[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 31 (Tuesday, March 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2735-S2746]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 621. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the 15-year recovery period for the depreciation of 
certain leasehold improvements; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
make permanent the 15-year depreciation period for leasehold 
improvements that was enacted on a temporary basis as part of the 
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. I am pleased to be joined in this 
effort by my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Kyl.
  Leasehold improvements are the alterations to leased space made by a 
building owner as part of the lease agreement with a tenant. In actual 
commercial use, leasehold improvements typically last as long as the 
lease--an average of less than 10 years.

[[Page S2736]]

However, until last year, the Internal Revenue Code required leasehold 
improvements to be depreciated over 39 years--the life of the building 
itself.
  Economically, this made no sense. The owner received taxable income 
over the life of the lease, yet could only recover the costs of the 
improvements associated with that lease over 39 years. This mismatch of 
income and expenses was alleviated somewhat by our action last year in 
reducing the recovery period to 15 years.
  A shorter recovery period more closely aligns the expenses incurred 
to construct improvements with the income they generate over the term 
of the lease. By reducing the cost recovery period, the expense of 
making these improvements has fallen more into line with the economics 
of a commercial lease transaction. One of the most important goals of 
this change is to encourage building owners to adapt their buildings to 
fit the needs of today's business tenant.
  It is good for the economy to keep existing buildings commercially 
viable. When older buildings can serve tenants who need modern, 
efficient commercial space, there is less pressure for developing 
greenfields in outlying areas. Americans are concerned about preserving 
open space, natural resources, and a sense of neighborhood.
  Unfortunately, the recovery period reduction enacted last year is 
effective only through the end of 2005. If Congress fails to act before 
the end of this year, the recovery period for leasehold improvements 
placed in service beginning in 2006 would again be 39 years.
  I urge all Senators to join us in supporting this legislation to 
provide rational depreciation treatment for leasehold improvements for 
the long term.
  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. 621

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR 
                   DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 168(e)(3)(E)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining 15-year property) is amended by striking 
     ``before January 1, 2006''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Levine, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 622. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
107-296) to provide for the protection of voluntarily furnished 
confidential information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week marks the first national 
``Sunshine Week.'' The centerpiece of this week is Freedom of 
Information Day, which falls on March 16, the anniversary of James 
Madison's birthday. A firm believer in the need for open and 
accountable government, Madison said, ``A popular government, without 
popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to 
a farce or tragedy or perhaps both.'' Each generation of Americans 
should heed James Madison's warning, and it is fitting and proper that 
today's generations of Americans use this week to revisit the 
potentially damaging limitations placed on access to government 
information in just the last few years.
  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been the centerpiece of 
open government for the 38 years since it came into force in 1967. It 
enables citizens to obtain information on how their government is 
protecting the Nation, spending their tax dollars, and implementing the 
laws their officeholders enact. FOIA helps hold our government 
accountable. It was through FOIA requests that the St. Petersburg Times 
uncovered information showing that since the 1991 Gulf War, and due in 
part to lax security at military bases, thousands of pounds of weapons 
have been lost or stolen from U.S. stockpiles, and some remains 
unaccounted for. The Bremerton Sun newspaper in Washington State used 
FOIA to confirm the mishandling of a nuclear missile at a Navy 
submarine facility. These are examples of the day-to-day importance of 
FOIA in helping Americans safeguard our security infrastructure. There 
are countless other examples of FOIA enabling citizens to obtain 
information relating to health and safety concerns in their cities and 
neighborhoods.
  In 2002, when I voted to support passage of the Homeland Security Act 
(HSA), I voiced concerns about several flaws in the legislation. I 
called for the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to monitor implementation of the new law and to craft corrective 
legislation. One of my chief concerns with the HSA was a subtitle of 
the act that granted an extraordinarily broad exemption to FOIA in 
exchange for the cooperation of private companies in sharing 
information with the government regarding vulnerabilities in the 
nation's critical infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, the law that was enacted undermines Federal and State 
sunshine laws permitting the American people to know what their 
government is doing. Rather than increasing security by encouraging 
private sector disclosure to the government, it guts FOIA at the 
expense of our national security and the safety and health of the 
American people.
  Today, with my distinguished colleagues Senators Levin, Feingold, and 
Lieberman I reintroduce legislation to restore the integrity of FOIA. I 
thank my colleagues for working with me on this important issue of 
public oversight. We first offered this bill, which we call the 
Restoration of Freedom of Information Act, or ``Restore FOIA,'' in the 
108th Congress.
  ``Restore FOIA'' protects Americans' right to know while 
simultaneously providing security to those in the private sector who 
voluntarily submit critical infrastructure records to the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS).
  Encouraging cooperation between the private sector and the government 
to keep our critical infrastructure systems safe from terrorist attacks 
is a goal we all support. But the appropriate way to meet this goal is 
a source of great debate a debate that has been all but ignored since 
the enactment of the HSA.
  The HSA created a new FOIA exemption for ``critical infrastructure 
information.'' That broadly defined term applies to information 
covering a wide variety of facilities such as privately operated power 
plants, bridges, dams, ports, or chemical plants that might be targeted 
for a terrorist attack. In HSA negotiations in 2002, House Republicans 
and the Administration promoted language that they described as 
necessary to encourage owners of such facilities to identify 
vulnerabilities in their operations and share that information with 
DHS. The stated goal was to ensure that steps could be taken to ensure 
the facilities' protection and proper functioning.
  In fact, such descriptions of the legislation were disingenuous. 
These provisions, which were eventually enacted in the HSA, shield from 
FOIA almost any voluntarily submitted document stamped by the facility 
owner as ``critical infrastructure.'' This is true no matter how 
tangential the content of that document may be to the actual security 
of a facility. The law effectively allows companies to hide information 
about public health and safety from the American people even from 
neighbors of such a facility in its local community--simply by 
submitting it to DHS. The enacted provisions were called ``deeply 
flawed'' by Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation in a November 20, 
2002, Washington Post op-ed. He argued that the ``loophole'' created by 
the law ``could be manipulated by clever corporate and government 
operators to hide endless varieties of potentially embarrassing and/or 
criminal information from public view.''
  In addition, under the HSA, disclosure by private facilities to DHS 
neither obligates the private company to address the vulnerability, nor 
requires DHS to fix the problem. For example, in the case of a chemical 
spill, the law bars the government from disclosing information without 
the written consent of the company that caused the pollution. As the 
Washington Post pointed out in an editorial on February 10, 2003, ``A 
company might preempt environmental regulators by 'voluntarily' 
divulging incriminating material, thereby making it unavailable to 
anyone else.''

[[Page S2737]]

  The law also 1. shields the companies from lawsuits to compel 
disclosure, 2. criminalizes otherwise legitimate whistleblower activity 
by DHS employees, and 3. preempts any state or local disclosure laws.
  Finally, the HSA requires no reporting whatsoever to the Congress or 
the public on critical infrastructure submissions to DHS. As a result, 
it is nearly impossible for the public to learn whether this law is 
being followed in good faith, whether it is being manipulated by 
submitters, and whether DHS is conducting due diligence on submissions. 
It also places hurdles before those of us in Congress who believe in 
effective oversight.
  In an effort to obtain some basic data on the treatment of ``critical 
infrastructure information'' at DHS, two organizations filed a FOIA 
request in 2004. OMB Watch and the Electronic Privacy Information 
Center sought public release of the number of submissions and 
rejections under the law, and of any communications between DHS and 
submitters. They also requested the Department's program procedures for 
handling information. DHS did not provide answers. The groups filed a 
complaint, and the D.C. District Court ordered DHS to respond. We 
learned that as of February 2005, the critical infrastructure program 
received 29 submissions and rejected seven of those. We know nothing of 
the substance of the accepted submissions, what vulnerabilities they 
may describe, or what is being done to address them.

