[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 27 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2385-S2400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 570. A bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act to improve access to 
information about individuals' health care options and legal rights for 
care near the end of life, to promote advance care planning and 
decisionmaking so that individuals' wishes are known should they become 
unable to speak for themselves, to engage health care providers in 
disseminating information about and assisting in the preparation of 
advance directives, which include living wills and durable powers of 
attorney for health care, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am introducing the 
Information Security and Protection Act. It has to do with a subject 
matter about which we have had breaking news over the course of the 
last several days, and that is identity theft.
  Two weeks ago we found out a company named ChoicePoint, a Georgia 
company, because of the conviction in a plea bargain with someone who 
had under false pretenses broken into the database of this information 
broker, had 400,000 individual records stolen and thus subject to the 
taking of the personal identity of those 400,000 people. Of those we 
know of, 10,000 of them are in my State, and I can tell you, having met 
with a group of Floridians we picked at random in the central Florida 
area I met with a week and a half ago, it has been a tale of 
extraordinarily horrific circumstances for these Americans when their 
identity was stolen to, No. 1, stop the theft, and then, No. 2, to 
reclaim their identity and to get back their identity, for example, 
with a credit card on which bills have been run up and therefore their 
credit becomes bad. Trying to get back their good name and their good 
credit has become a horrific process.
  One of the central Floridians I met with is a truckdriver who has a 
special license to drive trucks with hazardous materials. This 
particular individual is so frustrated because whenever he goes to this 
Government agency or that Government agency, they always send him to 
another one, saying we can't help you. There is someone out there with 
his identity who keeps violating traffic rules and laws all over the 
country and he keeps getting summonses to courts in States all over the 
country, and he can't get back his identity.
  That is just one example. Or take the example of the mom recently 
widowed, so her grown daughter takes over the paying of her bills, and 
because the mom has always been frugal, the daughter sees a charge on 
the credit card for $10,000 and thinks, well, my mom is suddenly going 
to start spending a little on herself. The daughter continues to pay 
these kinds of bills until she finally gets a call from a store in San 
Francisco and the clerk says, I want to see if you will approve this 
$26,000 charge for your mother. And she says, well, that is not my 
mother because my mother is not in San Francisco, she is here with me 
in Cocoa, FL right now. Fortunately, the game was up. They stopped that 
process, but that daughter had already paid $40,000 worth of bills 
thinking they were legitimate charges by her mother, and she will never 
get back that $40,000.
  These are just a couple of examples of identity theft. But now the 
problem has gotten to be so much larger because these data collectors, 
which I call information brokers, with the advance of technology are 
able to gather billions and billions of records. This particular 
company that has come to light over the last couple of weeks with the 
theft of 400,000 records--ChoicePoint is the name of the company--has 
stored, now listen to this, 17 to 19 billion--that is with a B--
records. With that amount of data, they virtually have information on 
every American. It is not just credit reports that are protected by the 
Fair Credit Reporting Act. It is Social Security numbers and driver's 
licenses. It is job applications. It is DNA tests. It is medical 
records.
  With this kind of information, centralized under the control of one 
company, if there is a penetration of the security of that company, 
then you see what the invasion of our privacy is about to cause.
  Indeed, we are going to be in a situation where no American has any 
privacy, and we are going to continue to go through this process until 
we say, enough already, and the people stand up and say: You have to 
protect our privacy.
  That is what the bill I am introducing, the Information Security and 
Protection Act, sets out to do. It is going to require legal 
safeguards, put some teeth in the law, that is going to require not 
just credit reports, which is covered by existing Federal law, but it 
is going to require these collectors of information who sell them for a 
profit-making business to have the safeguards to protect the consumers.
  Additionally, it is going to have the safeguards for the consumers so 
they can have access to those records and see if, in fact, they are 
correct, and if they are not, correct them and have a list of the 
people who are seeking the information about them.
  We had another case come to light a week ago, and that was the case 
of records that are missing. We do not know if they were destroyed, if 
they were lost, or if they were stolen, but they are the records of 
customers of the Bank of America. We are talking about 1.2 million 
customers. And, oh, by the way, some of those customers

[[Page S2386]]

are Federal employees who happen to have this particular card. It is 
the Federal travel card. This card is distributed additionally to the 
Members of the Senate.
  On that stolen or missing information is the very personal and 
private information of 60 Senators in this Chamber. Let's hope we do 
not become the victims of identity theft and that we have to go through 
all of these horrific experiences I have heard in talking with some of 
my constituents. But, in fact, we may. Until we find out what happened 
to those records of 1.2 million individuals, Federal employees, then we 
are subject to these kinds of traumas that come from identity theft.
  Today we have learned of a major breach at the Boca Raton based 
company called SizeNet. It is a part of Lexis-Nexis. Information that 
was accessed included names, addresses, Social Security and driver's 
license numbers; not the credit history, medical records, or financial 
information. This group said--and they put out a statement to the 
London Stock Exchange--that this was information on 32,000 U.S. 
citizens. It may have been accessed from one of the databases. The 
company said the breach, made on its legal and business information 
service, Lexis-Nexis, which had recently acquired this SizeNet unit, 
was being investigated by staff and U.S. law enforcement authorities. 
So here we have another 32,000 U.S. citizens who could possibly be the 
victims of identity theft.
  Are we going to do anything about it? I sure hope so, and I am 
hopeful that we are going to have the Congress start to take action on 
a bill Congressman Markey in the House, a Member of the House Commerce 
Committee, and I, a Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, have 
introduced.
  This bill requires the Federal Government to begin to regulate the 
products offered by information brokers. Under the legislation, the 
Federal Trade Commission would pass regulations that would empower 
consumers to have control over the personal information they have 
compiled in these databases. Consumers would be given, for the first 
time, the right to find out what files information brokers keep about 
them, and they would be given the right to make sure the information in 
the files is correct. They would be given the right to promptly correct 
the inaccurate information. They would be permitted to find out which 
people have asked for copies of their personal information.
  What would be the responsibility of the information broker? It would 
require the Federal Trade Commission to come up with standards to 
ensure that those brokers know to whom they are selling that consumer 
information and the purposes for which it is being used. Those 
information brokers would be required to safeguard and protect the 
privacy of the billions of consumer records they hold.
  Under present law, there is no protection unless you fall under a law 
such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act which protects consumer credit 
records. But all the amassing of this additional data is not protected 
under current law.
  This bill I am filing also allows Government law enforcers and 
consumers to bring tough legal actions against the brokers if they 
violate the new regulations that the FTC would promulgate. Then it 
clearly gives a nod to the States to pass their own laws that they 
believe are necessary to effectively regulate information brokers.
  This bill is not a catchall bill. This bill is meant to focus very 
narrowly on information brokers. It instructs the FTC to carve out 
appropriate regulatory exemptions that are in the public interest. So 
there is flexibility for the FTC to adjust to different circumstances.
  After the FTC passes its new regulations, then the FTC, in our 
oversight capacity, would be reporting back to us and specifically 
would be reporting to our committees--the Commerce Committees in both 
the House and the Senate--and then Congress would determine whether 
further statutory changes were necessary, as is the prerogative to 
adjust and adapt as circumstances change.
  I want to work with all the people who are involved in this 
situation. We do not want something that is overreaching, but were are 
getting to the point that with the advance of technology, something has 
to be done or virtually none of us will have any privacy.
  By the way, there is another reason to pass this legislation. We are 
in a new kind of war, and that war is against terrorists. The terrorist 
deals by stealth, and one way is to assume the identity of someone 
else. If we do not have the protections of all our identities, there is 
another source for the terrorist.
  What is it going to take to spur the Congress into action? I thank 
the time is here. We have three examples in the last 2 weeks--
ChoicePoint, Bank of America, and today Lexis-Nexis. I ask for the 
support of the Senate in passing the Information Protection and 
Security Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 570

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Improvement of policies related to the use and portability of 
              advance directives.
Sec. 4. Increasing awareness of the importance of End-of-Life planning.
Sec. 5. GAO study and report on establishment of national advance 
              directive registry.
Sec. 6. Advance directives at State department of motor vehicles.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Every year 2,500,000 people die in the United States. 
     Eighty percent of those people die in institutions such as 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities. Chronic 
     illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, account for 2 
     out of every 3 deaths.
       (2) In January 2004, a study published in the Journal of 
     the American Medical Association concluded that many people 
     dying in institutions have unmet medical, psychological, and 
     spiritual needs. Moreover, family members of decedents who 
     received care at home with hospice services were more likely 
     to report a favorable dying experience.
       (3) In 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its 
     decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, 
     reaffirmed the constitutional right of competent adults to 
     refuse unwanted medical treatment. In those cases, the Court 
     stressed the use of advance directives as a means of 
     safeguarding that right should those adults become incapable 
     of deciding for themselves.
       (4) A study published in 2002 estimated that the overall 
     prevalence of advance directives is between 15 and 20 percent 
     of the general population, despite the passage of the Patient 
     Self-Determination Act in 1990, which requires that health 
     care providers tell patients about advance directives.
       (5) Competent adults should complete advance care plans 
     stipulating their health care decisions in the event that 
     they become unable to speak for themselves. Through the 
     execution of advance directives, including living wills and 
     durable powers of attorney for health care according to the 
     laws of the State in which they reside, individuals can 
     protect their right to express their wishes and have them 
     respected.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to improve 
     access to information about individuals' health care options 
     and legal rights for care near the end of life, to promote 
     advance care planning and decisionmaking so that individuals' 
     wishes are known should they become unable to speak for 
     themselves, to engage health care providers in disseminating 
     information about and assisting in the preparation of advance 
     directives, which include living wills and durable powers of 
     attorney for health care, and for other purposes.

     SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENT OF POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE AND 
                   PORTABILITY OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by 
     the individual (or on behalf of the individual), to include 
     the content of such advance directive in a prominent part of 
     such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';

[[Page S2387]]

       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), 
     a provider of services, Medicare Advantage organization, or 
     prepaid or eligible organization (as the case may be) shall 
     give effect to an advance directive executed outside the 
     State in which such directive is presented, even one that 
     does not appear to meet the formalities of execution, form, 
     or language required by the State in which it is presented to 
     the same extent as such provider or organization would give 
     effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements, 
     except that a provider or organization may decline to honor 
     such a directive if the provider or organization can 
     reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression 
     of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the 
     administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by 
     the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
       ``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and 
     inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current 
     medical record''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual (or 
     on behalf of the individual), to include the content of such 
     advance directive in a prominent part of such record'' before 
     the semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), 
     a provider or organization (as the case may be) shall give 
     effect to an advance directive executed outside the State in 
     which such directive is presented, even one that does not 
     appear to meet the formalities of execution, form, or 
     language required by the State in which it is presented to 
     the same extent as such provider or organization would give 
     effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements, 
     except that a provider or organization may decline to honor 
     such a directive if the provider or organization can 
     reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression 
     of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the 
     administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by 
     the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
       ``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider 
     agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or extended 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services specifies, but in no case may 
     such date be later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
     In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines requires State 
     legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional 
     requirements imposed by the amendments made by subsection 
     (b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to 
     comply with the requirements of such title solely on the 
     basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements 
     before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning 
     after the close of the first regular session of the State 
     legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a 
     State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session is considered to be a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.

