     toward the limit of the direct recipient.
       ``(2) Primary control.--The regulations under paragraph (1) 
     shall define `primary control' to include a joint operation 
     or multiple entity in which a person owns an interest that is 
     equal to or greater than the interest of any other 1 or more 
     persons that materially participate on a regular, 
     substantial, and continuous basis in the management of the 
     operation or entity.''.

     SEC. 3. SCHEMES OR DEVICES.

        Section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308-2) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In general.--'' before ``If''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraud.--If fraud is committed by a person in 
     connection with a scheme or device to evade, or that has the 
     purpose of evading, section 1001, 1001A, or 1001C, the person 
     shall be ineligible to receive farm program payments (as 
     described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1001 as 
     being subject to limitation) applicable to the crop year for 
     which the scheme or device is adopted and the succeeding 5 
     crop years.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall be made without regard to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, and Mrs. 
        Dole):
  S. 386. A bill to direct the Secretary of State to carry out 
activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce 
greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries, while promoting 
economic development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, and Mrs. 
        Dole):

[[Page S1427]]

  S. 387. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for the investment in greenhouse gas intensity reduction 
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, and Mrs. 
        Dole):
  S. 388. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the 
Secretary of Energy to carry out activities that promote the adoption 
of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity and to provide 
credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for 
projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, to 
provide for the establishment of a national greenhouse gas registry, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate 
Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring 
more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade 
greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.
  I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe 
can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on 
climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need 
for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries; 
the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and 
the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon 
which to build an effective climate policy.
  I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for 
agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change 
Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change 
Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax 
Incentives Act.
  Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and 
environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are 
interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It 
is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate 
policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy 
of the magnitude of the challenge.
  We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate. 
The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we 
should take action, but what kind of action we should take.
  Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and 
development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of 
energy and resources.
  My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and 
incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
  It focuses on the role of technology, private and public 
partnerships, and developing countries.
  Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that 
recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment. 
Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global 
issue.
  Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for 
technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global 
climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount 
of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement 
for dealing with climate change.
  Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how 
efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in 
producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy 
efficiency, economic development, and the environment.
  The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in 
Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new 
authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for 
projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
  It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to 
expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private 
partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing 
technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary 
of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.
  It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of 
trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity 
reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to 
promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies 
and practices from the United States.
  The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for 
foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise 
and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries. 
Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the 
role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the 
solution.
  In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate 
unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called 
on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless 
two conditions were met.
  First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding 
obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing 
country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the 
President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious 
harm to the economy of the United States.''
  Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands, 
developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving 
more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions. 
Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases, 
but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.
  A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that 
developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account 
for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their 
populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.
  Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until 
they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy 
technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes 
necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require 
recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these 
standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future 
initiative.
  Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is 
unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United 
States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions 
from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's 
largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.
  It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized 
nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology. 
Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting 
stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been 
through.
  My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to 
work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and 
fuel-efficient technologies.
  Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act, 
supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for 
demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction 
technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and 
investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy 
advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance 
includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and 
power production incentive payments.
  We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when 
we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private 
partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government 
with the innovation of industry.
  This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency 
process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided 
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a 
Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess, 
approve, and fund these projects.

[[Page S1428]]

  Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act, 
amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate 
change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent 
the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise 
expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on 
February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of 
carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions.
  Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground, 
rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic 
storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this 
in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the 
coast of Australia.
  The article reports that:

       the concept is drawing growing interest because it could 
     curb global warming more quickly than switching to 
     alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