  Most businesses are good citizens and take seriously their 
obligations to the government and the public, but this ``disclose-and-
immunize'' provision is subject to abuse by those businesses that want 
to exploit legal technicalities to avoid regulatory guidelines that are 
designed to protect the public's health and safety. The HSA lays out 
the perfect blueprint to avoid legal liability: funnel damaging 
information into this voluntary disclosure system and preempt the 
government or others harmed by the company's actions from being able to 
use it against the company. This is not the kind of two-way public-
private cooperation that serves the public interest.
  The HSA FOIA exemption goes so far in exempting such a large amount 
of material from FOIA's disclosure requirements that it undermines 
government openness without making any real gains in safety for 
families in Vermont and across America. We do not keep America safer by 
chilling federal officials from warning the public about threats to 
their health and safety. We do not ensure our nation's security by 
refusing to tell the American people whether or not their federal 
agencies are doing their jobs, or whether their government is spending 
their hard-earned tax dollars wisely. We do not encourage real 
cooperation by giving companies protection from civil liability when 
they break the law. We do not respect the spirit of our democracy when 
we cloak in secrecy the workings of our government from the public we 
are elected to serve.
  The Restore FOIA bill I introduce today with Senators Levin, Feingold 
and Lieberman is identical to language I negotiated with Senators Levin 
and Bennett in the summer of 2002 when the HSA charter was debated by 
the Governmental Affairs Committee. Senator Bennett stated in the 
Committee's July 25, 2002, markup that the Administration had endorsed 
the compromise. He also said that industry groups had reported to him 
that the compromise language would make it possible for them to share 
information with the government without fear of the information being 
released to competitors or to other agencies that might accidentally 
reveal it. The Governmental Affairs Committee reported out the 
compromise language that day. Unfortunately, much more restrictive 
House language was eventually signed into law.
  The Restore FOIA bill would correct the problems in the HSA in 
several ways. First, it limits the FOIA exemption to relevant 
``records'' submitted by the private sector, such that only those that 
actually pertain to critical infrastructure safety are protected. 
``Records'' is the standard category referred to in FOIA. This corrects 
the effective free pass given to regulated industries by the HSA for 
any information it labels ``critical infrastructure.''
  Second, unlike the HSA, the Restore FOIA bill allows for government 
oversight, including the ability to use and share the records within 
and between agencies. It does not limit the use of such information by 
the government, except to prohibit public disclosure where such 
information is appropriately exempted under FOIA.
  Third, it protects the actions of legitimate whistleblowers rather 
than criminalizing their acts.
  Fourth, it does not provide civil immunity to companies that 
voluntarily submit information. This corrects a flaw in the current 
law, which would prohibit such information from being used directly in 
civil suits by government or private parties.
  Fifth, unlike the HSA, the Restore FOIA bill allows local authorities 
to apply their own sunshine laws. The Restore FOIA bill does not 
preempt any state or local disclosure laws for information obtained 
outside the Department of Homeland Security. It also does not restrict 
the use of such information by state agencies.
  Finally, the Restore FOIA bill does not restrict congressional use or 
disclosure of voluntarily submitted critical infrastructure 
information.
  These changes to the HSA would accomplish the stated goals of the 
critical infrastructure provisions in the HSA--without tying the hands 
of the government in its efforts to protect Americans and without 
cutting the public out of the loop.
  Restore FOIA is supported by the American Library Association, Common 
Cause, the Freedom of Information Center, OMB Watch, Association of 
Research Libraries, the Project on Government Oversight, and 
OpenTheGovernment.org, among other leading open government 
organizations.
  The argument over the scope of the FOIA and unilateral Executive 
power to shield matters from public scrutiny goes to the heart of our 
fundamental right to be an educated electorate aware of what our 
government is doing. The Rutland Herald got it right in a November 26, 
2002, editorial that explained: ``The battle was not over the right of 
the government to hold sensitive, classified information secret. The 
government has that right. Rather, the battle was over whether the 
government would be required to release anything it sought to 
withhold.''
  We need to fix this troubling restriction on public accountability. 
James Madison's warning is a clear warning to us, and it is our 
generation's duty to heed it. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Restoration of Freedom of Information Act of 2005.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a sectional 
analysis be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 622

       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 ``Restoration of Freedom of 
     Information Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY FURNISHED CONFIDENTIAL 
                   INFORMATION.

       Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 
     et seq.) is amended by striking subtitle B and inserting the 
     following:

    ``Subtitle B--Protection of Voluntarily Furnished Confidential 
                              Information

     ``SEC. 211. PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY FURNISHED CONFIDENTIAL 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Critical infrastructure.--The term `critical 
     infrastructure' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1016(e) of the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
       ``(2) Furnished voluntarily.--
       ``(A) Definition.--The term `furnished voluntarily' means a 
     submission of a record that--
       ``(i) is made to the Department in the absence of authority 
     of the Department requiring that record to be submitted; and
       ``(ii) is not submitted or used to satisfy any legal 
     requirement or obligation or to obtain any grant, permit, 
     benefit (such as agency forbearance, loans, or reduction or 
     modifications of agency penalties or rulings), or other 
     approval from the Government.
       ``(B) Benefit.--In this paragraph, the term `benefit' does 
     not include any warning, alert, or other risk analysis by the 
     Department.
       ``(b) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a record pertaining to the vulnerability of and threats 
     to critical infrastructure (such as attacks, response, and 
     recovery efforts) that is furnished voluntarily to the 
     Department shall not be made available under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code, if--

[[Page S2738]]

       ``(1) the provider would not customarily make the record 
     available to the public; and
       ``(2) the record is designated and certified by the 
     provider, in a manner specified by the Department, as 
     confidential and not customarily made available to the 
     public.
       ``(c) Records Shared With Other Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Response to request.--An agency in receipt of a 
     record that was furnished voluntarily to the Department and 
     subsequently shared with the agency shall, upon receipt of a 
     request under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, for 
     the record--
       ``(i) not make the record available; and
       ``(ii) refer the request to the Department for processing 
     and response in accordance with this section.
       ``(B) Segregable portion of record.--Any reasonably 
     segregable portion of a record shall be provided to the 
     person requesting the record after deletion of any portion 
     which is exempt under this section.
       ``(2) Disclosure of independently furnished records.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this section shall 
     prohibit an agency from making available under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code, any record that the agency 
     receives independently of the Department, regardless of 
     whether or not the Department has a similar or identical 
     record.
       ``(d) Withdrawal of Confidential Designation.--The provider 
     of a record that is furnished voluntarily to the Department 
     under subsection (b) may at any time withdraw, in a manner 
     specified by the Department, the confidential designation.
       ``(e) Procedures.--The Secretary shall prescribe procedures 
     for--
       ``(1) the acknowledgment of receipt of records furnished 
     voluntarily;
       ``(2) the designation, certification, and marking of 
     records furnished voluntarily as confidential and not 
     customarily made available to the public;
       ``(3) the care and storage of records furnished 
     voluntarily;
       ``(4) the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality 
     of records furnished voluntarily; and
       ``(5) the withdrawal of the confidential designation of 
     records under subsection (d).
       ``(f) Effect on State and Local Law.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as preempting or otherwise 
     modifying State or local law concerning the disclosure of any 
     information that a State or local government receives 
     independently of the Department.
       ``(g) Report.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of the Restoration of Freedom of Information 
     Act of 2005, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the committees of Congress specified in 
     paragraph (2) a report on the implementation and use of this 
     section, including--
       ``(A) the number of persons in the private sector, and the 
     number of State and local agencies, that furnished 
     voluntarily records to the Department under this section;
       ``(B) the number of requests for access to records granted 
     or denied under this section; and
       ``(C) such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate regarding improvements in the 
     collection and analysis of sensitive information held by 
     persons in the private sector, or by State and local 
     agencies, relating to vulnerabilities of and threats to 
     critical infrastructure, including the response to such 
     vulnerabilities and threats.
       ``(2) Committees of congress.--The committees of Congress 
     specified in this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Committees on the Judiciary and Government Reform 
     and Oversight of the House of Representatives.
       ``(3) Form.--The report shall be submitted in unclassified 
     form, but may include a classified annex.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents for the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296) is amended by striking the matter 
     relating to subtitle B of title II and inserting the 
     following:

    ``Subtitle B--Protection of Voluntarily Furnished Confidential 
                              Information

``Sec. 211. Protection of Voluntarily Furnished Confidential 
              Information''.