     SEC. 4. INCREASING AWARENESS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF END-OF-LIFE 
                   PLANNING.

       Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     part:

``PART R--PROGRAMS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVE PLANNING 
                                 ISSUES

     ``SEC. 399Z-1. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS AND 
                   INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES.

       ``The Secretary shall provide for the establishment of a 
     national, toll-free, information clearinghouse as well as 
     clearinghouses that the public may access to find out about 
     State-specific information regarding advance directive and 
     end-of-life decisions.''.

     SEC. 5. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
                   ADVANCE DIRECTIVE REGISTRY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a national 
     registry for advance directives, taking into consideration 
     the constraints created by the privacy provisions enacted as 
     a result of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a) together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative action as the 
     Comptroller General of the United States determines to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 6. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES AT STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES.

       Each State shall establish a program of providing 
     information on the advance directives clearinghouse 
     established pursuant to section 399Z-1 of the Public Health 
     Service Act to individuals who are residents of the State at 
     such State's department of motor vehicles. Such program shall 
     be modeled after the program of providing information 
     regarding organ donation established at the State's 
     department of motor vehicles, if such State has such an organ 
     donation program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 572. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to give 
additional biosecurity responsibilities to the Department of Homeland 
Security; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 573. A bill to improve the response of the Federal Government to 
agroterrorism and agricultural diseases; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills to 
increase the security of the Nation's agriculture and food supply: the 
Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act and the Agriculture Security 
Assistance Act. Both measures build on legislation I sponsored in the 
107th and 108th Congresses. I would like to thank my good friend, 
Senator Durbin, who cosponsored my agriculture security bills last 
session, for continuing his support of this legislation.
  The first bill, the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act, will 
enhance coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
and other Federal agencies responsible for food and agriculture 
security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will increase 
coordination between Federal and State, local, and tribal officials and 
offer financial and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and 
veterinarians to improve preparedness.
  The Nation's agriculture industry represents about 13 percent of GDP 
and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Yet, this critical 
economic sector is not receiving adequate protection from accidental or 
intentional contamination that would damage our economy, and, most 
importantly, could cost lives. Such contamination could be devastating 
to states such as Hawaii which generates more than $1.9 billion in 
agricultural sales annually.
  Just last week, the President of Interpol warned that the 
consequences of an attack on livestock are ``substantial'' and 
``relatively little'' is being done to prevent such an attack.
  The introduction of my bills coincides with the release of a report I 
requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled 
``Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, 
but Important Challenges Remain.'' The report reviews the current state 
of agriculture security in the United States and makes recommendations. 
While GAO reported some accomplishments, such as conducting 
vulnerability assessments of agricultural products, establishing the 
Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council, and funding two 
university-based Centers of Excellence to research livestock and 
poultry diseases, GAO found that critical vulnerabilities still exist.
  Even though veterinarians may be the first to spot outbreaks of 
diseases, Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified veterinarians are 
not required to

[[Page S2388]]

demonstrate any knowledge of foreign animal diseases. This is short 
sighted given how easily animal diseases can travel from country to 
country as we have seen with the avian flu over the past few years. It 
is important that veterinarians, who will be our first responders in 
the event of an agroterrorist attack, be able to identify symptoms of a 
foreign disease in U.S. livestock.
  GAO also highlights USDA's inability to deploy vaccines within 24 
hours of an animal disease outbreak as required by Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9). According to GAO, the vaccine for 
foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is the only animal disease vaccine 
that the United States stockpiles, is purchased from Britain in a 
concentrate form. To use the vaccine the concentrate must be sent back 
to Britain to be activated, which adds at least three weeks to the 
deployment time.
  According to a scenario from Dr. Tom McGinn, formerly of the North 
Carolina Department of Agriculture, FMD would spread to 23 States five 
days after an initial outbreak and to 40 States after 30 days. By the 
time the vaccine is deployed, FMD could spread across the country. We 
cannot afford to wait three weeks to start vaccinating livestock. Why 
is the United States outsourcing this critical security function? USDA 
should either store ready-to-use vaccines in the U.S. or examine ways 
to activate the vaccines in this country.
  Equally troubling is that over the past 2 years, the number of 
agricultural inspections performed by the U.S. has declined by 3.4 
million since DHS took over the border inspection responsibility from 
USDA. Mr. Kim Mann, a spokesman from the National Association of 
Agriculture Employees (NAAE), expressed similar concerns at a February 
10, 2005, hearing conducted by the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia (OGM). 
Mr. Mann testified that of the approximately 2,100 Agriculture 
Quarantine Inspection positions that were transferred from USDA to DHS 
in 2003, only about 1,300 of those positions are currently filled. 
According to Mr. Mann, agriculture inspectors have left DHS to return 
to USDA because of DHS's lack of commitment to its agriculture mission, 
and DHS is not filling these vacancies. I recently wrote Undersecretary 
for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson expressing my 
concern over these reports because agriculture inspections are crucial 
to the economy of Hawaii which is home to more endangered species than 
any other State.

  GAO also reported a lack of communication between DHS and states 
regarding the development of emergency response plans, grant guidance, 
and best practices. States agriculture officials were given as little 
as three days to provide input on the National Response Plan and the 
National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program grant guidance puts little emphasis on 
agriculture as a sector eligible for assistance. In fact, agriculture 
only became eligible in fiscal year 04 and many states are unaware that 
funds can be directed towards agriculture security. In addition, State 
and industry officials reported that there is no mechanism to share 
lessons learned from exercises or real-life animal disease outbreaks.
  GAO further notes that shortcomings exist in DHS's Federal 
coordination of national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. 
Federal officials claim that there is confusion in interagency working 
groups as to which responsibility falls with whom. DHS reportedly also 
has been unable to coordinate agriculture security research efforts 
government-wide as is required by HSPD-9. While some program staff from 
DHS, USDA, and Health and Human Services have engaged in preliminary 
discussions, there is no overall departmental coordination of policy 
and budget issues between the various Federal agencies.
  My bills address many of the concerns raised by GAO. The Homeland 
Security Food and Agriculture Act will: increase communication and 
coordination between DHS and state, local, and tribal homeland security 
officials regarding agroterrorism; Ensure agriculture security is 
included in state, local, and regional emergency response plans; and 
establish a task force of state and local first responders that will 
work with DHS to identify best practices in the area of agriculture 
security.
  The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will: provide financial and 
technical assistance to states and localities for agroterrorism 
preparedness and response; increase international agricultural disease 
surveillance and inspections of imported agricultural products; require 
that certified veterinarians be knowledgeable in foreign animal 
diseases; and require that USDA study the costs and benefits of 
developing a more robust animal disease vaccine stockpile.
  The United States needs a coordinated approach in dealing with the 
possibility of an attack on our food supply, which could affect 
millions. While improvements have occurred since I first voiced my 
concerns over food and agriculture security in 2001, critical 
vulnerabilities remain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting 
America's breadbasket and support these vital pieces of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered tobe printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 572

       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 ``Homeland Security Food and 
     Agriculture Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                 ``Subtitle J--Agricultural Biosecurity

     ``SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Agricultural disease.--The term `agricultural 
     disease' means an outbreak of a plant or animal disease, or a 
     pest infestation, that requires prompt action in order to 
     prevent injury or damage to people, plants, livestock, 
     property, the economy, or the environment.
       ``(2)  Agriculture.--The term `agriculture' includes--
       ``(A) the science and practice of an activity relating to--
       ``(i) food, feed, and fiber production; or
       ``(ii) the processing, marketing, distribution, use, or 
     trade of food, feed, or fiber;
       ``(B) a social science, such as--
       ``(i) family and consumer science;
       ``(ii) nutritional science;
       ``(iii) food science and engineering; or
       ``(iv) agricultural economics; and
       ``(C) an environmental or natural resource science, such 
     as--
       ``(i) forestry;
       ``(ii) wildlife science;
       ``(iii) fishery science;
       ``(iv) aquaculture;
       ``(v) floraculture; or
       ``(vi) veterinary medicine.
       ``(3) Agroterrorist act.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `agroterrorist act' means the 
     criminal act, committed with the intent described in 
     subparagraph (B), of causing or attempting to cause damage or 
     harm (including destruction or contamination) to--
       ``(i) a crop;
       ``(ii) livestock;
       ``(iii) farm or ranch equipment;
       ``(iv) material or property associated with agriculture; or
       ``(v) a person engaged in an agricultural activity.
       ``(B) Intent.--The term `agroterrorist act' means an act 
     described in subparagraph (A) that is committed with the 
     intent to--
       ``(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
       ``(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation 
     or coercion.
       ``(4) Biosecurity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `biosecurity' means protection 
     from the risk posed by a biological, chemical, or 
     radiological agent to--
       ``(i) the agricultural economy;
       ``(ii) the environment;
       ``(iii) human health; or
       ``(iv) plant or animal health.
       ``(B)  Inclusions.--The term `biosecurity' includes the 
     exclusion, eradication, and control of a biological agent 
     that causes an agricultural disease.
       ``(5) Emergency response provider.--The term `emergency 
     response provider' includes any Federal, State, or local--
       ``(A) emergency public safety professional;
       ``(B) law enforcement officer;
       ``(C) emergency medical professional (including an employee 
     of a hospital emergency facility);
       ``(D) veterinarian or other animal health professional; and

[[Page S2389]]

       ``(E) related personnel, agency, or authority.
       ``(6) Suspect location.--The term `suspect location' means 
     a location that, as recognized by an element of the 
     intelligence community--
       ``(A) has experienced, or may experience, an agroterrorist 
     act or an unusual disease; or
       ``(B) has harbored, or may harbor, a person that committed 
     an agroterrorist act.