  There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that 
was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of 
technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of 
this type of activity.
  The American people and all global citizens need to better understand 
global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy 
policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this 
challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the 
demands of economic growth and development, especially in the 
developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based 
approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and 
connects the public and private sectors.
  Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the 
important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a 
responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a 
responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the 
private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on 
achievable climate change policy.
  By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future 
for all people, and build a better world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor at this 
moment to join my colleague Chuck Hagel in the introduction of 
legislation that he has put together out of a variety of avenues of 
interest and importance to deal with the issue of climate change, a 
issue in which he and I have been engaged for a good long while. I am 
not quite sure how many years ago it was that I, as the freshman 
chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, turned to Chuck to see if 
he could bring Senators together in a bipartisan way on what we 
believed at the moment--and we still believe today--was a critically 
important issue to be addressed.
  Out of that effort grew the Hagel-Byrd resolution which passed this 
body by an overwhelming vote, and was a very clear message to America--
and to the world--on what we believed was necessary and important if we 
were to responsibly and effectively engage in the debate of climate 
change outside and well beyond the Kyoto protocol.
  The legislation Senator Hagel brings to the floor today, of which I 
am proud to be a cosponsor, is what I believe is a needed and necessary 
next step to work cooperatively with this administration and with 
countries around the world to begin to recognize all that is the makeup 
of this issue.
  Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral 
trading partners to use their resources to meet the needs of their 
people. Yet, at the same time, the initial debate basically suggested 
that if in fact human involvement in the climate of the world was 
changing the climate of the world, the only way you could save the 
climate was to turn the lights out. It did not address the human need. 
It did not address the economic growth that was critically necessary at 
that time. That is why our country pushed back and said no, we would 
not ratify Kyoto; that we would go much further than that in bringing 
about the changes that were necessary and that this administration 
engaged in.

  This legislation does a great deal more toward recognizing the need 
for bringing resources together.
  Senator Hagel has made clear the other important things this 
legislation will do. Above all, this legislation is a true 
acknowledgment that climate variability and change is a top priority as 
an issue for the United States--and for all nations--to be involved in.
  There can be an honest debate about whether the United States should 
do more or whether too much reliance is being placed on voluntary 
initiatives, but to claim that the United States is not acting 
seriously reflects, at best, a lack of knowledge or, at worst, 
political posturing.
  An objective review of Government and private sector programs to 
reduce increases in greenhouse gas now and in the future would have to 
conclude that the United States is doing at least as much, if not more, 
than countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol which will go into 
effect tomorrow. The best evidence of this is our domestic rate of 
improvement in greenhouse gas intensity relative to the improvements 
other countries are making.
  The term I just used, ``greenhouse gas intensity,'' is defined in 
legislation as the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic 
output. This is a far wiser measure of progress because it complements, 
rather than conflicts with, a nation's goal of growing its economy and 
meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.
  Too much attention is being paid to the mandatory nature of Kyoto. 
Too little results are being achieved. It is very interesting to note 
that most of the countries that ratified Kyoto will not meet the 
greenhouse gas reduction targets by the deadlines required by Kyoto. 
Indeed, when I and Senator Craig Thomas and Congressman Joe Barton were 
in Buenos Aires at the COP-10 conference in December, many nations were 
quietly acknowledging that they could not get to where they promised 
they would get, and, in fact, some have even suggested that by 2012 
they would find it incumbent upon themselves and their nations to back 
out of Kyoto. However, all still recognize the importance of this 
issue, understanding it, and clearly defining it.

  What Senator Hagel's legislation does is shape for us a variety of 
things that are already underway, while still allowing us clearly to 
define them and to say, both here at home with our domestic policy as 
well as internationally, that we mean what we say and we mean what we 
do.
  The United States is currently spending in excess of $5 billion 
annually in scientific and technological initiatives. When we were in 
Buenos Aires, I was very proud to stand before my colleagues from 
around the world and before nongovernmental organizational groups and 
state that the United States is spending more on this issue, in both 
advances in science and technological change, than the rest of the 
world combined times two. Then I reminded them that all that we do, 
they could have also: that our technology would be in the world, that 
our science would be available to them, and that to work our way out of 
or to change the character of our economies without damaging those 
economies would in large part be the responsibility of new 
technologies.
  This legislation does not pick one technology over another or one 
energy source over another. That has always been the debate. Somehow we 
had to go around and selectively turn out the lights if we were going 
to change the climate around us. We knew that was not acceptable to the 
developing world and in large part that is why the developing world 
would not come along. How can you deny a country the right to use its 
resources for the economic, humanitarian, and health benefits of its 
people? You cannot do that. Nor should we be engaged in trying to do 
that.
  What we can do as a developed and advanced Nation is offer up exactly 
what we are doing; offer up what the Hagel legislation brings together. 
That is all we are doing now, and advancing and incentivizing, through 
this legislation, countries to do more in the area of technology.