   The Restoration of Freedom of Information Act (``Restore FOIA'') 
                           Sectional Analysis

  Sec. 1. Short title. This section gives the bill the short title, the 
``Restoration of Freedom of Information Act.''
  Sec. 2. Protection of Voluntarily Furnished Confidential Information. 
This section strikes subtitle B (secs. 211-215) of the Homeland 
Security Act (``HSA'')(P.L. 107-296) and inserts a new section 211.
  Sections to be repealed from the HSA: These sections contain an 
exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that (1) exempt from 
disclosure critical infrastructure information voluntarily submitted to 
the new department that was designated as confidential by the submitter 
unless the submitter gave prior written consent; (2) provide civil 
immunity for use of such information in civil actions against the 
company; (3) preempt state sunshine laws if the designated information 
is shared with state or local government agencies; and (4) impose 
criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment on government 
employees who disclosed the designated information.
  Provisions that would replace the repealed sections of the HSA: The 
Restore FOIA bill inserts a new section 211 to the HSA that would 
exempt from the FOIA certain records pertaining to critical 
infrastructure threats and vulnerabilities that are furnished 
voluntarily to the new Department and designated by the provider as 
confidential and not customarily made available to the public. Notably, 
the Restore FOIA bill makes clear that the exemption covers ``records'' 
from the private sector, not all ``information'' provided by the 
private sector, as in the enacted version of the HSA. The Restore FOIA 
bill ensures that portions of records that are not covered by the 
exemption would be released pursuant to FOIA requests. It does not 
provide any civil liability immunity or preempt state or local sunshine 
laws, and it does not criminalize whistleblower activity.
  Specifically, this section of the Restore FOIA bill includes the 
following:

       A definition of ``critical infrastructure": This term is 
     given the meaning adopted in section 1016(e) the USA Patriot 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) which reads, ``critical 
     infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or 
     virtual, so vital to United States that the incapacity or 
     destruction of such systems and assets would have a 
     debilitating impact on security, national economic security, 
     national public health or safety, or any combination of those 
     matters.'' This definition is commonly understood to mean 
     facilities such as bridges, dams, ports, nuclear power 
     plants, or chemical plants.
       A definition of the term ``furnished voluntarily'': This 
     term signifies documents provided to the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS) that are not formally required by the 
     department and that are provided to it to satisfy any legal 
     requirement. The definition excludes any document that is 
     provided to DHS with a permit or grant application or to 
     obtain any other benefit from DHS, such as a loan, agency 
     forbearance, or modification of a penalty.
       An exemption from FOIA of records that pertain to 
     vulnerabilities of and threats to critical infrastructure 
     that are furnished voluntarily to DHS. This exemption is made 
     available where the provider of the record certifies that the 
     information is confidential and would not customarily be 
     released to the public.
       A requirement that other government agencies that have 
     obtained such records from DHS withhold disclosure of the 
     records and refer any FOIA requests to DHS for processing.
       A requirement that reasonably segregable portions of 
     requested documents be disclosed, as is well-established 
     under FOIA.
       An allowance to agencies that obtain critical 
     infrastructure records from a source other than DHS to 
     release requested records consistent with FOIA, regardless of 
     whether DHS has an identical record in its possession.
       An allowance to providers of critical infrastructure 
     records to withdraw the confidentiality designation of 
     records voluntarily submitted to DHS, thereby making the 
     records subject to disclosure under FOIA.
       A direction to the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     establish procedures to receive, designate, store, and 
     protect the confidentiality of records voluntarily submitted 
     and certified as critical infrastructure records.
       A clarification that the bill would not preempt state or 
     local information disclosure laws.
       A requirement for the Comptroller General to report to the 
     House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House Governmental 
     Reform Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs Committee the number of private entities 
     and government agencies that submit records to DHS under the 
     terms of the bill. The report would also include the number 
     of requests for access to records that were granted or 
     denied. Finally, the Comptroller General would make 
     recommendations to the committees for modifications or 
     improvements to the collection and analysis of critical 
     infrastructure information.

  Sec. 3. Technical and conforming amendment. This section amends the 
table of contents of the Homeland Security Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 623. A bill to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey land 
held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the City of 
Richfield, Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Indian 
Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2005.

[[Page S2739]]

This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or 
transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels to the city of Richfield.
  The Paiute Indian Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2005 would allow the 
Secretary of the Interior to transfer three acres of land held in trust 
for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the city of Richfield, UT. The 
city of Richfield would provide fair market value compensation directly 
to the tribe, and pay any costs incurred in this transaction. This land 
transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and 
provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic 
development potential. This bill passed the House last year and I 
introduced it in the Senate, but the Senate bill did not make it 
through the legislative process prior the end of the 108th Congress.
  This proposal has support from all sides. The city of Richfield 
approached the Tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to 
the airport runway. The Tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council 
passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this 
parcel of land to the City. The land in question has not been used by 
the Tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's 
Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development 
potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to 
accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and 
serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 
trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land 
conveyance.
  The Paiute Indian Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2005 would also 
transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from 
the Tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in 
trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from 
land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land 
held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 
acres of land that is either owned by the Kanosh Band or held in trust 
for the Kanosh Band. For more than twenty years, the sole use of this 
land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, 
two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the Tribe 
to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh 
Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for 
the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 
Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was 
mistakenly placed in trust for the Tribe. By way of several Band 
resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this 
error.
  The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be 
transferred from the Tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. 
The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held 
in trust for the Shivwits band, and its sole use has been for the 
Shivwits Band Community Center.
  Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``City'' from the current 
official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name 
which has never been used by the Band of residents of southwestern 
Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, 
regulation, document, paper, or other record, of the United States to 
the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be 
reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''
  I would like to make some clarifications as part of the record. This 
bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase 
land from the Tribe and provide payment directly to the Tribe without 
the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I 
support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make 
lands which were acquired by the United States in trust for the Tribe, 
after February 17, 1984 and prior to the date of the enactment of this 
legislation, a part of the reservation. this clarifies the intent that 
lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the 
reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this 
legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land 
conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to 
such a conveyance.
  This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the 
dilemma that the city of Richfield faces as it works to make its 
airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally 
important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use 
the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic 
development potential to facilitate the well-being of the Tribe. The 
bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and 
technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its 
Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why 
I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer small 
Paiute trust land parcels.
  I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Paiute Indian 
Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 625. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
$1,000 refundable credit for individuals who are bona fide volunteer 
members of volunteer firefighting and emergency medical service 
organizations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today 
and introduce legislation that would allow a $1,000 refundable tax 
credit for the true heroes in our society: those brave and dedicated 
Americans who serve as volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency 
medical service personnel.
  I am introducing today a companion bill to H.R. 934, a bill 
introduced in the House of Representatives by a fellow New Yorker, 
Congressman Maurice Hinchey. His bill is cosponsored by six other New 
York Members of Congress: Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Mike 
McNulty, Jerrold Nadler, and Major Owens.
  Many communities around New York State rely on volunteer firefighters 
and EMTs for much-needed public services, but it is getting harder and 
harder to find people to fill the slots because middle-class families 
have increasing demands on their time, or financial concerns that 
preclude their participation. This bill is designed to offer an 
additional incentive for people to get involved in their communities in 
this vitally important way.
  In 1736, Benjamin Franklin organized the Union Fire Brigade in 
Philadelphia, PA, and ever since, thousands of American municipalities 
have depended on civilians to protect lives and property from the 
ravages of fire. The ``volunteer firefighter'' is a true American 
invention, and its tremendous success for over 200 years has been 
rooted in the spirit of volunteerism that Alexis de Tocqueville was so 
taken with when he visited this country in the 1800s.
  That spirit is still alive today, yet it is becoming increasingly 
hard for municipalities to recruit and retain enough volunteer 
firefighters. Many people simply have less time to devote to community 
service. Families in which both parents work have become commonplace, 
and what little free time is left is often spent on organized 
activities such as youth sports and school functions. At the same time, 
the science of firefighting has evolved, and the mission of fire 
departments has diversified. This has caused the amount of required 
training to increase exponentially. While this is good for safety, it 
greatly increases the overall time commitment that volunteer 
firefighters must make. Twenty-five years ago, a volunteer could join 
and respond to a call in the same day. Today, that same volunteer must 
complete months of training before they can truly participate at an 
emergency.
  The situation has reached a crisis stage in many of our communities. 
According to the Fireman's Association of the State of New York, fewer 
young people are joining the ranks. Many departments are having a hard 
time filling crews, especially during the day when most people are 
working. All across the country, fire departments are depending on 
``mutual aid'' from neighboring departments to supplement their own 
crews. This leads to increased response time, which in turn, places 
further risk on life and property.
  While many local governments understand the need for a recruitment 
incentive, most simply do not have the resources to implement one. At 
the same time, we all understand that our firefighters are often on the 
front lines of the War on Terror, and essential to