     ``SEC. 899B. AGRICULTURAL SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

       ``(a) Coordination of Food and Agricultural Security.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a program to protect the agriculture and food supply of 
     the United States from agroterrorist acts.
       ``(2) Program inclusions.--The program established pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall include provisions for --
       ``(A) advising and coordinating with Federal, State, local, 
     regional, and tribal homeland security officials regarding--
       ``(i) preparedness for and the response to an agroterrorist 
     act; and
       ``(ii) the detection, prevention, and mitigation of an 
     agroterrorist act; and
       ``(B) executing the agriculture security responsibilities 
     of the Secretary described in Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive 7 (December 17, 2003) and Homeland Security 
     Presidential Directive 9 (February 3, 2004).
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Secretary.--The Secretary shall have responsibility 
     for--
       ``(A) increasing communication and coordination among all 
     Federal, State, local, regional, and tribal emergency 
     response providers regarding biosecurity;
       ``(B) ensuring that each Federal, State, local, regional, 
     and tribal emergency response provider understands and 
     executes the role of that emergency response provider in 
     response to an agroterrorist attack;
       ``(C)(i) ensuring that State, local, and tribal officials 
     have adequate access to information and resources at the 
     Federal level; and
       ``(ii) developing and implementing information-sharing 
     procedures by which a Federal, State, local, regional, or 
     tribal emergency response provider can share information 
     regarding a biological threat, risk, or vulnerability;
       ``(D) coordinating with the Secretary of Transportation to 
     develop guidelines for restrictions on the interstate 
     transportation of an agricultural commodity or product in 
     response to an agricultural disease;
       ``(E) coordinating with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in considering the potential 
     environmental impact of a response by Federal, regional, 
     State, local, and tribal emergency response providers to an 
     agricultural disease;
       ``(F) working with Federal agencies (including the 
     Department of Agriculture and other elements of the 
     intelligence community) to improve the ability of employees 
     of the Department of Homeland Security to identify a 
     biological commodity or product, livestock, and any other 
     good that is imported from a suspect location;
       ``(G) coordinating with the Department of State to provide 
     the President and Federal agencies guidelines for 
     establishing a mutual assistance agreement with another 
     country, including an agreement--
       ``(i) to provide training to veterinarians, public health 
     workers, and agriculture specialists of the United States in 
     the identification, diagnosis, and control of foreign 
     diseases;
       ``(ii) to provide resources and technical assistance 
     personnel to a foreign government with limited resources; and
       ``(iii) to participate in a bilateral or multilateral 
     training program or exercise relating to biosecurity.
       ``(2) Undersecretary for emergency response and 
     preparedness.--The Undersecretary for Emergency Response and 
     Preparedness shall have responsibility for--
       ``(A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subtitle, cooperating with State, local, and tribal 
     homeland security officials to establish State, local, and 
     regional response plans for an agricultural disease or 
     agroterrorist act that include--
       ``(i) a comprehensive needs analyses to determine the 
     appropriate investment requirements for responding to an 
     agricultural disease or agroterrorist act;
       ``(ii) a potential emergency management assistance compact 
     and any other mutual assistance agreement between neighboring 
     States; and
       ``(iii) an identification of State and local laws 
     (including regulations) and procedures that may affect the 
     implementation of a State response plan; and
       ``(B) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this subtitle, establishing a task force consisting of State 
     and local homeland security officials that shall--
       ``(i) identify the best practices for carrying out a 
     regional or State biosecurity program;
       ``(ii) make available to State, local, and tribal 
     governments a report that describes the best practices 
     identified under clause (i); and
       ``(iii) design and make available information (based on the 
     best practices identified under clause (i)) concerning 
     training exercises for emergency response providers in the 
     form of printed materials and electronic media to--

       ``(I) managers of State, local, and tribal emergency 
     response provider organizations; and
       ``(II) State health and agricultural officials.

       ``(c) Grants To Facilitate Participation of State and Local 
     Animal Health Care Officials.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office of State and Local 
     Coordination and Preparedness, in consultation with the 
     Undersecretary for Emergency Response and Preparedness and 
     the Secretary, shall establish a program under which the 
     Secretary shall provide grants to communities to facilitate 
     the participation of State and local animal health care 
     officials in community emergency planning efforts.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006.''.

                                 S. 573

       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 ``Agricultural Security 
     Assistance Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agricultural disease.--The term ``agricultural 
     disease'' means an outbreak of a plant or animal disease, or 
     a pest infestation, that requires prompt action in order to 
     prevent injury or damage to people, plants, livestock, 
     property, the economy, or the environment.
       (2) Agricultural disease emergency.--The term 
     ``agricultural disease emergency'' means an agricultural 
     disease that the Secretary determines to be an emergency 
     under--
       (A) section 415 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     7715); or
       (B) section 10407(b) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 8306(b)).
       (3) Agriculture.--The term ``agriculture'' includes--
       (A) the science and practice of activities relating to 
     food, feed, and fiber production, processing, marketing, 
     distribution, use, and trade;
       (B) family and consumer science, nutrition, food science 
     and engineering, agricultural economics, and other social 
     sciences; and
       (C) forestry, wildlife science, fishery science, 
     aquaculture, floraculture, veterinary medicine, and other 
     environmental and natural resource sciences.
       (4) Agroterrorism.--The term ``agroterrorism'' means the 
     commission of an agroterrorist act.
       (5) Agroterrorist act.--The term ``agroterrorist act'' 
     means a criminal act consisting of causing or attempting to 
     cause damage or harm to, or destruction or contamination of, 
     a crop, livestock, farm or ranch equipment, material or 
     property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in 
     agricultural activity, that is committed with the intent--
       (A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
       (B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation 
     or coercion.
       (6) Biosecurity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``biosecurity'' means protection 
     from the risks posed by biological, chemical, or radiological 
     agents to--
       (i) plant or animal health;
       (ii) the agricultural economy;
       (iii) the environment; or
       (iv) human health.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``biosecurity'' includes the 
     exclusion, eradication, and control of biological agents that 
     cause plant or animal diseases.
       (7) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (9) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government'' 
     means the governing body of an Indian tribe.

     SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--In consultation with the steering 
     committee of the National Animal Health Emergency Management 
     System and other stakeholders, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     study to--
       (A) determine the best use of epidemiologists, computer 
     modelers, and statisticians as members of emergency response 
     task forces that handle foreign or emerging agricultural 
     disease emergencies; and
       (B) identify the types of data that are necessary for 
     proper modeling and analysis of agricultural disease 
     emergencies.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     that describes the results of the study under paragraph (1) 
     to--
       (A) the Secretary of Homeland Security; and
       (B) the head of any other agency involved in response 
     planning for agricultural disease emergencies.
       (b) Geographic Information System Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of the 
     Interior, shall establish a program under which the Secretary 
     shall provide grants to States to develop capabilities to use 
     a geographic information system or statistical model for an 
     epidemiological assessment in the event of an agricultural 
     disease emergency.

[[Page S2390]]

       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       (A) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (B) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.
       (c) Biosecurity Awareness and Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall implement a public 
     awareness campaign for farmers, ranchers, and other 
     agricultural producers that emphasizes--
       (A) the need for heightened biosecurity on farms; and
       (B) reporting to the Department of Agriculture any 
     agricultural disease anomaly.
       (2) On-farm biosecurity.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     associations of agricultural producers and taking into 
     consideration research conducted under the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), shall--
       (i) develop guidelines--

       (I) to improve monitoring of vehicles and materials 
     entering or leaving farm or ranch operations; and
       (II) to control human traffic entering or leaving farm or 
     ranch operations; and

       (ii) distribute the guidelines developed under clause (i) 
     to agricultural producers through agricultural informational 
     seminars and biosecurity training sessions.
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (i) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this paragraph--

       (I) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (II) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 
     year.

       (ii) Information program.--Of the amounts made available 
     under clause (i), the Secretary may use such sums as are 
     necessary to establish in each State an information program 
     to distribute the biosecurity guidelines developed under 
     subparagraph (A)(i).
       (3) Biosecurity grant pilot program.--
       (A) Incentives.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a pilot 
     program to provide incentives, in the form of grants or low-
     interest loans, to agricultural producers to restructure farm 
     and ranch operations (based on the biosecurity guidelines 
     developed under paragraph (2)(A)(i)) to achieve the goals 
     described in clause (ii).
       (ii) Goals.--The goals referred to in clause (i) are--

       (I) to control access to farms and ranches by persons 
     intending to commit agroterrorist acts;
       (II) to prevent the introduction and spread of agricultural 
     diseases; and
       (III) to take other measures to ensure biosecurity.

       (iii) Limitation.--The amount of a grant or low-interest 
     loan provided under this paragraph shall not exceed $10,000.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that--
       (i) describes the implementation of the pilot program; and
       (ii) makes recommendations for expanding the pilot program.
       (C) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph--
       (i) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (ii) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2009.

     SEC. 4. REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) Environmental Protection Agency.--The Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the 
     Secretary, shall cooperate with regional, State, and local 
     disaster preparedness officials to include consideration of 
     the potential environmental effects of a response activity in 
     planning a response to an agricultural disease.
       (b) Department of Agriculture.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall--
       (1) develop and implement procedures to provide information 
     to, and share information among, Federal, regional, State, 
     tribal, and local officials regarding agricultural threats, 
     risks, and vulnerabilities; and
       (2) cooperate with State agricultural officials, State and 
     local emergency managers, representatives from State land 
     grant colleges and research universities, agricultural 
     producers, and agricultural trade associations to establish 
     local response plans for agricultural diseases.

     SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.

       (a) Agricultural Disease Liaisons.--
       (1) Agricultural disease management liaison.--The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall establish a senior level position 
     within the Federal Emergency Management Agency the primary 
     responsibility of which is to serve as a liaison for 
     agricultural disease management between--
       (A) the Department of Homeland Security; and
       (B)(i) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       (ii) the Department of Agriculture;
       (iii) other Federal agencies responsible for a response to 
     an emergency relating to an agriculture disease;
       (iv) the emergency management community;
       (v) State emergency and agricultural officials;
       (vi) tribal governments; and
       (vii) industries affected by agricultural disease.
       (2) Animal health care liaison.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall establish within the Department of 
     Health and Human Services a senior level position the primary 
     responsibility of which is to serve as a liaison between--
       (A) the Department of Health and Human Services; and
       (B)(i) the Department of Agriculture;
       (ii) the animal health community;
       (iii) the emergency management community;
       (iv) tribal governments; and
       (v) industries affected by agricultural disease.
       (b) Transportation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, shall--
       (A) publish in the Federal Register proposed guidelines for 
     restrictions on interstate transportation of an agricultural 
     commodity or product in response to an agricultural disease;
       (B) provide for a comment period of not less than 90 days 
     for the proposed guidelines; and
       (C) establish final guidelines, taking into consideration 
     any comment received under subparagraph (B); and
       (2) provide the guidelines described in paragraph (1) to 
     officers and employees of--
       (A) the Department of Agriculture;
       (B) the Department of Transportation; and
       (C) the Department of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) International Agricultural Disease Surveillance.--Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State 
     and the Administrator of the Agency for International 
     Development, shall submit to Congress a report that describes 
     measures taken by the Secretary to--
       (1) streamline the process of notification by the Secretary 
     to Federal agencies in the event of an agricultural disease 
     in a foreign country; and
       (2) cooperate with representatives of foreign countries, 
     international organizations, and industry to develop and 
     implement methods of sharing information relating to 
     international agricultural diseases and unusual agricultural 
     activities.
       (b) Bilateral Mutual Assistance Agreements.--The Secretary 
     of State, in coordination with the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, shall--
       (1) enter into mutual assistance agreements with other 
     countries to provide and receive assistance in the event of 
     an agricultural disease, including--
       (A) training for veterinarians and agriculture specialists 
     of the United States in the identification, diagnosis, and 
     control of foreign agricultural diseases;
       (B) providing resources and personnel to a foreign 
     government with limited resources to respond to an 
     agricultural disease; and
       (C) bilateral training programs and exercises relating to 
     assistance provided under this paragraph; and
       (2) provide funding for a program or exercise described in 
     paragraph (1)(C).

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND REPORTS.

       (a) Vaccines.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study 
     of, and submit to Congress a report that describes, the 
     projected costs and benefits of developing ready-to-use 
     vaccines against foreign animal diseases.
       (b) Plant Disease Laboratory.--Not later than 270 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     conduct a study of, and submit to Congress a report that 
     describes, the feasibility of establishing a national plant 
     disease laboratory based on the model of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, the primary task of which is 
     to--
       (1) integrate and coordinate a nationwide system of 
     independent plant disease diagnostic laboratories, including 
     plant clinics maintained by land grant colleges and 
     universities; and
       (2) increase the capacity, technical infrastructure, and 
     information-sharing capabilities of laboratories described in 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 8. VETERINARIAN ACCREDITATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations requiring 
     that any veterinarian accredited by the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be trained to recognize foreign animal 
     diseases.