[[Page S1429]]

  These programs are designed to advance our state of knowledge, 
accelerate the development and the deployment of energy technologies, 
aid developing countries in using energy more efficiently, and achieve 
an 18-percent reduction in energy intensity by 2012--a phenomenally 
responsive goal and something we clearly can take to the world 
community.
  Our administration today in a series of bilateral agreements is 
working with other countries to help them get to where we want and 
where they want to get, and for the sake of the environment, where we 
all want us all to go.
  I was extremely proud sitting in different forums in Buenos Aires to 
see the United States talk about the leadership role it has taken and 
the bilateral partnerships it has agreed to, and all the things that we 
can help with in the world of change today. It is clearly to our 
advantage and to the advantage of the world at large.
  What Senator Hagel has effectively done today is to get our arms 
around this issue to try to more directly define it, and to show that 
we are sensitive to it; that we are responding to the issue as clearly 
as our administration has and continues to do.
  Domestically, the United States has and continues to make world 
leading investments in climate change science technology. The United 
States has also implemented a wide range of national greenhouse control 
initiatives, cash sequestration programs, and international 
collaborative programs. All of those are bound up within the bilaterals 
I have talked about that we are engaged in.

  The legislation we have introduced today furthers all of these goals.
  President Bush has consistently acknowledged how human activity can 
affect our climate, and that the climate variability does not recognize 
national borders. The key issue is not whether there is any human-
influenced effect. Instead, the issues are how large any human 
influence may be as compared to natural variability; how costly and how 
effective human intervention may be in reversing climate variability; 
and how and what technology may be required over the near and the long 
term as determined by developments in climate science.
  As I said, there can be a legitimate debate about whether more can be 
done while meeting our Nation's economic objectives. I, for one, 
support doing more in the areas of technological development to help 
lift developing countries from the depths of their plights and to 
advance their cause as we advance ours. That is why I am proud to be 
working with my colleagues in the Senate. I thank Senator Hagel, 
Senator Alexander, Senator Dole, and others for the hard work they have 
put in and the cooperative effort reflected in the bill introduced this 
afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his 
leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here 
with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real 
authorities on energy.
  We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are 
having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are 
being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air 
objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective, 
do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of 
energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way 
that is environmentally sound.
  That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but 
Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be. 
The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all 
the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third 
of all the money is one way to put it.
  How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National 
Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs 
have come from advances in science and technology. There are other 
countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great 
capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists 
and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other 
countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be 
putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just 
their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of 
greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator 
Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a 
three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international 
cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense.
  Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the 
largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world 
that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be 
Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the 
same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power. 
Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to 
meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point 
that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his 
words, toward an energy catastrophe.
  It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is 
clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world 
are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth 
the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union 
uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average 
Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or 
four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be 
an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already 
seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil.
  The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next 
25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new 
coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800. 
That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do. 
So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in 
the United States.
  If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are 
demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical 
jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas. 
And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United 
States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal 
plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the 
world and come over here.
  So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply 
and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and 
engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and 
engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the 
scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge. 
They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental 
concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of 
their need for an energy supply.
  What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are 
talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to 
be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing 
that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically 
have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with 
the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20 
National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home 
State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon.

  One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about 
Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can--
through technology, working with people in other parts of the world, 
and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways 
to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad 
to have a chance to be associated with this bill.
  Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is 
to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global 
warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our 
grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is, 
What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We 
have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all 
unconcerned about it; we just have different

[[Page S1430]]

degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the 
evidence we see.
  I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I 
support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator 
Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest 
caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not 
willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm 
not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it 
did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about 
global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we 
knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and 
without having the solution.
  Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some 
technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a 
better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a 
cap on it.
  I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that 
he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second 
way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of 
proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion, 
technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that 
takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad 
idea to put on mandatory caps.
  If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and 
India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that 
is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel 
they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to 
figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto 
Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any 
realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the 
next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be 
almost all of it.
  There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to 
put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles. 
I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not 
produce much energy.
  But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the 
solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come 
from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading 
environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a 
coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a 
coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of 
their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the 
world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to 
gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the 
noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the 
carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does 
not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world 
how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants 
with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and 
recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do 
the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to 
breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps.
  One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is 
not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse 
gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the 
recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading 
us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might 
one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500 
years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the 
carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy 
that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our 
supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy 
and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same.