[[Page S2740]]

our homeland security. Moreover, every single day we rely on volunteer 
firefighters to save residential and commercial property, and to clean 
up accidents and reopen our highways, all of which protects the 
economic prosperity of many of our communities.
  Let me offer a few examples from my State of how difficult the 
problems of recruitment and retention have become.
  In Duchess County, former fire chief Harold Ramsey is a current 
member of the volunteer corps. His company is 100 percent volunteer, 
with about 30 to 35 current members. When Mr. Ramsey joined the 
department in the mid 1980s, there were 60 to 75 members. They have 
significant suffered a loss of members in the past five years. He 
believes that a tax credit would be a major incentive to younger 
members and would help to recruit new members.
  In Orange County, Jeff Hunt is the President of Dikeman Engine and 
Hose Company in Goshen. His company currently has 55 active members. 
They are getting a new member next month, which will be their first new 
member in five years. In an effort to improve their numbers, they have 
been visiting area schools to recruit, with little success. The company 
has also looked into working with the Boy Scouts of America to increase 
enrollment. Membership is a major concern; during the day shift Mr. 
Hunt says he is lucky to get four or five members to respond to calls. 
That is not even enough to get all of the trucks and equipment out. He 
believes that the $1,000 tax credit would be a ``great start in the 
right direction'' to attract new members.
  In Westchester County, in the town of Lewisboro, Joe Posadas is the 
Chief of the South Salem Fire Department. His department also has 
severe recruitment and retention issues. In next six months, he expects 
to lose three of his top responders. Members of the company are moving 
out of Westchester because they can no longer afford to live there--an 
ongoing problem.
  The company has approximately 35 members on paper, but for daytime 
calls, only four members are typically able to respond. For night 
calls, 10 to 15 can respond. The property tax deduction approved by the 
state is so small that it provides little benefit or incentive for 
recruitment, so Mr. Posadas believes that the $1,000 federal tax credit 
would help. ``Anything we get helps attract new members,'' he said.
  Steve Mann is a member of my staff and a 17-year veteran of a 
volunteer firefighter squad. He is Captain of Engine 4 in Rensselaer, 
NY. His father and uncle are firefighters as well, and I guess you'd 
say it's ``in his blood.'' He devotes most of his spare time to the 
fire department--but with a young family and a demanding job, it's not 
always easy. He tells me that it is becoming harder and harder to find 
people who are willing to devote the necessary time to the fire 
department.
  These are just a few examples.
  Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the federal government to 
take an active role in fixing this problem. This tax credit would give 
municipalities and fire departments an important tool in attracting new 
volunteers, and just as important, in retaining current members. The 
volunteer firefighters are just as important to this country today as 
they were in Benjamin Franklin's day, and we must do all that we can to 
preserve this legacy of service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 626. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve-access to diabetes self management training by designating 
certified diabetes educators who are recognized by a nationally 
recognized certifying body and who meet the same quality standards set 
forth for other providers of diabetes self management training, as 
certified providers for purposes of outpatient diabetes self-management 
training services under part B of the medicare program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. Nelson of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I introduce an important 
piece of legislation that will correct an oversight from the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997.
  In 1997, Congress created a new diabetes benefit under medicare--
diabetes self-management training--but did not create a new provider 
group to deliver it. Congress assumed that the existing diabetes 
education programs in hospitals would be able to provide services to 
all who were in need.
  Certified Diabetes Educators (CDEs) were not given the ability to 
bill Medicare directly for diabetes self-management training when 
Congress passed the new benefit in 1997 because they did not feel there 
was a need to create a new provider because CDEs could work within a 
hospital setting and receive reimbursement through hospital billing.
  However, due to changing health care economics, hospital diabetes 
self-management training programs have been closing at an alarming 
rate, forcing patients to seek other avenues for obtaining diabetes 
self-management training such as clinics and stand-alone programs.
  While small in scope, the Diabetes Self-Management Training act of 
2005 will correct this oversight to ensure our Nation's seniors with 
diabetes have access to this important benefit.
  Diabetes education is very important in my State of Nebraska. 
According to the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, about five 
percent of Nebraska's adults have diagnosed diabetes--or about 60,000 
people. An additional 20,000 Nebraskans probably have diabetes but have 
not been diagnosed.
  While diabetes rates continue to grow at an alarming rate, lack of 
access to diabetes-self management training, which is critical to 
controlling diabetes and preventing secondary complications, has also 
become a chronic problem. Despite the fact that twenty percent of 
Medicare patients have diabetes, and about a quarter of all Medicare 
spending goes to treat diabetes and diabetes-related conditions, less 
than one-third of eligible patients are currently receiving the 
benefit.
  Because CDEs are not able to bill Medicare directly for diabetes 
self-management training, patients have limited options for obtaining 
the training they need to successfully manage their disease and prevent 
expensive and debilitating complications.
  The potential for complications is enormous. If patients with 
diabetes cannot gain access to diabetes self-management training, 
serious complications will arise, such as kidney disease, amputations, 
vision loss, and sever cardiac disease. In fact, half of all Medicare 
dialysis patients suffer from diabetes.
  By improving access to this important benefit, I believe we will take 
an important step toward helping patients control their diabetes, which 
will not only save the Medicare program the significant costs 
associated with the complications from uncontrolled diabetes, but more 
importantly it will dramatically improve the quality of life for the 
millions of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes.
  That is why I am so proud to introduce this bi-partisan legislation, 
the Diabetes Self-Management Training Act of 2005, along with my 
colleague Senator Hutchison.
  Throughout the Medicare debate in 2003, one of the top considerations 
for all Senators was the cost of the legislation and the long-term 
solvency of the Medicare program. In fact, we passed new programs in 
that legislation to begin studying new health care delivery models that 
will improve the outcomes for beneficiaries with chronic diseases like 
Medicare. While I strongly supported those new demonstration programs, 
we need not wait to begin helping our seniors.
  With diabetes already directly affecting so many seniors, and the 
baby boomers on the horizon, we cannot afford to deny seniors access to 
proven programs like diabetes self-management training any longer. I 
look forward to working to pass this legislation and help those with 
diabetes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Smith, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 627. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit, to increase the rates of the 
alternative incremental credit, and to provide an alternative 
simplified credit for qualified research expenses; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my friend 
and colleague Senator Baucus and several of our Finance Committee 
colleagues