     SEC. 9. REVIEW OF LEGAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Secretary, shall conduct a review of State and local laws 
     relating to agroterrorism and biosecurity to determine--
       (1) the extent to which the laws facilitate or impede the 
     implementation of a current or proposed response plan 
     relating to an agricultural disease;
       (2) whether an injunction issued by a State court could--
       (A) delay the implementation of a Federal response plan 
     described in paragraph (1); or
       (B) affect the extent to which an agricultural disease 
     spreads; and

[[Page S2391]]

       (3) the types and extent of legal evidence that may be 
     required by a State court before a response plan described in 
     paragraph (1) may be implemented.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report that describes the results of the review 
     under subsection (a) (including any recommendations of the 
     Attorney General).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 575. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a refundable credit for certain education expenses; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Educational 
Opportunity for All Act.'' The core of the American Dream is getting a 
college education and I want to make sure that every student has access 
to that dream. I want to help families who are trying to send their 
children to college and adults who are going back to school--for their 
first degree or their third. This $4,000 tuition tax credit will help 
students who are taking one night class at a community college to 
update their skills or four classes at a university to get their 
bachelor's degree. And my tax credit is refundable so it helps families 
who don't owe taxes.
  Our middle class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my 
State of Maryland are worried--they're worried about their jobs and 
they're terrified of losing their healthcare when costs keep 
ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. 
They're racing from carpools to work and back again. But most of all, 
they don't know how they can afford to send their kids to college. And 
they want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help 
them.
  That's why I want to give every family sending a child to college a 
$4,000 per student per year tuition tax credit. My bill would give help 
to those who practice self help--the families who are working and 
saving to send their child to college or update their own skills.
  College tuition is on the rise across America. Tuition at the 
University of Maryland has increased by almost 40 percent since 2002. 
Tuition for Baltimore Community College rose by $300 in one year. The 
average total cost of going to a 4-year public college is $10,635 per 
year, including tuition, fees, room and board. University of Maryland 
will cost more than $15,000 for a full time undergraduate student who 
lives on campus.
  Financial Aid isn't keeping up with these rising costs. Pell Grants 
cover only 40 percent of average costs at 4-year public colleges. 
Twenty years ago, Pell Grants covered 80 percent of average costs. Our 
students are graduating with so much debt it's like their first 
mortgage. The average undergraduate student debt from college loans is 
almost $19,000. College is part of the American Dream; it shouldn't be 
part of the American financial nightmare.
  Families are looking for help. I'm sad to say, the President doesn't 
offer them much hope. The Republican budget has all the wrong 
priorities. President Bush proposed increasing the maximum Pell Grant 
by just $100 to $4,150. I want to double Pell Grants. Instead of easing 
the burden on middle class families, the Republican budget helps out 
big business cronies with lavish tax breaks while eating into Social 
Security and creating deficits as far as the eye can see.
  We need to do more to help middle class families afford college. We 
need to immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant to $4,500 and 
double it over the next 6 years. We need to make sure student loans are 
affordable. And we need a bigger tuition tax credit for the families 
stuck in the middle who aren't eligible for Pell Grants but still can't 
afford college.
  A $4,000 refundable tax credit for tuition will go a long way. It 
will give middle class families some relief by helping the first-time 
student at our 4-year institutions like University of Maryland and the 
mid-career student at our terrific community colleges. A $4,000 tax 
credit would be 60 percent of the tuition at Maryland and enough to 
cover the cost of tuition at most community colleges. My bill would 
help make college affordable for everyone.
  College education is more important than ever: 40 percent of new jobs 
in the next 10 years will require post-secondary education. College is 
important to families and it's important to our economy. To compete in 
the global economy, we need to make sure all our children have 21st 
century skills for 21st century jobs. And the benefits of education 
help not just the individual but society as a whole.
  To have a safer America and a stronger economy, we need to have a 
smarter America. We need to invest in our human capital to create a 
world class workforce. That means making a college education 
affordable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

                                 S. 575

       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 ``Educational Opportunity for 
     All Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by inserting after 
     section 35 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 36. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the qualified tuition expenses paid by the 
     taxpayer during the taxable year (for education furnished 
     during any academic period beginning in such taxable year).
       ``(2) Per student limitation.--The credit allowed under 
     this section shall not exceed $4,000 with respect to any 
     individual.
       ``(b) Election Not to Have Section Apply.--A taxpayer may 
     elect not to have this section apply with respect to the 
     qualified tuition expenses of an individual for any taxable 
     year.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified tuition expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified tuition expenses' 
     means tuition required for the enrollment or attendance of--
       ``(i) the taxpayer,
       ``(ii) the taxpayer's spouse, or
       ``(iii) any dependent of the taxpayer with respect to whom 
     the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151,

     at an eligible educational institution for courses of 
     instruction of such individual at such institution.
       ``(B) Exception for education involving sports, etc.--Such 
     term does not include expenses with respect to any course or 
     other education involving sports, games, or hobbies, unless 
     such course or other education is part of the individual's 
     degree program.
       ``(C) Exception for nonacademic fees.--Such term does not 
     include student activity fees, athletic fees, insurance 
     expenses, or other fees or expenses unrelated to an 
     individual's academic course of instruction.
       ``(D) Job improvement included.--Such term shall include 
     tuition expenses described in subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to any course of instruction at an eligible educational 
     institution to acquire or improve job skills.
       ``(2) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible 
     educational institution' means an institution--
       ``(A) which is described in section 481 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088), as in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and
       ``(B) which is eligible to participate in a program under 
     title IV of such Act.
       ``(d) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Identification requirement.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to 
     the qualified tuition expenses of an individual unless the 
     taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer identification number 
     of such individual on the return of tax for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Adjustment for certain scholarships, etc.--The amount 
     of qualified tuition expenses otherwise taken into account 
     under subsection (a) with respect to an individual for an 
     academic period shall be reduced by the sum of any amounts 
     paid for the benefit of such individual which are allocable 
     to such period as--
       ``(A) a qualified scholarship which is excludable from 
     gross income under section 117,
       ``(B) an educational assistance allowance under chapter 30, 
     31, 32, 34, or 35 of title 38, United States Code, or under 
     chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code, and
       ``(C) a payment (other than a gift, bequest, devise, or 
     inheritance within the meaning of section 102(a)) for such 
     individual`s educational expenses, or attributable to such 
     individual's enrollment at an eligible educational 
     institution, which is excludable from gross income under any 
     law of the United States.
       ``(3) Treatment of expenses paid by dependent.--If a 
     deduction under section 151 with respect to an individual is 
     allowed to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in 
     the calendar year in which such individual's taxable year 
     begins--
       ``(A) no credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) to 
     such individual for such individual's taxable year, and

[[Page S2392]]

       ``(B) qualified tuition expenses paid by such individual 
     during such individual's taxable year shall be treated for 
     purposes of this section as paid by such other taxpayer.
       ``(4) Treatment of certain prepayments.--If qualified 
     tuition expenses are paid by the taxpayer during a taxable 
     year for an academic period which begins during the first 3 
     months following such taxable year, such academic period 
     shall be treated for purposes of this section as beginning 
     during such taxable year.
       ``(5) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section for any expense for which a deduction is 
     allowed under any other provision of this chapter.
       ``(6) Coordination with hope scholarship and lifetime 
     learning credits.--The qualified tuition and related expenses 
     with respect to an individual for whom a Hope Scholarship 
     Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit under section 25A is 
     allowed for the taxable year shall not be taken into account 
     under this section.
       ``(7)  No credit for married individuals filing separate 
     returns.--If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the 
     meaning of section 7703), this section shall apply only if 
     the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return 
     for the taxable year.
       ``(8) Nonresident aliens.--If the taxpayer is a nonresident 
     alien individual for any portion of the taxable year, this 
     section shall apply only if such individual is treated as a 
     resident alien of the United States for purposes of this 
     chapter by reason of an election under subsection (g) or (h) 
     of section 6013.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     this section, including regulations providing for a recapture 
     of the credit allowed under this section in cases where there 
     is a refund in a subsequent taxable year of any amount which 
     was taken into account in determining the amount of such 
     credit.''.
       (b) Refundability of Credit.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     1324(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting before the period ``or enacted by the Educational 
     Opportunity for All Act of 2005''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Sections 135(d)(2)(A), 222(c)(2)(A), 
     529(c)(3)(B)(v)(II), and 530(d)(2)(C)(i)(II) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by inserting ``or 
     section 36'' after ``section 25A'' each place it appears.
       (2) Section 6213(g)(2)(J) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``or section 36(d)(1)'' after ``expenses)''.
       (3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 36 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 36. Educational opportunity tax credit.
``Sec. 37. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid after December 31, 2004, for 
     education furnished in academic periods beginning after such 
     date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BYRD:
  S. 576. A bill to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and 
slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, President Reagan was often fond of saying 
that ``there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside 
of a horse.'' So he surely would have been proud when, on November 18, 
2004, during the closing days of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed 
a resolution introduced by our former colleague Senator Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell that designated December 13, 2004, as ``National Day of the 
Horse.'' The resolution encouraged the people of the United States to 
be mindful of the contribution of horses to the economy, history, and 
character of our great Nation. The resolution, S. Res. 452, included a 
provision that stated ``horses are a vital part of the collective 
experience of the United States and deserve protection and 
compassion.''
  Beginning in the 1950's, public awareness was raised about the cruel 
and inhumane manner in which wild horses and burros were being rounded 
up on public lands and subsequently sent to slaughter. Velma B. 
Johnston, later known as Wild Horse Annie, led an effort to protect 
this symbol of the American West that captured the imagination of 
school children across the country. In 1959, which was my first year in 
the Senate, Congress passed legislation I was pleased to support that 
prohibited the use of motorized vehicles to hunt wild horses and burros 
on all public lands. But the bill, which came to be known as the ``Wild 
Horse Annie Act,'' did not include a program for the management of wild 
horses and burros in the United States.
  It was not until 1971 that Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming 
Horse and Burro Act. The law, which I also supported, established as 
national policy that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be 
protected from capture, branding, harassment, and death'' and that ``no 
wild free-roaming horses or burros or their remains may be sold or 
transferred for consideration for processing into commercial 
products.''
  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service were 
tasked with enforcement of the law on public lands. Unfortunately, 
several reports have documented the failure by the agencies to properly 
manage these animals. As a result, the BLM currently has approximately 
22,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities where their feeding 
and care use up nearly half of the agency's budget for wild horse and 
burro management.
  The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act had been the law of the 
land until President Bush signed the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations 
bill on December 8, 2004. Included in the omnibus appropriations bill 
was a provision that would require the BLM to put up for public sale 
any wild horse taken off the range that is more than 10 years old and 
any horse that has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption three 
times. The BLM has estimated that about 8,400 mustangs out of 22,000 
being kept on seven sanctuaries meet that criteria.
  Surely there are actions that can be taken by the BLM to ensure the 
proper operation of the wild horse and burro program without resorting 
to the slaughter of these animals. Instead of taking the time to make 
the changes necessary to ensure the proper management of wild horses, 
this provision reaches for the butcher knife instead.
  In response, my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Rep. Nick 
Joe Rahall, has introduced H.R. 297, a bill that would restore the 
prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming 
horses and burros. I am pleased to join with him in his effort to 
overturn this egregious provision and reinstate Federal protections for 
one of the enduring symbols of the American frontier.
  In closing, I quote from British poet Ronald Duncan's Ode to the 
Horse:

       Where in this wide world can a man find nobility without 
     pride, friendship without envy or beauty without vanity? 
     Here: where grace is laced with muscle and strength by 
     gentleness confined. He serves without servility; he has 
     fought without enmity. There is nothing so powerful, nothing 
     less violent; there is nothing so quick, nothing less 
     patient. England's past has been bourne on his back. All our 
     history is his industry. We are his heirs; he our 
     inheritance. The Horse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 577. A bill to promote health care coverage for individuals 
participating in legal recreational activities or legal transportation 
activities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing legislation to 
prohibit health insurers from denying benefits to plan participants if 
they are injured while engaging in legal recreational activities like 
skiing, snowmobiling, or horseback riding.
  Among the many rules that were issued at the end of the Clinton 
Administration was one that was intended to ensure non-discrimination 
in health coverage in the group market. This rule was issued jointly on 
January 8, 2001, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue 
Service and the Health Care Financing Administration--now the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services--in accordance with the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.
  While I was pleased that the rule prohibits health plans and issuers 
from denying coverage to individuals who engage in certain types of 
recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling 
or motorcycling, I am extremely concerned that it would allow insurers 
to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results 
from participation in these activities.
  The rule states that: ``While a person cannot be excluded from a plan 
for engaging in certain recreational activities, benefits for a 
particular injury can, in some cases, be excluded based on the source 
of the injury.'' A plan could, for example, include a general exclusion 
for injuries sustained while

[[Page S2393]]

doing a specified list of recreational activities, even though 
treatment for those injuries--a broken arm for instance--would have 
been covered under the plan if the individual had tripped and fallen.
  Because of this loophole, an individual who was injured while skiing 
or running could be denied health care coverage, while someone who is 
injured while drinking and driving a car would be protected.

  This clearly is contrary to Congressional intent. One of the purposes 
of HIPAA was to prohibit plans and issuers from establishing 
eligibility rules for health coverage based on certain health-related 
factors, including evidence of insurability. To underscore that point, 
the conference report language stated that ``the inclusion of evidence 
of insurability in the definition of health status is intended to 
ensure, among other things, that individuals are not excluded from 
health care coverage due to their participation in activities such as 
motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback 
riding, skiing and other similar activities.'' The conference report 
also states that ``this provision is meant to prohibit insurers or 
employers from excluding employees in a group from coverage or charging 
them higher premiums based on their health status and other related 
factors that could lead to higher health costs.''
  Millions of Americans participate in these legal and common 
recreational activities which, if practiced with appropriate 
precautions, do not significantly increase the likelihood of serious 
injury. Moreover, in enacting HIPAA, Congress simply did not intend 
that people would be allowed to purchase health insurance only to find 
out, after the fact, that they have no coverage for an injury resulting 
from a common recreational activity. If this rule is allowed to stand, 
millions of Americans will be forced to forgo recreational activities 
that they currently enjoy lest they have an accident and find out that 
they are not covered for needed care resulting from that accident.
  The legislation that we are introducing today will clarify that 
individuals participating in activities routinely enjoyed by millions 
of Americans cannot be denied access to health care coverage or health 
benefits as a result of their activities. The bill should not be 
controversial. In fact, it passed the Senate by unanimous consent last 
November. Unfortunately, however, the House did not have time to act 
before the end of the Congress.
  I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to move quickly on this 
legislation this year, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us as 
cosponsors.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have the benefit of many resources 
that provide us with a wealth of information: our dedicated staffs, the 
agencies of the Federal Government, and the many interested citizens 
and groups who follow issues.
  We rely every day on the information we get from all these sources. 
But we also rely on plain old common sense. I rise today to introduce a 
bill that is based on common sense.
  The premise is this: if we think somebody is a terrorist or has ties 
to terrorism, and that person purchases a deadly weapon, we need to 
know about it and keep track of it.
  The bill I am introducing is called the ``Terrorist Apprehension 
Record Retention (TARR) Act.'' I am introducing it in response to a 
report that Senator Biden and I requested from the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO).
  The report examined the practices of the National Instant Criminal 
Background Checks system (NICS) in conducting background checks of 
people who are on the Federal terrorist watch list and who try to 
purchase firearms.
  The GAO found that from February 3 through June 30 of last year--a 
period of just five months--a total of 44 known or suspected terrorists 
attempted to purchase firearms. The GAO Report is available at http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d05127.pdf.
  In 35 of these cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed 
because its field agents were unable to find any disqualifying 
information, such as felony convictions or illegal immigrant status, 
within the federally prescribed three business days.
  FBI officials told GAO investigators that from June through October 
2004, the FBI's NICS handled an additional 14 transactions involving 
known or suspected terrorists. Of these 14 transactions, the FBI 
allowed 12 to proceed and denied 2 based on prohibiting information.
  These people who are on the terrorist watch list are not even allowed 
to board a commercial airliner. Yet most of them were allowed to 
purchase firearms.
  Some would say that defies common sense--but it gets worse.
  After most of the people with suspected terrorist connections were 
allowed to purchase these deadly weapons, the FBI was forced to destroy 
the records of the transactions within 24 hours after the FBI had 
approved the sale.
  These records were destroyed pursuant to the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' 
which was implemented last July.
  The GAO also found that Department of Justice procedures prohibit the 
NICS from sharing information about gun sales to suspected terrorists 
with counterterrorism officials.
  This restriction of information-sharing is based on the belief at DOJ 
that information gathered by NICS should not be used for law 
enforcement purposes or to fight the war against terror. This is 
despite the fact that FBI counterterrorism officials said that it would 
help them fight the war on terror if they were to routinely receive all 
available personal identifying information and other details from 
valid-match background checks of known or suspected terrorists.
  So, not only are people suspected of having links to terrorism 
allowed to purchase deadly weapons, but then we don't even tell our 
counterterrorism agents about it--and we destroy the records!
  This doesn't seem like common sense to me.
  In fact, it seems like a policy that not only allows terrorists to 
acquire weapons, but then helps them cover their tracks.
  In light of the findings in this report, Senators Corzine, Schumer, 
Clinton, Feinstein, Mikulski, Reed and Kennedy are joining me in 
introducing the TARR Act, which would do two very important things.
  First, the bill would require the Federal Government, specifically 
the NICS and FBI, to maintain for 10 years all records related to a 
NICS transaction involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist 
records--a suspected or known terrorist.
  It is outrageous that one unit of the FBI--NICS--has information that 
could help us win the war against terrorism, but that information is 
deleted.
  Second, the TARR Act would require all information related to the 
transactions involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist records 
must be shared with all appropriate Federal and State counterterrorism 
officials. Both FBI counterterrorism agents and State counterterrorism 
agencies should have access to this potentially valuable information. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record. I also ask unanimous consent that an article from the March 8, 
2005 edition of the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 578

       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 ``Terrorist Apprehension and 
     Record Retention Act of 2005'' or the ``TARR Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (6) the 
     following:
       ``(7) If the national criminal background check system 
     indicates that a person attempting to purchase a firearm or 
     applying for a State permit to possess, acquire, or carry a 
     firearm is identified as a known or suspected member of a 
     terrorist organization in records maintained by the 
     Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security, 
     including the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File, 
     or records maintained by the Intelligence Community, 
     including records maintained under section 343 of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (50 
     U.S.C. 404n-2)--
       ``(A) all information related to the prospective 
     transaction shall automatically and immediately be 
     transmitted to the appropriate

[[Page S2394]]

     Federal and State counterterrorism officials, including the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       ``(B) the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall coordinate 
     the response to such an event; and
       ``(C) all records generated in the course of the check of 
     the national criminal background check system, including the 
     ATF Form 4473, that are obtained by Federal and State 
     officials shall be retained for a minimum of 10 years.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Title 18.--Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``transfer'' the 
     following: ``, except as provided in paragraph (7)''.
       (2) Other law.--Section 617(a)(2) of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat. 95) is amended 
     by inserting after ``or State Law'' the following: ``, except 
     for information required to be maintained by section 
     922(t)(7) of title 18, United States Code''.

                [From the New York Times, March 8, 2005]

             Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, Report Finds

                          (By Eric Lichtblau)

       Washington, March 7.--Dozens of terror suspects on federal 
     watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the 
     United States last year, according to a Congressional 
     investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal 
     gun laws.
       People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are 
     not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the 
     investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability 
     Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist 
     groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.
       Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement 
     officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing 
     concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun 
     shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon 
     and using it in an attack.
       The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of 
     the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional 
     officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation ``could better manage'' its gun-buying records 
     in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.
       F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws 
     and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records 
     because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.
       At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom 
     the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist 
     groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the 
     investigation found.
       In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who 
     handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed 
     because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic 
     disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or 
     someone deemed ``mentally defective,'' the report found.
       In the four months after the formal study ended, the 
     authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from 
     terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to 
     proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 
     47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-
     month period last year, it found.
       The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified 
     internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of 
     terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed 
     or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations 
     into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official 
     said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the 
     identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.
       The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance 
     copy was provided to The New York Times.
       Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who 
     requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to 
     address the problem in part by requiring federal officials 
     to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a 
     minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed 
     within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by 
     Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new 
     policy has hindered terrorism investigations by 
     eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.
       ``Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and 
     will only help terrorists cover their tracks,'' Mr. 
     Lautenberg said Monday. ``It's an absurd policy.''
       He blamed what he called the Bush administration's 
     ``twisted allegiances'' to the National Rifle Association for 
     the situation.
       The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have 
     fought--successfully, for the most part--to limit the use of 
     the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law 
     enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount 
     to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.
       The legal debate over how gun records are used became 
     particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, 
     when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John 
     Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. 
     from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 
     suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 
     investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records 
     in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law 
     that created the system for instant background gun checks, 
     but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said 
     they saw no such prohibition.
       In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask 
     Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people 
     listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be 
     automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would 
     require a change in federal law.
       F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current 
     approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but 
     they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as 
     established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice 
     Department.
       ``We're in a tough position,'' said an F.B.I. official who 
     spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not 
     been formally released. ``Obviously, we want to keep guns out 
     of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of 
     privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything 
     beyond what the law allows us to do.''
       After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second 
     Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy 
     in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-
     checking between gun-buying records and terrorist 
     intelligence.
       Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run 
     against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if 
     there is a match, bureau field agents or other 
     counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine 
     whether they have any information about the terror suspect.
       In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block 
     a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise 
     have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information 
     into the database, the accountability office's report said.
       In one instance last year, follow-up information provided 
     by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror 
     watch list was deemed ``mentally defective,'' even though 
     that information had not yet made its way into the gun 
     database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an 
     applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications 
     were denied.
       Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department 
     should clarify what information could and could not be shared 
     between gun-buying administrators and terrorism 
     investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep 
     closer track of the performance of state officials who handle 
     gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.
       ``Given that these background checks involve known or 
     suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security 
     risks,'' the report said, ``more frequent F.B.I. oversight or 
     centralized management would help ensure that suspected 
     terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain 
     firearms in violation of the law.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Santorum, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 579. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
funding for the establishment of a program on children and the media 
within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to 
study the role and impact of electronic media in the development of 
children, to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum, Landrieu, Ensign and Durbin, the 
Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. We believe 
there is an urgent need to establish a federal role for targeting 
research on the impact of media on children. From the cradle to the 
grave, our children now live and develop in a world of media--a world 
that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at their 
fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, 
but its effects on their development are not well understood. Young 
people today are spending an average of 6 and a half hours with media 
each day. For those who are under age 6, two hours of exposure to 
screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. 
That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing 
outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being 
read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect 
children's physical development, their cognitive development, or their 
moral values? Unfortunately, we still have very limited information 
about how media, particularly the newer interactive media, affect 
children's development. Why? We have not charged any Federal agency 
with ensuring an ongoing funding base to establish a coherent research 
agenda about the impact of media on children's lives. This lack of a 
coordinated government-sponsored effort to understand the effects of 
media on children's development is truly an oversight on our part, as 
the potential payoffs for this kind of knowledge are enormous.