  The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight 
ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should 
start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a 
problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we 
should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to 
deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that 
brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day 
give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe.
  I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a 
cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the 
Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global 
warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator 
Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the 
other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal 
gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation 
will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make 
it an important part of energy hearings.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 389. A bill to provide for fire safety standards for cigarettes, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safe 
Cigarette Act of 2005. Last year the State of New York enacted a bold 
new law. As of June 2004, all cigarettes sold in the State are tested 
for fire safety and required to self-extinguish.
  Nationwide the statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are 
startling. Cigarette-ignited fires account for an estimated 140,800 
fires in the United States, representing the most common ignition 
source for fatal home fires and causing 30 percent of the fire deaths 
in the United States. Such fires cause more than 900 deaths and 2,400 
injuries every year. Annually, more than $400 million in property 
damage is reported due to a fire caused by a cigarette. According to 
the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire 
deaths in the United States are attributed to tobacco products--by far 
the leading cause of fatal home fires in the United States. Overall, 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that the cost of the 
loss of human life and personal property from not having a fire-safe 
cigarette standard is approximately $4.6 billion per year.
  In my State of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too 
many senseless tragedies. In 1998 alone, the most recent year for which 
we have data, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of 
which more than 900 were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 
injuries and 8 deaths.
  Tobacco companies spend billions on marketing and learning how to 
make cigarettes appealing to kids. It is not unreasonable to ask those 
same companies to invest in safer cigarette paper to make their 
products less likely to bum down a house. As of today cigarettes are 
designed to continue burning when left unattended. A common scenario is 
the delayed ignition of a sofa or mattress by a lit cigarette dropped 
by a smoker.
  The Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 2005 requires the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission to promulgate a fire safety standard, specified in 
the legislation, for cigarettes. The CPSC would also have the authority 
to regulate the ignition propensity of cigarette paper for roll-your-
own tobacco products. The Act gives the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission authority over cigarettes only for purposes of implementing 
and enforcing compliance with this Act and with the standard 
promulgated under the Act. It also allows states to pass more stringent 
fire-safety standards for cigarettes.
  Two decades ago Joe Moakley set out to ensure that the tragic 
cigarette-caused fire that killed five children and their parents in 
Westwood, MA was not repeated. He introduced three bills, two of which 
passed. One commissioned a study that concluded it was technically 
feasible to produce a cigarette with a reduced propensity to start 
fires. The second required that the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology develop a test method for cigarette fire safety, and the 
last and final bill, the Fire-Safe Cigarette Act of 1999, mandates that 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission use this knowledge to regulate 
cigarettes with regard to fire safety.

[[Page S1431]]

  Today I respectfully introduce this bill to bring fire-safe standards 
to all cigarettes sold in this country. I hope that the Commerce 
Committee will consider this legislation very soon and that my 
Colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Now that New York 
serves as an example of success, it is time to establish a national 
standard to ensure that our Nation's children, elderly and families are 
protected.
  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. 389

       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 ``Cigarette Fire Safety Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire 
     deaths in the United States.
       (2) In 1999 there were 807 deaths from cigarette ignited 
     fires, 2,193 civilian injuries from such fires, and 
     $559,100,000 in property damage caused by such fires.
       (3) Nearly 100 children are killed each year from cigarette 
     related fires.
       (4) For over 20 years former Member of Congress Joseph 
     Moakley worked on behalf of burn victims, firefighters, and 
     every individual who has lost a loved one in a fire. By 
     securing enactment of the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 and 
     the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, Joseph Moakley completed 
     the necessary technical work for a cigarette fire safety 
     standard and paved the way for a national standard.
       (5) It is appropriate for the Congress to require by law 
     the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the 
     manufacture and importation of cigarettes.
       (6) A recent study by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and 
     personal property from not having a cigarette fire safety 
     standard is $4,600,000,000 per year.
       (7) It is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a 
     cigarette fire safety standard.

     SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirement for standard.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission 
     shall, by rule, prescribe one or more fire safety standards 
     for cigarettes that, except as provided in this Act, are 
     substantively the same as the standards set forth by the 
     State of New York in Part 429 of Title 18 of the Official 
     Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of 
     New York, as promulgated on December 31, 2003 (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``New York standard''), including the 
     Appendix to such Part.
       (2) Cigarettes with unique characteristics.--In adapting 
     section 4(c) of such Part 429, if the Commission determines 
     that a cigarette, because of its unique or nontraditional 
     characteristics, cannot be tested in accordance with the test 
     method prescribed by the Commission, the manufacturer of such 
     cigarette may propose a test method and performance standard 
     for such cigarette. If the Commission finds the proposed 
     method and standard to be equivalent to the test method and 
     performance standard otherwise established by the Commission, 
     the Commission may approve the method and standard and the 
     manufacturer of such cigarette may employ such test method 
     and performance standard to certify the cigarette pursuant to 
     rules prescribed by this Act.
       (3) Commission.--In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means 
     the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
       (b) Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a), and any 
     modification thereof, shall be prescribed in accordance with 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Modifications.--
       (A) Modification by sponsor.--If the sponsor of the testing 
     methodology used under subsection (a)(2) modifies the testing 
     methodology in any material respect, the sponsor shall notify 
     the Commission of the modification, and the Commission may 
     incorporate the modification in the rule prescribed under 
     subsection (a) if the Commission determines that the 
     modification will enhance a fire safety standard established 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (B) Modification by commission.--The Commission may modify 
     the rule prescribed under subsection (a), including the test 
     requirements specified in subsection (a)(2), in whole or in 
     part, only if the Commission determines that compliance with 
     such modification is technically feasible and will enhance a 
     fire safety standard established under that subsection. Any 
     such modification shall not take effect earlier than 3 years 
     after the date on which the rule is first issued.
       (3) Inapplicability of certain laws.--
       (A) In general.--No Federal law or Executive order, 
     including the laws listed in subparagraph (B) but not 
     including chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of title 5, United States 
     Code, commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedures 
     Act, may be construed to apply to the promulgation of the 
     rule required by subsection (a), or a modification of the 
     rule under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       (B) Included laws.--The Federal laws referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) include the following:
       (i) The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et 
     seq.).
       (ii) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
       (iii) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (iv) The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
     of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), and the amendments made by that 
     Act.
       (c) Effective Date.--The Commission shall specify in the 
     rule prescribed under subsection (a) the effective date of 
     the rule. The effective date may not be later than 24 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Treatment of Standard.--
       (1) In general.--The fire safety standard promulgated under 
     subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety 
     standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), except as provided in section 4.
       (2) Treatment of cigarettes.--A cigarette shall be treated 
     as a consumer product under section 3(a)(1)(B) of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(B)) for 
     purposes of this Act and for purposes of sections 17 and 18 
     of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2066, 2067).

     SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--This Act, and any cigarette fire safety 
     standard established or modified pursuant to section 3, may 
     not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any way 
     any law or regulation that prescribes a fire safety standard 
     for cigarettes--
       (1) set forth by the State of New York in the New York 
     standard; or
       (2) promulgated by any State that is more stringent than 
     the fire safety standard for cigarettes established under 
     this section.
       (b) Private Remedies.--The provisions of section 25 of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2074) shall apply with 
     respect to the fire safety standard promulgated under section 
     3(a) of this Act.