[[Page S2741]]

from both sides of the aisle today in introducing legislation that 
would permanently extend and improve the research tax credit.
  Extending the research credit is an important step for the future 
economic growth of the United States. A permanent credit can help our 
economy develop the new technologies that will enhance existing capital 
inputs and make workers more productive. The result will be a stronger 
economy at home, and a more competitive nation abroad. As many of our 
colleagues are aware, the current research credit is set to expire on 
December 31, 2005.
  I believe that if we allow the research credit to expire, we will see 
the negative effects manifest in lower economic growth, fewer jobs 
created, fewer innovative products, and lost opportunities as research 
activities move to other countries with more attractive incentives. We 
should never forget that our Nation's future economic health is 
dependent on the innovations of today.
  In assessing the health of our economy, we find an important 
correlation between economic growth and inflationary pressures. One 
sure way to have strong economic growth without the pain of inflation 
is to increase productivity. And most productivity gains are derived 
from technological advances, which reduce the cost of producing goods 
and services, and thereby help maintain low consumer prices.
  An additional benefit of productivity growth is a corresponding 
increase in corporate profits. Such increases lead to higher returns on 
savings and investment, and higher wages for workers. I believe the 
greatest benefit of increased R&D is productivity growth, which in turn 
forms the foundation of higher living standards.
  Productivity growth also largely determines our society's long-term 
economic welfare. Our ability to deal with budgetary challenges, such 
as Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements, depends 
critically on the future direction of our productivity.
  From 1995 through 2003, average annual productivity growth was three 
percent, double the 1.5 percent growth rate that prevailed between 1973 
and 1995. According to economists, this surge in productivity is the 
result of businesses beginning to efficiently integrate computer and 
information technology into day-to-day operations. We need a strong and 
permanent research credit in order to continue these gains in 
productivity growth.
  My home State of Utah is a good example of how State economies 
currently benefit from the research credit. Utah is home to various 
firms that invest a high percentage of their revenue in R&D. There are 
thousands of employees working in Utah's technology based companies, 
with thousands more working in other sectors that engage in R&D. 
Approximately 5 percent of the State's non-agricultural workforce is 
employed in research-intensive, high technology sectors.
  Moreover, high technology jobs pay substantially more than the Utah 
average. In 2004, high technology payrolls accounted for 9.2 percent of 
Utah's total payrolls. This is a significant proportion considering 
technology jobs make up only 5 percent of the workforce.
  Utah's largest technology segment is in computer systems design, 
which accounts for more than 20 percent of the State's technology 
employment with approximately 10,700 workers. Furthermore, this sector 
is Utah's second highest exporter of merchandise. This is a prime 
example of an industry group contributing directly to the productivity 
expansion I mentioned earlier.
  The medical equipment manufacturing industry makes up another 
substantial R&D industry group employing nearly 8,000 Utahns. This 
industry has been an important and relatively stable component of the 
technology sector for many years.
  Utah profits from, and also imparts, many ``spill-over'' benefits 
from the innovations developed both within and outside of the state. To 
give one example, more than 7,000 people work in Utah's chemical 
industry. This industry is the State's fourth-largest exporter. It 
benefits greatly from R&D taking place in Utah and throughout the 
country, and it shares the benefits with its trade partners. Research 
and development is clearly the lifeblood of Utah's economy.
  Since 1981, when the research credit was first enacted, the Federal 
Government has joined in partnership with large and small businesses to 
ensure that research expenditures are made in the United States. This 
enhances domestic job creation, and helps the United States to 
internalize more of the economic benefits from the research credit.
  It seems clear that to grow our economy we must enhance our position 
as the world leader in technological advances. Consequently, robust R&D 
spending should permeate our economy. We simply must continue to invest 
in research and development, and the Federal Government needs to 
reaffirm its role as a partner with the private sector. To achieve 
this, I have long advocated a permanent credit, and this body is 
overwhelmingly on record in favor of that proposition. During the 
Senate's debate on the 2001 tax cut bill, I offered, and the Senate 
adopted, an amendment to provide for such a permanent credit. 
Unfortunately, that provision was dropped in conference and we lost a 
great opportunity.
  Once again, I want to ask my colleagues to make this credit 
permanent. I think we all know that this credit is going to be 
extended, again and again, every few years. It takes time and energy 
for my colleagues to revisit this issue every few years. Can we not 
just, once and for all, make this provision permanent? We know this is 
good policy, and it is one of the most effective tax incentives in the 
code. Even under today's permanently temporary credit, every dollar of 
tax credit is estimated to increase R&D spending by one dollar in the 
short run and by up to two dollars in the long run. And if we make this 
permanent, those incentives will only improve.
  While the research credit has proven to be a powerful incentive for 
companies to increase research and development activities, it 
unfortunately does not work perfectly. One reason is that the credit is 
incremental, and was designed to reward additional research efforts, 
not just what a company might have done otherwise. From a tax policy 
perspective, I believe this is the best way to provide an incentive tax 
credit. Nevertheless, it is difficult to craft an incremental credit 
that works flawlessly in every case.
  While the credit works well for many companies, it does not help some 
firms that still incur significant research expenditures. This is 
because the credit's base period of 1984 through 1988 is growing more 
distant and some firms' business models have changed.
  To address this problem, we have added a third way to qualify for the 
credit, an elective ``alternative simplified credit.'' We propose to 
base this new alternative credit on how much a company has increased 
its R&D spending compared to the last three years. Companies will 
average their R&D spending over the previous three years, and cut that 
number in half. For every dollar they spend over that amount, they get 
a 12 percent tax credit. If they spend less than that amount, they get 
no credit at all. This is why this credit is so effective--it gives 
benefits to companies that do more, and gives no benefits to companies 
that do less. That is good tax policy, and good growth policy.
  The United States needs to continue to be the world's leader in 
innovation. We cannot afford to allow other countries to lure away the 
research that has always been done here. We cannot afford to have the 
lapses in the research pipeline that would result if we do not take 
care of extending this credit before it expires on December 31.
  In conclusion, making the research tax credit permanent will increase 
the growth rate of our economy. It will mean more and better jobs for 
American workers. Making the tax credit permanent will speed economic 
growth. And new technology resulting from American research and 
development will continue to improve the standard of living for every 
person in the U.S. and around the world. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to create a permanent, improved research credit.
  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. 627

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

[[Page S2742]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Investment in America Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Research and development performed in the United States 
     results in quality jobs, better and safer products, increased 
     ownership of technology-based intellectual property, and 
     higher productivity in the United States.
       (2) The extent to which companies perform and increase 
     research and development activities in the United States is 
     in part dependent on Federal tax policy.
       (3) Congress should make permanent a research and 
     development credit that provides a meaningful incentive to 
     all types of taxpayers.