[[Page S2395]]

  Consider our current national health crisis of childhood obesity. The 
number of U.S. children and teenagers who are overweight has more than 
tripled from the 1960's through 2002. We think that media exposure is 
partly the cause of this epidemic. Is it? Is time spent viewing screens 
and its accompanying sedentary lifestyle contributing to childhood and 
adolescent obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements 
for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade 
children's television advertisements the culprit? How do the newer 
online forms of ``stealth marketing'', such as advergaming where food 
products are embedded in computer games, affect children's and 
adolescents' purchasing patterns? What will happen when pop-up 
advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that 
specifically target them for the junk food that they like best at a 
place where that food is easily obtainable? The answer to the obesity 
and media question is complex. A committee at the National Academy of 
Sciences is currently charged with studying the link between media 
advertising and childhood obesity. Will the National Academy of 
Sciences panel have the data they need to answer this important 
question? A definitive answer has the potential to save a considerable 
amount of money in other areas of our budget. For example, child health 
care costs that are linked to childhood obesity issues could be reduced 
by understanding and altering media diets.
  Or take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and 
killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns 
on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media 
played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part 
from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they 
acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when 
playing this game? We looked to the research community for an answer. 
In the violence and media area, Congress had passed legislation in the 
past so that research was conducted about the relationship between 
media violence and childhood aggression, and as a result, we knew more. 
Even though much of this data base was older and involved the link 
between exposure to violent television programs and childhood 
aggression, some answers were forthcoming about how the Columbine 
tragedy could have taken place. Even so, there is still a considerable 
amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these 
particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while 
others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming 
context? We need to be able to answer questions about which children 
under what circumstances will translate game playing into real-life 
lethal actions. Investing in media research could potentially reduce 
our budgets associated with adolescent crime and delinquency as well as 
reduce real-life human misery and suffering.
  Many of us believe that our children are becoming increasingly 
materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and the ``good 
life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic 
attitudes? We're not sure. Recent research using brain-mapping 
techniques finds that an adult who sees images of desired 
products demonstrates patterns of brain activation that are typically 
associated with reaching out with a hand. How does repeatedly seeing 
attractive products affect our children and their developing brains? 
What will happen when our children will be able to click on their 
television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products 
that they see in their favorite programs? Or use their cell phones to 
pay for products that they want in the immediate environment? Exactly 
what kind of values are we cultivating in our children, and what role 
does exposure to media content play in the development of those values?

  A report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms 
that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. 
However, we don't know the direction of the relationship. Does 
television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have 
attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging 
than children who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose 
children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more 
television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How 
will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move 
rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and 
attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer. If early 
television exposure does disrupt the development of children's 
attention patterns, resulting in their placement in special education 
programs, actions taken to reduce screen exposure during the early 
years could lead to subsequent reductions in children's need for 
special education classes, thereby saving money while fostering 
children's development in positive ways.
  We want no child left behind in the 21st century. Many of us believe 
that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them 
the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we 
right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with 
television? What are the underlying mechanisms that facilitate or 
disrupt children's learning from these varying media? Can academic 
development be fostered by the use of interactive online programs 
designed to teach as they entertain? In the first six years of life, 
Caucasian more so than African American or Latino children have 
Internet access from their homes. Can our newer interactive media help 
ensure that no child is left behind, or will disparities in access 
result in leaving some behind and not others?
  The questions about how media affect the development of our children 
are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the 
answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our 
knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media 
policy.
  We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held 
numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media 
violence affects childhood aggression. We passed legislation to 
maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such 
as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide 
educational and informational television programs for children. Can we 
foster children's moral values when they are exposed to prosocial 
programs that foster helping, sharing, and cooperating like those that 
have come into being as a result of the Children's Television Act? We 
acted to protect our children from unfair commercial practices by 
passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides 
safeguards from exploitation for our youth as they explore the 
Internet, a popular pastime for them. Yet the Internet has provided new 
ways to reach children with marketing that we barely know is taking 
place, making our ability to protect our children all the more 
difficult. We worry about our children's inadvertent exposure to online 
pornography--about how that kind of exposure may undermine their moral 
values and standards of decency. In these halls of Congress, we acted 
to protect our children by passing the Communications Decency Act, the 
Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act 
to shield children from exposure to sexually-explicit online content 
that is deemed harmful to minors. While we all agree that we need to 
protect our children from online pornography, we know very little about 
how to address even the most practical of questions such as how to 
prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them 
online. There are so many areas in which our understanding is 
preliminary at best, particularly in those areas that involve the 
effects of our newer digital media.
  In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, 
the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions 
we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific 
research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for 
overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide 
these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research 
in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We 
can do better than that.
  The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The

[[Page S2396]]

CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by 
establishing a program devoted to Children and Media within the 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program 
of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will 
fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the 
role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and 
behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic 
media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, 
cell phones, and the Internet, and will encourage research involving 
children of all ages--even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for 
a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program 
in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish 
these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in 
gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal 
and can well result in significant savings in other budget areas.
  Our Nation values the positive, healthy development of our children. 
Our children live in the information age, and our country has one of 
the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in 
the world. While this system entertains them, it is not harmless 
entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy 
growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a 
stake in finding out exactly what that role is. We have a 
responsibility to take action. Access to the knowledge that we need for 
informed decision-making requires us to make an investment: an 
investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an 
investment in our collective future. The benefits to our youth and our 
nation's families are immeasurable.
  By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can 
advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while 
minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that 
are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather 
than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, 
fostering the kinds of values that are the backbone of this great 
nation of ours, and we create a better foundation to guide future media 
policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's 
daily lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

                                 s. 579

       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 ``Children and Media Research 
     Advancement Act'' or the ``CAMRA Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress has recognized the important role of 
     electronic media in children's lives when it passed the 
     Children's Television Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-437) and 
     the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104), both 
     of which documented public concerns about how electronic 
     media products influence children's development.
       (2) Congress has held hearings over the past several 
     decades to examine the impact of specific types of media 
     products such as violent television, movies, and video games 
     on children's and adolescent's health and development. These 
     hearings and other public discussions about the role of media 
     in children's and adolescent's development require behavioral 
     and social science research to inform the policy 
     deliberations.
       (3) There are important gaps in our knowledge about the 
     role of electronic media and in particular, the newer 
     interactive digital media, in children's and adolescent's 
     healthy development. The consequences of very early screen 
     usage by babies and toddlers on children's cognitive growth 
     are not yet understood, nor has a research base been 
     established on the psychological consequences of high 
     definition interactive media and other format differences for 
     child and adolescent viewers.
       (4) Studies have shown that children who primarily watch 
     educational shows on television during their preschool years 
     are significantly more successful in school 10 years later 
     even when critical contributors to the child's environment 
     are factored in, including their household income, parent's 
     education, and intelligence.
       (5) The early stages of childhood are a critical formative 
     period for development. Virtually every aspect of human 
     development is affected by the environments and experiences 
     that one encounters during his or her early childhood years, 
     and media exposure is an increasing part of every child's 
     social and physical environment.
       (6) As of the late 1990's, just before the National 
     Institute of Child Health and Human Development funded 5 
     studies on the role of sexual messages in the media on 
     children's and adolescent's sexual attitudes and sexual 
     practices, a review of research in this area found only 15 
     studies ever conducted in the United States on this topic, 
     even during a time of growing concerns about HIV infection.
       (7) In 2001, a National Academy of Sciences study group 
     charged with studying Internet pornography exposure on youth 
     found virtually no literature about how much children and 
     adolescents were exposed to Internet pornography or how such 
     content impacts their development.
       (8) In order to develop strategies that maximize the 
     positive and minimize the negative effects of each medium on 
     children's physical, cognitive, social, and emotional 
     development, it would be beneficial to develop a research 
     program that can track the media habits of young children and 
     their families over time using valid and reliable research 
     methods.
       (9) Research about the impact of the media on children and 
     adolescents is not presently supported through one primary 
     programmatic effort. The responsibility for directing the 
     research is distributed across disparate agencies in an 
     uncoordinated fashion, or is overlooked entirely. The lack of 
     any centralized organization for research minimizes the value 
     of the knowledge produced by individual studies. A more 
     productive approach for generating valuable findings about 
     the impact of the media on children and adolescents would be 
     to establish a single, well-coordinated research effort with 
     primary responsibility for directing the research agenda.
       (10) Due to the paucity of research about electronic media, 
     educators and others interested in implementing electronic 
     media literacy initiatives do not have the evidence needed to 
     design, implement, or assess the value of these efforts.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to enable the 
     National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to--
       (1) examine the role and impact of electronic media in 
     children's and adolescent's cognitive, social, emotional, 
     physical, and behavioral development; and
       (2) provide for a report to Congress containing the 
     empirical evidence and other results produced by the research 
     funded through grants under this Act.

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA 
                   IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS.