     SEC. 5. SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 
                   COMMISSION.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission 
     shall have no jurisdiction over tobacco or tobacco products.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     for fiscal year 2006, $2,000,000 for purposes of carrying out 
     this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 390. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic 
aneurysms under part B of the medicare program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with my 
colleague Senator Jim Bunning, to introduce the Screening Abdominal 
Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently SAAAVE Act of 2005. This important 
legislation would provide Medicare coverage for screening for a 
dangerous condition known as abdominal aortic aneurysm--or AAA.
  The SAAAVE Act is designed to save the lives of those suffering from 
abdominal aortic aneurysms, a silent killer that claims the lives of 
15,000 Americans each year. AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the 
walls of the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel. This artery begins 
to bulge, most often very slowly and without symptoms, and can lead to 
rupture and severe internal bleeding. AAA is a devastating condition 
that is often fatal without detection, with less than 15 percent of 
those afflicted with a ruptured aorta surviving. Estimates indicate 
that 2.7 million Americans suffer from AAA.
  With introduction of this important legislation, Congress recognizes 
abdominal aortic aneurysm screening as essential to stopping its deadly 
effects. Research indicates that when detected before rupturing, AAAs 
are treatable and curable in 95 percent of the cases. And while most 
AAAs are never diagnosed, nearly all can be detected through an 
inexpensive and painless screening.
  I am particularly pleased that the U.S. Preventive Services Task 
Force recently recommended AAA screening for all men between the ages 
of 65 and 75 that have ever smoked. This independent panel of experts 
in primary care and prevention concluded that screening for abdominal 
aortic aneurysms for this particularly vulnerable population is 
especially important. The

[[Page S1432]]

recognition of this screening measure by this respected body makes 
perfectly clear the lifesaving potential offered by AAA screening.
  For more than four decades the Medicare program has provided a 
literal lifeline for America's seniors and individuals with 
disabilities. However, for far too long this valuable program--
originally crafted only to provide needed care after an illness--failed 
to cover valuable preventive services. Recently, though, Medicare has 
evolved to include a number of preventive measures, such as mammography 
and colorectal screenings. With today's introduction of the SAAAVE Act, 
we again move Medicare toward greater inclusion of lifesaving 
preventive measures. This legislation reflects the changing attitudes 
toward the value of preventive health care services and moves us toward 
modernizing the Medicare program to better meet the needs of its more 
than 40 million beneficiaries. With enactment of the SAAAVE Act, 
instead of waiting to treat a ruptured aorta, Medicare will now help 
high-risk seniors avert this often-deadly disease through preventive 
and lifesaving screening.
  Lastly, I want to thank the legislation's chief sponsors in the House 
of Representatives, Gene Green and John Shimkus. Representatives Green 
and Shimkus have been tireless advocates on behalf of patients 
suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysms and their devotion to 
modernizing the Medicare program to include greater preventive services 
is truly admirable. I look forward to continuing working with my 
colleagues from the House to advance the SAAAVE Act in the 109th 
Congress.

  When Senator Bunning and I first introduced this legislation in the 
last Congress, we were joined by patients who had suffered a ruptured 
aorta as result of an AAA and their families. At this event these 
patients shared with us their harrowing and personal stories of 
battling this deadly condition. It is because of struggles like theirs 
that we are here today at the outset of an effort to prevent abdominal 
aortic aneurysms from advancing to the point of rupture by providing 
coverage for a simple yet lifesaving screening. Simply, Mr. President, 
this legislation is about saving lives. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the SAAAVE Act.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Dodd 
from Connecticut today in re-introducing the Screening Abdominal Aortic 
Aneurysms Very Efficiently Act of 2005--also known as the SAAAVE Act--
in the 109th Congress.
  This is an important bill that could potentially save the lives of 
many Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, too many Americans die from 
ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms each year without ever knowing they 
had this condition. In fact, less than 15 percent of people who have a 
ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm survive.
  That is why our bill is so important. The SAAAVE Act would add a new 
screening benefit to Medicare so that people at risk for abdominal 
aortic aneurysms could be tested. The test is simple. In fact, it's 
just an ultrasound test, which is painless, non-invasive and 
inexpensive.
  Medicare beneficiaries found to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm 
could have surgery if needed or could simply be monitored by their 
doctors.
  Early detection is the key to preventing ruptures of these aneurysms 
and preventing deaths. In fact, these aneurysms can be successfully 
treated 95 percent of the time if they are detected before rupturing.
  The legislation also includes a national educational and information 
campaign to get the word out about the health risks associated with 
abdominal aortic aneurysms. Too often, those with these aneurysms 
simply don't know they have one until it ruptures. The educational 
campaign requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus 
their education efforts not only on the general public, but also among 
health care practitioners as well.
  I am pleased we are introducing this bill today, and I look forward 
to working with my colleague from Connecticut in getting it passed.

                          ____________________