     SEC. 3. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN RATES OF ALTERNATIVE INCREMENTAL CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to election of 
     alternative incremental credit) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2.65 percent'' and inserting ``3 
     percent'',
       (2) by striking ``3.2 percent'' and inserting ``4 
     percent'', and
       (3) by striking ``3.75 percent'' and inserting ``5 
     percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. ALTERNATIVE SIMPLIFIED CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED RESEARCH 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 41 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to base amount) is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (6) and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (4) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Election of alternative simplified credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the 
     credit determined under subsection (a)(1) shall be equal to 
     12 percent of so much of the qualified research expenses for 
     the taxable year as exceeds 50 percent of the average 
     qualified research expenses for the 3 taxable years preceding 
     the taxable year for which the credit is being determined.
       ``(B) Special rule in case of no qualified research 
     expenses in any of 3 preceding taxable years.--
       ``(i) Taxpayers to which subparagraph applies.--The credit 
     under this paragraph shall be determined under this 
     subparagraph if the taxpayer has no qualified research 
     expenses in any 1 of the 3 taxable years preceding the 
     taxable year for which the credit is being determined.
       ``(ii) Credit rate.--The credit determined under this 
     subparagraph shall be equal to 6 percent of the qualified 
     research expenses for the taxable year.
       ``(C) Election.--An election under this paragraph shall 
     apply to the taxable year for which made and all succeeding 
     taxable years unless revoked with the consent of the 
     Secretary. An election under this paragraph may not be made 
     for any taxable year to which an election under paragraph (4) 
     applies.''.
       (b) Coordination With Election of Alternative Incremental 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41(c)(4)(B) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to election) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``An election under this 
     paragraph may not be made for any taxable year to which an 
     election under paragraph (5) applies.''.
       (2) Transition rule.--In the case of an election under 
     section 41(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which 
     applies to the taxable year which includes the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, such election shall be treated as 
     revoked with the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury if 
     the taxpayer makes an election under section 41(c)(5) of such 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)) for such year.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to again join with my friend, 
Senator Hatch, in introducing legislation to make a permanent 
commitment to research-intensive businesses in the United States. This 
legislation is bipartisan and bicameral. A companion bill will be 
introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Nancy 
Johnson and Congressman Ben Cardin.
  Every morning we hear news of some new product or discovery that 
promises to make our jobs easier or our lives better. Many of these 
innovations started with a business decision to hire needed researchers 
and finance the expensive and long process of research and 
experimentation. Since 1981, when the R&D tax credit was first enacted, 
the Federal Government was a partner in that business endeavor because 
of the potential spillover benefits to society overall from additional 
research spending.
  Research has shown that a tax credit is a cost-effective way to 
promote R&D. The Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and others have 
all found significant evidence that a tax credit stimulates additional 
domestic R&D spending by U.S. companies. A report by the Congressional 
Research Service, CRS, indicates that economists generally agree that, 
without government support, firm investment in R&D would fall short of 
the socially optimal amount and thus CRS advocates government policies 
to boost private sector R&D.
  R&D is linked to broader economic and labor benefits. R&D lays the 
foundation for technological innovation, which, in turn, is an 
important driving force in long-term economic growth--mainly through 
its impact on the productivity of capital and labor. We have many times 
heard testimony from economists, including Federal Reserve Board 
Chairman Alan Greenspan, that the reason our economy grew at such 
breakneck speed during the 1990s stemmed from the productivity growth 
we realized thanks to technological innovations.
  There has been a belief that companies would continue to increase 
their research spending and that the benefits of these investments on 
the economy and labor markets would continue without end. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case. According to Battelle's 2005 
funding forecast, industrial R&D spending will increase only 1.9 
percent above last year, to an estimated $191 billion, which is less 
than the expected rate of inflation of 2.5 percent. For the fifth year 
in a row, industrial R&D spending growth has been essentially flat.
  Over recent years, industry-financed R&D declined from 1.88 percent 
to 1.65 percent of GDP in the United States between 2000 and 2003, 
while R&D performed by the business sector declined from 2.04 percent 
to 1.81 percent of GDP. Japan, in contrast, saw a steep increase in 
business-performed R&D--from 2.12 percent to 2.32 percent of GDP 
between 2000 and 2002--and modest gains were posted in the EU.
  Moreover, just last week, the World Economic Forum released its 
annual Global Information Technology Report. The rankings, which 
measure the propensity for countries to exploit the opportunities 
offered by information and communications technology, ICT, revealed 
that Singapore has displaced the United States as the top economy in 
information technology competitiveness. As a matter of fact, the United 
States has dropped from first to fifth place in this ranking. Iceland, 
Finland and Denmark are the countries ranked two, three and four out of 
the 104 countries surveyed. Iceland moved up from tenth last year.
  These numbers should be a wake up call for all of us. As research 
spending falls, so too will the level of future economic growth.
  It is also important to recognize that many of our foreign 
competitors are offering permanent and generous incentives to firms 
that attract research dollars to those countries. A 2001 study by the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ranked the 
U.S. ninth behind other nations in terms of its incentives for business 
R&D spending. Countries that provide more generous R&D incentives 
include Spain, Canada, Portugal, Austria, Australia, Netherlands, 
France, and Korea. The United Kingdom was added to this list in 2002 
when it further expanded its existing R&D incentives program. The 
continued absence of a long-term U.S. government R&D policy that 
encourages U.S.-based R&D will undermine the ability of American 
companies to remain competitive in U.S. and foreign markets. This 
disparity could limit U.S. competitiveness relative to its trading 
partners in the long-run.
  Also, U.S. workers who are engaged in R&D activities currently 
benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, 
high-skilled

[[Page S2743]]

