[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.
____________________