       Subpart 7 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285g et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 452H. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC 
                   MEDIA IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN AND 
                   ADOLESCENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute shall 
     enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy 
     of Science in collaboration with the Institute of Medicine to 
     establish an independent panel of experts to review, 
     synthesize and report on research, theory, and applications 
     in the social, behavioral, and biological sciences and to 
     establish research priorities regarding the positive and 
     negative roles and impact of electronic media use, including 
     television, motion pictures, DVD's, interactive video games, 
     and the Internet, and exposure to that content and medium on 
     youth in the following core areas of child and adolescent 
     development:
       ``(1) Cognitive.--The role and impact of media use and 
     exposure in the development of children and adolescents 
     within such cognitive areas as language development, 
     attention span, problem solving skills (such as the ability 
     to conduct multiple tasks or `multitask'), visual and spatial 
     skills, reading, and other learning abilities.
       ``(2) Physical.--The role and impact of media use and 
     exposure on children's and adolescent's physical 
     coordination, diet, exercise, sleeping and eating routines, 
     and other areas of physical development.
       ``(3) Socio-behavioral.--The influence of interactive media 
     on children's and adolescent's family activities and peer 
     relationships, including indoor and outdoor play time, 
     interaction with parents, consumption habits, social 
     relationships, aggression, prosocial behavior, and other 
     patterns of development.
       ``(b) Pilot Projects.--During the first year in which the 
     National Academy of Sciences panel is summarizing the data 
     and creating a comprehensive research agenda in the children 
     and adolescents and media area under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall provide for the conduct of initial pilot 
     projects to supplement and inform the panel in its work. Such 
     pilot projects shall consider the role of media exposure on--
       ``(1) cognitive and social development during infancy and 
     early childhood; and
       ``(2) the development of childhood and adolescent obesity, 
     particularly as a function of media advertising and sedentary 
     lifestyles that may co-occur with heavy media diets.
       ``(c) Research Program.--Upon completion of the review 
     under subsection (a), the Director of the National Institute 
     of Child Health and Human Development shall develop and 
     implement a program that funds

[[Page S2397]]

     additional research determined to be necessary by the panel 
     under subsection (a) concerning the role and impact of 
     electronic media in the cognitive, physical, and socio-
     behavioral development of children and adolescents with a 
     particular focus on the impact of factors such as media 
     content, format, length of exposure, age of child or 
     adolescent, and nature of parental involvement. Such program 
     shall include extramural and intramural research and shall 
     support collaborative efforts to link such research to other 
     National Institutes of Health research investigations on 
     early child health and development.
       ``(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an entity shall--
       ``(1) prepare and submit to the Director of the Institute 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Director may require; and
       ``(2) agree to use amounts received under the grant to 
     carry out activities that establish or implement a research 
     program relating to the effects of media on children and 
     adolescents pursuant to guidelines developed by the Director 
     relating to consultations with experts in the area of study.
       ``(e) Use of Funds Relating to the Media's Role in the Life 
     of a Child or Adolescent.--An entity shall use amounts 
     received under a grant under this section to conduct research 
     concerning the social, cognitive, emotional, physical, and 
     behavioral development of children or adolescents as related 
     to electronic mass media, including the areas of--
       ``(1) television;
       ``(2) motion pictures;
       ``(3) DVD's;
       ``(4) interactive video games;
       ``(5) the Internet; and
       ``(6) cell phones.
       ``(f) Reports.--
       ``(1) Report to director.--Not later than 12 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the panel under 
     subsection (a) shall submit the report required under such 
     subsection to the Director of the Institute.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31, 
     2011, the Director of the Institute shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
     the Senate, and Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
     the House of Representatives a report that--
       ``(A) summarizes the empirical evidence and other results 
     produced by the research under this section in a manner that 
     can be understood by the general public;
       ``(B) places the evidence in context with other evidence 
     and knowledge generated by the scientific community that 
     address the same or related topics; and
       ``(C) discusses the implications of the collective body of 
     scientific evidence and knowledge regarding the role and 
     impact of the media on children and adolescents, and makes 
     recommendations on how scientific evidence and knowledge may 
     be used to improve the healthy developmental and learning 
     capacities of children and adolescents.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       ``(5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Hagel, 
        and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 580. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain modifications to be made to qualified mortgages held by a REMIC 
or a grantor trust; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Real Estate 
Mortgage Investment Conduit Modernization Act. I am pleased to join my 
colleague and friend, Senator Kent Conrad, in introducing this 
legislation to accelerate economic growth for America.
  A Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) is a tax vehicle 
created by Congress in 1986 to support the housing market and 
investment in real estate by making it simpler to issue real estate 
backed securities.
  By pooling real estate loans into mortgage backed securities, REMICs 
offer residential and commercial real estate borrowers access to 
capital that would not otherwise be available. REMICs enable commercial 
banks and other lenders to sell their loans in the capital markets, 
thereby freeing up assets for additional lending and investments. 
Because they contribute to the efficiency and liquidity of the U.S. 
real estate markets, REMICs help to minimize the costs of residential 
and commercial real estate borrowing and to spur real estate 
development and rehabilitation.
  REMICs play a critical role in providing capital for residential and 
commercial mortgages. As of September 30, 2004, the value of single-
family, multi-family and commercial-mortgage backed REMICs outstanding 
was $2.2 trillion. While the current volume of REMIC transactions 
reflects their important role in this market, certain changes to the 
tax code will eliminate impediments and unleash even greater potential. 
Current rules that govern REMICs often prevent many common loan 
modifications that facilitate loan administration and ensure repayment 
of investors.
  Unfortunately, the legislation that created REMICs has not changed in 
nearly 20 years. Our legislation will update the REMIC provisions of 
the tax code. These proposed changes are simple, non-controversial, and 
will greatly enhance the ability of commercial real estate interests to 
obtain capital for financing new construction projects.
  These changes would ultimately benefit the entire real estate 
community, including local real estate owners, builders, construction 
managers as well as engineering, architectural and interior design 
firms that provide real estate services. Firms that offer services to 
support real estate sales will also be assisted. The end result is that 
these changes would accelerate the creation of jobs and economic 
activity throughout the U.S., and would have a positive effect on 
federal and state tax revenues. By encouraging property renovations and 
expansions, these changes would strengthen the local property tax base 
in towns and cities across America.
  We urge our colleagues to work with us to enact this legislation to 
spur economic and employment growth in real estate, the construction 
trades, and the building materials industry.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 580

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS PERMITTED TO QUALIFIED 
                   MORTGAGES HELD BY A REMIC OR A GRANTOR TRUST.

       (a) Qualified Mortgages Held by a REMIC.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 860G(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Qualified modifications.--
       ``(i) In general.--An obligation shall not fail to be 
     treated as a qualified mortgage solely because of a qualified 
     modification of such obligation.
       ``(ii) Qualified modification.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified modification' means, with 
     respect to any obligation, any amendment, waiver, or other 
     modification which is treated as a disposition of such 
     obligation under section 1001 if such amendment, waiver or 
     other modification does not--

       ``(I) extend the final maturity date of the obligation,
       ``(II) increase the outstanding principal balance under the 
     obligation (other than the capitalization of accrued, unpaid 
     interest),
       ``(III) result in a release of an interest in real property 
     securing the obligation such that the obligation is not 
     principally secured by an interest in real property 
     (determined after giving effect to the release), or
       ``(IV) result in an instrument or property right which is 
     not debt for Federal income tax purposes.

       ``(iii) Defaults.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, any amendment, waiver, or other modification of an 
     obligation which is in default or with respect to which 
     default is reasonably foreseeable may be treated as a 
     qualified modification for purposes of this section.
       ``(iv) Defeasance with government securities.--The 
     requirements of clause (ii)(III) shall be treated as 
     satisfied if, after the release described in such clause, the 
     obligation is principally secured by Government securities 
     and the amendment, waiver, or other modification to such 
     obligation satisfies such requirements as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.''.
       (2) Exception from prohibited transaction rules.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 860F(a)(2) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) a qualified modification (as defined in section 
     860G(a)(3)(C)).''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 860G(a)(3) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A) as subclauses (I) and (II), respectively;
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as 
     clauses (i) through (iv), respectively;
       (iii) by striking `The term' and inserting the following:

[[Page S2398]]

       ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
       (iv) by striking ``For purposes of subparagraph (A)'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing 
     corporations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)''.
       (B) Section 860G(a)(3)(A)(iv) of such Code (as redesignated 
     by subparagraph (A)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A)'' and inserting ``subclauses (I) and (II) of clause 
     (i)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``subparagraph (A) (without regard to such 
     clauses)'' and inserting ``clause (i) (without regard to such 
     subclauses)''.
       (b) Qualified Mortgages Held by a Grantor Trust.--Section 
     672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Special Rule for Certain Investment Trusts.--A 
     grantor shall not fail to be treated as the owner of any 
     portion of a trust under this subpart solely because such 
     portion includes one or more obligations with respect to 
     which a qualified modification (within the meaning of section 
     860G(a)(3)(C)) has been, or may be, made under the terms of 
     such trust.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amendments, waivers, and other modifications 
     made after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 583. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the proper tax treatment of certain disaster mitigation payments; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, tax day is right around the corner; just 
over a month away. For most Americans, April 15 is rather routine. You 
spend several days or weeks determining the amount you owe and you pay 
it. But for Christina and Raymond F., two of my constituents--I will 
not use their last name to maintain their privacy--of Avondale, LA, 
this upcoming tax day is going to be anything but routine. Earlier this 
year, Christina and Raymond received a letter from their parish 
government informing them that they must add $45,000 to their gross 
income this year.
  You see, Christina and Raymond's home is located in a flood zone. 
That is not unusual in Louisiana. Twenty percent of the coastal zone of 
my state lies below sea level, including 80 percent of our largest city 
New Orleans. In order to protect their home from rising waters, they 
applied to their local parish to get flood mitigation assistance to 
raise their home above the base flood elevation in their area. To 
qualify, they had to raise $20,000, which they did by refinancing their 
home, and the parish paid the remaining $45,000 through FEMA's National 
Flood Insurance Program. What Christina and Raymond did not realize was 
that at the very same time that they were having this work done on 
their home, the Internal Revenue Service had decided that FEMA disaster 
mitigation assistance should be taxable. So now, this couple is going 
to have to pay taxes on $45,000 even though they never saw a dime of 
this money.
  This news hit this family like a Category 4 hurricane. When Christina 
called my office she thought she said she would have to sell her house 
in order pay the IRS. This is a family with modest means, living in a 
neighborhood that they describe as working class. Her husband's medical 
costs are astronomical--$1,400 per month for his medication alone. The 
house is worth about $100,000 and the mitigation work did not add a 
significant amount to its value according to an appraisal they 
received. You can imagine that under these circumstances, the taxes on 
an additional $45,000 would wipe them out.
  In a place like Louisiana where hurricanes and floods are as much a 
part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras, the key to our peace of 
mind is the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA. In 
Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood 
Insurance Program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state.
  In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides funding 
for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood 
mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the 
states which then pass them along to local communities. The local 
communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the 
mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on 
stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing 
materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take 
responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property 
damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit 
of saving money in the long term for the Flood Insurance program.
  But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and 
prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property 
owners by making these payments taxable. The first time Christina and 
Raymond learned that this funding was taxable was when their local 
community sent them a letter at the beginning of this year.
  All the people in my state ask for is a warning and an opportunity to 
protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from these 
disasters. Through the state-of-the-art systems developed by the 
National Weather Service, we can get a warning about a hurricane. We 
have sophisticated radar to track these storms as they move through the 
Gulf of Mexico, or up the East Coast. When a Category 4 is coming we 
can prepare and pray. The IRS is making us prepare and pay.
  This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision. 
Unfair and unexpected because no one told Christina and Raymond that 
they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. 
The local officials in their parish were just as surprised as the 
property owners were. It is unfortunate policy because in the long 
term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a 
means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It 
will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a 
disaster.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to protect these responsible 
property owners from this unfair tax. My bill excludes disaster 
mitigation assistance from gross income. I have made it retroactive to 
last year in order to protect those property owners who received 
assistance in 2004.
  I understand that a companion measure has been introduced in the 
House of Representatives by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida. It is 
supported by a number of House members from states with high incidents 
of flooding and other natural disasters, many from Louisiana. I applaud 
their efforts.
  But this is not a regional, special-interest bill. FEMA makes 
mitigation grants for a variety of hazards in addition to flooding: 
fire, tornadoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, dam failures, and a host 
of others. This is not a problem just for properties that flood. So if 
your citizens have used a federal disaster mitigation program to help 
make their properties safer, the tax man will come for them too.
  It is essential that the Congress consider this legislation and pass 
it as soon as possible. As I said at the start of my remarks, tax day 
is coming. We need to act to protect responsible property owners from 
paying this unfair tax.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 584. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to allow the 
continued occupancy and use of certain land and improvements within 
Rocky Mountain National Park; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 585. A bill to better provide for compensation for certain persons 
injured in the course of employment at the Rocky Flats site in 
Colorado; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of 
legislation important to my great State of Colorado.
  Last week, I introduced one bill and proudly cosponsored two others 
to make good on our Nation's promise to honor and care for our 
veterans. Today, I am introducing a bill to discharge our debt to 
another group of patriotic Americans who served our Nation during the 
cold war--our nuclear weapons workers.
  Many Americans contributed to our victory over communism in the cold 
war, including dedicated and brave men and women working in the 
laboratories and factories that fashioned the nuclear weapons that 
helped bring the former Soviet Union to its knees. As a result of this 
patriotic service, many of these nuclear weapons workers contracted 
cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases.
  In 2000, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear 
weapons