jobs in the economy. My own State of Montana is an excellent example of 
this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments 
provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 
per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average 
private sector wage of less than $20,000 per year during the same year. 
Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance 
of the R&D credit. While there may not be an immediate rush to move all 
projects and jobs offshore, there has been movement at the margins on 
those projects that are most cost-sensitive. Once those projects and 
jobs are gone, it will be many years before companies will have any 
incentive to bring them back to the United States.
  We continue to grapple with the need to stimulate economic growth and 
advance policies that represent solid long-term investments that will 
reap benefits for many years to come. Senator Hatch and I repeatedly 
have pointed to the R&D tax credit as a measure that gives us a good 
``bang for our buck.'' I hope this year we can enact a permanent tax 
credit that is effective and more widely available. I encourage my 
colleagues to join us in this effort.
  As we have in years past, our proposal would make the current 
research and experimentation tax credit permanent and increase the 
Alternative Incremental Research Credit, AIRC, rates. And, in this 
legislation we take one additional but necessary step.
  We propose a new alternative simplified credit that will allow 
taxpayers to elect to calculate the R&D credit under new computational 
rules that will eliminate the present-law distortions caused by gross 
receipts. This revised and improved R&D credit did pass the Senate last 
year on a 93-0 vote, but a straight short-term extension of current law 
was enacted instead.
  There is no good policy reason to make research more expensive for 
some industries than for others. While the regular R&D tax credit works 
very well for many companies, as the credit's base period recedes and 
business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some 
other firms that still incur significant research expenditures. To help 
solve part of this problem Congress enacted the AIRC in 1996 and now we 
propose a way to address the rest of that problem.
  Under current law, both the regular credit and the AIRC are 
calculated by reference to a taxpayer's gross receipts, a benchmark 
that can produce inequities and anomalous results. For example, many 
taxpayers are no longer able to qualify for the regular credit, despite 
substantial R&D investments, because their R&D spending relative to 
gross receipts has not kept pace with the ratio set in the 1984-88 base 
period, which governs calculation of the regular credit. This can 
happen, for example, simply where a company's sales increase 
significantly in the intervening years, where a company enters into an 
additional line of business that generates additional gross receipts 
but involves little R&D, or where a company becomes more efficient in 
its R&D processes.
  Our proposal would correct this by allowing taxpayers a 
straightforward alternative research credit election. Taxpayers could 
elect, in lieu of the regular credit or the AIRC, a credit that would 
equal 12 percent of the excess of the taxpayer's current year qualified 
research expenditures, QREs, over 50 percent of the taxpayer's average 
QREs for the 3 preceding years. Unlike the regular credit and the AIRC, 
this credit calculation does not involve gross receipts.
  The R&D tax credit has proven it can be an effective incentive. We 
need to act to make it a permanent part of the tax code that U.S. 
businesses can rely on. The best thing we can do for our long-term 
economic well-being is to stoke the engine of growth--technology, high-
wage jobs and productivity. I look forward to working with Senator 
Hatch and all my colleagues on this important issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Bunning):
  S. 628. A bill to provide for increased planning and funding for 
health promotion programs of the Department of Health and Human 
Services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health 
Promotion FIRST, Funding Integrated Research, Synthesis and Training, 
Act, legislation to provide the foundation for solid planning and a 
scientific base for health promotion.
  Between one half and two-thirds of premature deaths in the United 
States and much of our health care costs are caused by just three risk 
factors: poor diet, physical inactivity, and tobacco. Recent news 
reports have highlighted the alarming increase in obesity across the 
Nation. In the last 10 years, obesity rates have increased by more than 
60 percent among adults--with approximately 59 million adults 
considered obese today.
  We also know that medical costs are directly related to lifestyle 
risk factors. The September 2000 issue of the American Journal of 
Health Promotion reported that approximately 25 percent of all employer 
medical costs are caused by lifestyle factors. Emerging research is 
showing the value may be closer to 50 percent today.
  Medical care costs are reaching crisis levels. Some major employers 
are actively exploring discontinuing medical insurance coverage if 
costs are not controlled. The Federal Government has the same cost 
problems with its own employees, and the cost to Medicare of lifestyle-
related diseases will only increase as Baby Boomers retire, and more 
and more beneficiaries are diagnosed with lifestyle-related illnesses.
  An obvious first step to addressing our health and medical cost 
problems is to help people stay healthy.
  The good news is that both the public and private sectors are 
starting to do more in the area of health prevention and health 
promotion. For instance, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 
included several new prevention initiatives for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Also in recent years Congress and the Administration have worked 
together to pass numerous pieces of legislation to establish grants to 
provide health services for improved nutrition, increased physical 
activity, and obesity prevention.
  However, despite the success of many health promotion programs, there 
is a quality gap between the best programs and typical programs. This 
occurs because most professionals are not aware of the best practice 
methods. Furthermore, even the best programs reach a small percentage 
of the population and do poorly in creating lasting change.
  The Health Promotion FIRST Act will build the foundation for a stable 
coordinated strategy to develop the basic and applied science of health 
promotion, synthesize research results and disseminate findings to 
researchers, practitioners and policy makers.
  The bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services to 
develop strategic plans focusing on the following: how to develop the 
basic and applied science of health promotion; how to best utilize the 
authority and resources of the Department of Health and Human Services 
and other Federal agencies to integrate health promotion concepts into 
health care and other elements of society; how to synthesize health 
promotion research into practical guidelines that can be easily 
disseminated and; how to foster a strong health workforce for health 
promotion activities.
  Additional funding is also provided for the Centers for Disease 
Control and the National Institutes of Health to augment current 
activities related to health promotion research and dissemination.
  We have made a good start, at the Federal level, in addressing the 
needs of health promotion. However, we need to go further. I believe 
this legislation will serve as a good basis for Congress and the 
administration to take the next step in developing health promotion 
programs for the next decade.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 630. A bill to establish procedures for the acknowledgment of 
Indian tribes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 631. A bill to provide grants to ensure full and fair 
participation in certain decisionmaking processes of the

[[Page S2744]]

Bureau of Indian Affairs; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with our colleague, Senator 
Lieberman, to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve 
the process by which the Federal Government considers petitions of 
American Indians and their tribal governments for Federal recognition. 
The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau 
Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill is a bill to provide 
assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities 
so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in 
certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. 
I offer these bills with a sense of hope and with the expectation that 
they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the 
Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native 
peoples, and uphold the principles of fairness and openness in our 
laws.
  The persistent problems that plague the current tribal recognition 
process have been well-documented and widely acknowledged. A General 
Accounting Office report concluded in November, 2001 that ``weaknesses 
in the process create uncertainty about the basis for recognition 
decisions, and the amount of time it takes to make those decisions 
impedes the process of fulfilling its promise as a uniform approach to 
tribal recognition.'' This conclusion has been shared by many tribal 
and non-tribal governments. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of 
Washington State has testified that she and her people ``have known and 
felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and 
the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish 
petitions.'' And it has even been shared by the BIA itself, when in 
2001, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs admitted that ``. . . 
it is time for Congress to consider an alternative process.'' Clearly, 
tribes, municipalities, and others interested in the recognition 
process have been ill-served over the years by a broken system. I 
believe that we have an obligation to restore public confidence in the 
recognition process.
  The TRIBE Act would improve the recognition process in several ways. 
First, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and 
timely manner. Currently, there is an enormous backlog of tribal 
recognition petitions pending at the BIA. At current rates of progress, 
it takes many years for a petition to be considered. It seems to me 
that is an unacceptably long amount of time. Indeed, I can think of no 
other area of law where Americans must wait as long to have their 
rights adjudicated and vindicated. Second, the TRIBE Act would provide 
for improved notice of a petition to key parties who may have an 
interest in a petition, including the governor and attorney general of 
the State where a tribe seeks recognition, other tribes, and elected 
leaders of municipalities that are adjacent to the land of a tribe 
seeking recognition. Third, it would require that a petitioner meets 
each of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal recognition spelled 
out in the current Code of Federal Regulations. Unfortunately, in a 
number of highly controversial decisions, it appears that these 
criteria have not been applied in a uniform and consistent manner. 
Fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in 
the Federal Register, and include a detailed explanation of the 
findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory 
criteria for recognition.

  I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not 
revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for 
Federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in 
any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes 
would retain their right to self-determination consistent with their 
sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act 
would not dictate outcomes nor would it tie the hands of the BIA. It 
would simply create a uniform recognition process that is equal and 
fair to all.
  My second bill would provide grants to allow poor tribes and 
municipalities an opportunity to participate fully in important 
decision-making processes pertaining to recognition. Consequently, 
these grants would enable these communities to provide to the BIA more 
relevant information and resources from which to make a fair and fully-
informed decision on tribal recognition. When the Federal Government, 
through the BIA, makes decisions that will have an enormous impact on a 
variety of communities--both tribal and non-tribal--it is only right 
that the Government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those 
communities to be heard.
  I believe that every tribal organization that is entitled to 
recognition ought to be recognized and ought to be recognized in an 
appropriately speedy process. At the same time, we must make sure that 
the BIA's decisions are accurate and fair. Every recognition decision 
carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each 
recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which 
relationships between tribes and States, tribes and municipalities, 
Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need 
to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are 
built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We cannot afford to 
build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a 
broken bureaucratic procedure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Corzine, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dodd):
  S.J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and 
women; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, 
Corzine, Kerry, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Boxer, Lautenberg, 
Durbin, Schumer, Levin, Feinstein, Harkin, Dodd and I are re-
introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing 
so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal rights for men and 
women.
  Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms 
protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the 
beginning of our history as a nation, women have had to wage a 
constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights 
granted to men. It was not until 1920 that the Constitution was amended 
to guarantee women the right to vote, and still today discrimination 
continues in other ways. Statutory prohibitions against discrimination 
have clearly failed to give women the assurance of full equality they 
deserve.
  Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 
1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce 
and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn less than 76 cents for 
each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of 
color. In the year 2000, African American women earned just 64 percent 
of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 54 
percent.
  Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in 
a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years--
yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a 
narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying 
occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the 
bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
  The routine discrimination that so many women still face today makes 
clear that the Equal Rights Amendment is needed now more than ever. 
Passage of the ERA by Congress will reaffirm our strong commitment to 
genuine equality for all women in this new century.
  A bolder effort is clearly needed to enable Congress and the States 
to live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot 
remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing 
efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.
  We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that 
including the ERA in the Constitution will not