[[Page S2399]]

workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury 
Compensation Act to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for 
their work-related illnesses, or to their survivors when these 
illnesses took their lives
  But today, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape 
prevents many nuclear weapons workers from receiving the benefits that 
Congress intended, including many workers who served at the Rocky Flats 
facility in Colorado
  Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing 
plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and 
crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men 
and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our 
national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe 
them an enormous debt of gratitude.
  These men and women were exposed to radioactive elements and other 
toxic compounds that we are still trying to identify, in amounts that 
we can only guess at. We don't know what they were exposed to, how much 
or when. Part of the problem is that the existing science and 
technology did not allow us to monitor accurately. Part of the problem 
is that critical records have been lost or, in many cases, were never 
created by the government and its contractors.
  Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to 
realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers 
were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to 
the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or 
impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received.
  To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure 
Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified 
cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure
  The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort 
status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its 
contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of 
the 2000 Act
  As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from 
one of the 22 listed cancers can receive benefits despite the 
inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its 
contractors
  My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill introduced 
by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Bob Beauprez from 
Colorado. I look forward to bipartisan support in the Senate.
  I am also proud to introduce a separate bill, this one to re-inject a 
small dose of humanity into our Federal bureaucracy.
  Betty Dick is an 83-year-old woman who has spent much of the past 25 
years on property within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National 
Park. Over the course of those 25 years, Betty Dick has become a 
cherished part of the Grand Lake community. She has been a good citizen 
and has been happy to share her family's beautiful cabin for civic 
events, and she has been a good neighbor to the National Park.
  But now, the National Park Service believes that it is compelled to 
evict Betty Dick. My bill, and a bipartisan companion bill introduced 
by Congressman Mark Udall and supported by Congressman Tom Tancredo, 
will authorize and instruct the Park Service to allow Mrs. Dick to 
spend her last few summers at her cherished Grand Lake home.
  Mrs. Dick has been living on this property subject to a 25 year lease 
with the Park Service. Fred Dick, Betty's husband, died in 1992. Mrs. 
Dick knows she doesn't have too many summers left, but she would like 
to spend them in her home.
  The Park Service is apparently concerned that it does not have the 
authority to extend or renew this lease or it is worried that to do so 
would set a bad precedent. On this, I respectfully disagree with my 
friends at the Park Service. I think evicting an 83-year-old woman from 
her family cabin would set a bad precedent.
  My bill would simply require the Secretary of the Interior, as boss 
of the National Park Service, to enter into an agreement that will 
allow Betty Dick to continue to occupy her family cabin and property 
within Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dick 
will continue to pay the rent that has been due under the prior lease. 
Mrs. Dick's children and grandchildren will have no right to occupy the 
property after her death, and the cabin and property will then be 
managed by the Park Service.
  I hope we haven't reached the point where we can't find a way to play 
a role in helping Betty Dick spend her last summers on the land that 
she loves.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 584

       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 ``Betty Dick Residence 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) before their divorce, Fred and Marilyn Dick, owned as 
     tenants in common a tract of land that included the property 
     described in section 5(b);
       (2) when Fred and Marilyn Dick divorced, Marilyn Dick 
     became the sole owner of the tract of land, but Fred Dick 
     retained the right of first refusal to acquire the tract of 
     land;
       (3) in 1977, Marilyn Dick sold the tract to the United 
     States for addition to Rocky Mountain National Park, but Fred 
     Dick, asserting his right of first refusal, sued to cancel 
     the transaction;
       (4) in 1980, the lawsuit was settled through an agreement 
     between the National Park Service, Fred Dick, and the heirs, 
     successors, and assigns of Fred Dick;
       (5) under the 1980 settlement agreement, Fred Dick and his 
     wife, Betty Dick, were allowed to lease and occupy the 23 
     acres comprising the property described in section 5(b) for 
     25 years;
       (6) Fred Dick died in 1992, but Betty Dick has continued to 
     lease and occupy the property described in section 5(b) under 
     the terms of the settlement agreement;
       (7) Betty Dick's right to lease and occupy the property 
     described in section 5(b) will expire on July 16, 2005, at 
     which time Betty Dick will be 83 years old;
       (8) Betty Dick wishes to continue to occupy the property 
     for the remainder of her life and has sought to enter into a 
     new agreement with the National Park Service that would allow 
     her to continue to occupy the property;
       (9) the National Park Service has not been willing to enter 
     into a new agreement with Betty Dick and is demanding that 
     she vacate the property by July 16, 2005;
       (10) since 1980, Betty Dick--
       (A) has consistently occupied the property described in 
     section 5(b) as a summer residence;
       (B) has made the property available for community events; 
     and
       (C) has been a good steward of the property;
       (11) Betty Dick's occupancy of the property has not--
       (A) been detrimental to the resources and values of Rocky 
     Mountain National Park; or
       (B) created problems for the National Park Service or the 
     public; and
       (12) under the circumstances, it is appropriate for Betty 
     Dick to be allowed to continue her occupancy of the property 
     described in section 5(b) for the remainder of her natural 
     life under the terms and conditions applicable to her 
     occupancy of the property since 1980.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to require the Secretary of the 
     Interior to permit the continued occupancy and use of the 
     property described in section 5(b) by Betty Dick for the 
     remainder of her natural life.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement 
     between the National Park Service and Fred Dick entitled 
     ``Settlement Agreement'' and dated July 17, 1980.
       (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Betty 
     Dick Residence and Barn'' and dated January 2005.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall allow Betty Dick to 
     continue to occupy and use the property described in 
     subsection (b) for the remainder of the natural life of Betty 
     Dick, subject to the requirements of this Act.
       (b) Description of Property.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the land and any improvements to the land 
     within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park 
     identified on the map as ``residence'', ``occupancy area'', 
     and ``barn''.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     occupancy and use of the property identified in subsection 
     (b) by Betty Dick shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions specified in the Agreement.
       (2) Payment.--In exchange for the continued use and 
     occupancy of the property, Betty

[[Page S2400]]

     Dick shall annually pay to the Secretary an amount equal to 
     \1/25\ of the amount specified in section 3(B) of the 
     Agreement.
       (d) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) allows the construction of any structure on the 
     property described in subsection (b) not in existence on 
     November 30, 2004; or
       (2) applies to the occupancy or use of the property 
     described in subsection (b) by any person other than Betty 
     Dick.

                                 S. 585

       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 ``Rocky Flats Special Exposure 
     Cohort Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
     Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) (hereinafter in 
     this section referred to as the ``Act'') was enacted to 
     ensure fairness and equity for the civilian men and women 
     who, during the past 50 years, performed duties uniquely 
     related to the nuclear weapons production and testing 
     programs of the Department of Energy and its predecessor 
     agencies by establishing a program that would provide 
     efficient, uniform, and adequate compensation for beryllium-
     related health conditions and radiation-related health 
     conditions.
       (2) The Act provides a process for consideration of claims 
     for compensation by individuals who were employed at relevant 
     times at various locations, but also included provisions 
     designating employees at certain other locations as members 
     of a special exposure cohort whose claims are subject to a 
     less-detailed administrative process.
       (3) The Act also authorizes the President, upon 
     recommendation of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 
     Health, to designate additional classes of employees at 
     Department of Energy facilities as members of the special 
     exposure cohort if the President determines that--
       (A) it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy 
     the radiation dose that the class received; and
       (B) there is a reasonable likelihood that the radiation 
     dose may have endangered the health of members of the class.
       (4) It has become evident that it is not feasible to 
     estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received 
     by employees at the Department of Energy facility in Colorado 
     known as the Rocky Flats site for the following reasons:
       (A) Many worker exposures were unmonitored over the 
     lifetime of the plant at the Rocky Flats site. Even in 2004, 
     a former worker from the 1950s was monitored under the former 
     radiation worker program of the Department of Energy and 
     found to have a significant internal deposition that had been 
     undetected and unrecorded for more than 50 years.
       (B) No lung counter for detecting and measuring plutonium 
     and americium in the lungs existed at Rocky Flats until the 
     late 1960s. Without this equipment, the very insoluble oxide 
     forms of plutonium cannot be detected, and a large number of 
     workers had inhalation exposures that went undetected and 
     unmeasured.
       (C) Exposure to neutron radiation was not monitored until 
     the late 1950s, and most of those measurements through 1970 
     have been found to be in error. In some areas of the plant 
     the neutron doses were as much as 2 to 10 times as great as 
     the gamma doses received by workers, but only gamma doses 
     were recorded. The old neutron films are being re-read, but 
     those doses have not yet been added to the workers' records 
     or been used in the dose reconstructions for Rocky Flats 
     workers carried out by the National Institute for 
     Occupational Safety and Health.
       (D) Radiation exposures for many workers were not measured 
     or were missing and, as a result, the records are incomplete 
     or estimated doses were assigned. There are many inaccuracies 
     in the exposure records that the Institute is using to 
     determine whether Rocky Flats workers qualify for 
     compensation under the Act.
       (E) The model that has been used for dose reconstruction by 
     the Institute in determining whether Rocky Flats workers 
     qualify for compensation under the Act may be in error. The 
     default values used for particle size and solubility of the 
     internally deposited plutonium in workers are subject to 
     reasonable scientific debate. Use of erroneous values could 
     substantially underestimate the actual internal doses for 
     claimants.
       (5) Some Rocky Flats workers, despite having worked with 
     tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to 
     serious health effects, have been denied compensation under 
     the Act as a result of potentially flawed calculations based 
     on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use 
     of potentially flawed models.
       (6) Achieving the purposes of the Act with respect to 
     workers at Rocky Flats is more likely to be achieved if 
     claims by those workers are subject to the administrative 
     procedures applicable to members of the special exposure 
     cohort.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to revise the 
     Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
     Act so as to include certain past and present Rocky Flats 
     workers as members of the special exposure cohort.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MEMBER OF SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3621(14) of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 7384l(14)) is amended by adding at the end of 
     paragraph (14) the following:
       ``(D) The employee was so employed as a Department of 
     Energy employee or a Department of Energy contractor employee 
     for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 
     before January 1, 2006, at the Rocky Flats site in 
     Colorado.''.
       (b) Reapplication.--A claim that an individual qualifies, 
     by reason of subparagraph (D) of section 3621(14) of that Act 
     (as added by subsection (a)), for compensation or benefits 
     under that Act shall be considered for compensation or 
     benefits, notwithstanding any denial of any other claim for 
     compensation with respect to that individual.

                          ____________________