[[Page S2745]]

be easy to achieve. But its extraordinary significance requires us to 
continue the battle. I urge my colleagues to approve the ERA in this 
Congress, and join the battle for ratification in the states. Women 
have waited too long for full recognition of their equal rights by the 
Constitution.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S. J. Res. 7

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
     denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
     account of sex.
       ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, 
     by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
       ``Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after 
     the date of ratification.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Leahy):
  S.J. Res. 8. A joint resolution providing for the appointment of 
Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 
Smithsonian Institution; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Leahy):
  S.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution providing for the appointment of 
Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the 
Smithsonian Institution; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing two Senate Joint 
Resolutions appointing citizen regents to the Board of Regents of the 
Smithsonian Institution. I am pleased that my fellow Smithsonian 
Institution Regent, Senators Frist and Leahy, are cosponsors.
  The Smithsonian Institution Board of Regents recently recommended the 
following distinguished individuals for appointment to six year terms 
on the Board; Robert P. Kogod of Washington, D.C., and Shirley Ann 
Jackson of New York.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of their biographies and the text 
of the joint resolutions by printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, 
                                New York

       Shirley Ann Jackson is the 18th president of Rensselaer 
     Polytechnic Institute and the first African American woman to 
     lead a national research university. She is widely recognized 
     for her intelligent, compassionate problem-solving abilities 
     and her promotion of women and minorities in the sciences.
       The words ``first African American woman'' describe much of 
     Dr. Jackson's career: a theoretical physicist, she is the 
     first African American woman to receive a doctorate from 
     M.I.T., the first African American to become a Commissioner 
     of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the first woman 
     and the first African American to serve as the Chairman of 
     the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the first African 
     American woman elected to the National Academy of 
     Engineering.
       Since coming to Rensselaer, Dr. Jackson has led the 
     development and initial implementation of the Rensselaer Plan 
     (the Institute's strategic blueprint), restructured processes 
     and procedures, and secured a $360 million unrestricted gift 
     commitment to the University. Prior to becoming Rensselaer's 
     president, Dr. Jackson's career encompassed senior positions 
     in government, industry, research, and academe.
       Dr. Jackson is currently president of the American 
     Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); director 
     of a number of major corporations, including FedEx 
     Corporation, AT&T Corporation, Marathon Oil Corporation, and 
     Medtronic, Inc.; member of the New York Stock Exchange's 
     board of directors, the Council on Foreign Relations, the 
     National Academy of Engineering, the National Advisory 
     Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Comptroller-
     General's Advisory Committee for the Government Accounting 
     Office (GAO), the Executive Committee of the Council on 
     Competitiveness, and the Council of the Government-
     University-Industry Research Roundtable; fellow of the 
     American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American 
     Physical Society; Life Member of the M.I.T. Corporation (the 
     M.I.T. Board of Trustees); and trustee of Georgetown 
     University, Rockefeller University, Emma Willard School, and 
     the Brookings Institution. Dr. Jackson was recently named one 
     of seven 2004 Fellows of the Association for Women in Science 
     (AWlS). She has received numerous other honors, such as the 
     Golden Torch Award for Lifetime Achievement in Academia from 
     the National Society of Black Engineers, US Black Engineer & 
     Information Technology magazine's ``Black Engineer of the 
     Year Award'' (first female recipient), and the Associated 
     Black Charities' ``Immortal Award''; been inducted into the 
     Women in Technology International Foundation Hall of Fame 
     (WITI) and the National Women's Hall of Fame; and been 
     recognized in such publications as Discover magazine (``Top 
     50 Women in Science''), the ESSENCE book 50 of The Most 
     Inspiring African Americans, and Industry Week magazine (``50 
     R&D Stars to Watch'').
       A native of Washington, D.C., Dr. Jackson received both her 
     S.B. in Physics (1968) and her Ph.D. in Theoretical 
     Elementary Particle Physics (1973) from M.I.T. Dr. Jackson 
     also holds 32 honorary doctoral degrees.

  Robert P. Kogod, Donor and President, Robert P. and Arlene R. Kogod 
 Family Foundation; Donor and Vice President, Charles E. Smith Family 
                      Foundation Washington, D.C.

       Robert P. Kogod is the former co-chairman and co-chief 
     executive officer of Charles E. Smith Realty Companies. He 
     joined the Smith Companies, founded by Charles E. Smith 
     (father of Mr. Kogod's wife, Arlene), in 1959. From 1964 to 
     2001, Mr. Kogod served as president, chief executive officer, 
     and a director of Charles E. Smith Management, Inc., where he 
     oversaw and directed all phases of the leasing and management 
     of the Smith Companies' commercial real estate portfolio. The 
     Smith Companies pioneered mixed-use development in the 
     Washington, D.C., area, including residential, office, and 
     retail buildings in Crystal City, Virginia, that became one 
     of the largest mixed-use developments in the United States.
       Charles E. Smith Commercial Realty, Inc., formerly the 
     commercial portfolio of Charles E. Smith Management Inc., is 
     the largest owner and operator of commercial property in the 
     Washington, D.C., metropolitan market. It was acquired by 
     Vornado Realty Trust in 2001 and now operates as a division 
     of Vornado. Charles E. Smith Residential Realty is a publicly 
     traded real estate investment trust that merged with 
     Archstone Communities to become Archstone-Smith Trust in 
     2001. Its core business is developing, acquiring, owning, and 
     managing upscale urban residential rental properties. Mr. 
     Kogod is a member of the boards of directors of Vornado 
     Realty Trust and Archstone-Smith Trust. He is also a member 
     of the Economic Club of Washington.
       The Kogods are renowned philanthropists. In 1979, the 
     Robert P. and Arlene R. Kogod School of Business at American 
     University (where Mr. Kogod received his B.S. in 1962) was 
     named in honor of a major gift from the Kogods. Founded in 
     1976, the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, a leading 
     innovator in the field of pluralistic Jewish thought and 
     education, is home to the Robert P. and Arlene R. Kogod 
     Institute for Advanced Jewish Research.
       The Kogods are also world-recognized collectors of American 
     crafts, Art Deco, and American art, as evidenced in the 2004 
     catalogue 2929: The Kogod Collection. Mr. and Mrs. Kogod are 
     longstanding members of the Smithsonian American Art Museum's 
     American Art Forum and the Archives for American Art. Mr. 
     Kogod has also served as a member of the Smithsonian 
     Washington Council and is currently serving as special 
     advisor to Secretary Small on the Patent Office Building 
     renovation project.
       Other beneficiaries of the Kogods and/or the Kogod-Smith 
     families and foundations have included the Jewish Community 
     Center of Greater Washington; the University of Pennsylvania; 
     the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School; the Hebrew Home of 
     Greater Washington; the Jewish Community Center of Greater 
     Washington; the Latin American Youth Center; the Corcoran 
     Gallery of Art; and George Washington University. Mr. Kogod 
     also serves as a trustee and advisor to the president of 
     American University, a board member of the Charles E. Smith 
     Jewish Day School, and a trustee of The Island Foundation and 
     Federal City Council.

                              S.J. Res. 8

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
     accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 
     U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the 
     Smithsonian Institution (in the class other than Members of 
     Congress) occurring because of the expiration of the term of 
     Hanna H. Gray of Illinois on April 13, 2005, is filled by the 
     appointment of Shirley Ann Jackson of New York, for a term of 
     6 years, beginning on the later of April 13, 2005, or the 
     date on which this resolution becomes law.

                              S.J. Res. 9

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
     accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 
     U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the 
     Smithsonian Institution (in the class other than Members of 
     Congress) occurring because of the expiration of the term of

[[Page S2746]]

     Wesley S. Williams, Jr., of Washington, D.C., on April 13, 
     2005, is filled by the appointment of Robert P. Kogod of 
     Washington, D.C., for a term of 6 years, beginning on the 
     later of April 13, 2005, or the date on which this resolution 
     becomes law.

                          ____________________