[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2847-S2860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 632. A bill to authorize the extension of unconditional and 
permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations 
treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that I 
have introduced authorizing the extension of permanent normal trade 
relations treatment. Ukraine is still subject to the provisions of the 
Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which sanctions 
nations for failure to comply with freedom of emigration requirements. 
Our bill would repeal permanently the application of Jackson-Vanik to 
Ukraine.
  In the post Cold War era, Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to 
meet these requirements, and in addition, has expressed a strong desire 
to abide by free market principles and good governance. Last November, 
I served as President Bush's personal representative to the runoff 
election between Prime Minister Yanukovich and Victor Yushchenko. 
During that visit, I promoted free and fair election procedures that 
would strengthen worldwide respect for the legitimacy of the winning 
candidate. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The Government of 
Ukraine allowed, or aided and abetted, wholesale fraud and abuse that 
changed the results of the election. It is clear that Prime Minister 
Yanukovich did not win the election.
  In response, the people of Ukraine rallied in the streets and 
demanded justice. After tremendous international pressure and 
mediation, Ukraine repeated the runoff election on December 26. A newly 
named Central Election Commission and a new set of election laws led to 
a much improved process. International monitors concluded that the 
process was generally free and fair. This past weekend Victor 
Yushchenko was inaugurated as President of Ukraine.
  Extraordinary events have occurred in Ukraine over the last three 
months.

[[Page S2848]]

A free press has revolted against government intimidation and 
reasserted itself. An emerging middle class has found its political 
footing. A new generation has embraced democracy and openness. A 
society has rebelled against the illegal activities of its government. 
It is in our interest to recognize and protect these advances in 
Ukraine.
  The United States has a long record of cooperation with Ukraine 
through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction. Ukraine inherited 
the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world with the fall of the 
Soviet Union. Through the Nunn-Lugar Program the United States has 
assisted Ukraine in eliminating this deadly arsenal and joining the 
Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.
  One of the areas where we can deepen U.S.-Ukrainian relations is 
bilateral trade. Our trade relations between the U.S. and Ukraine are 
currently governed by a bilateral trade agreement signed in 1992. There 
are other economic agreements in place seeking to further facilitate 
economic cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine, including a 
bilateral investment treaty which was signed in 1996, and a taxation 
treaty signed in 2000. In addition, Ukraine commenced negotiations to 
become a member of the World Trade Organization in 1993, further 
demonstrating its commitment to adhere to free market principles and 
fair trade. In light of its adherence to freedom of emigration 
requirements, democratic principles, compliance with threat reduction 
and several agreements on economic cooperation, the products of Ukraine 
should not be subject to the sanctions of Jackson-Vanik.
  There are areas in which Ukraine needs to continue to improve. These 
include market access, protection of intellectual property and 
reduction of tariffs. The U.S. must remain committed to assisting 
Ukraine in pursuing market economic reforms. The permanent waiver of 
Jackson Yanik and establishment of permanent normal trade relations 
will be the foundation on which further progress in a burgeoning 
economic partnership can be made.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important legislation. It is essential that we act promptly to bolster 
this burgeoning democracy and promote stability and in this region.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. 632

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that Ukraine--
       (1) allows its citizens the right and opportunity to 
     emigrate, free of any heavy tax on emigration or on the visas 
     or other documents required for emigration and free of any 
     tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any citizens as a 
     consequence of the desire of such citizens to emigrate to 
     the country of their choice;
       (2) has received normal trade relations treatment since 
     concluding a bilateral trade agreement with the United States 
     that entered into force on June 23, 1992, which remains in 
     force and provides the United States with important rights;
       (3) has been found to be in full compliance with the 
     freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 since 1997;
       (4) has committed itself to ensuring freedom of religion 
     and preventing intolerance;
       (5) has committed itself to continuing its efforts to 
     return religious property to religious organizations in 
     accordance with existing law;
       (6) has taken significant steps demonstrating its 
     intentions to build a friendly and cooperative relationship 
     with the United States including participating in 
     peacekeeping efforts in Europe; and
       (7) has made progress toward meeting international 
     commitments and standards in the most recent Presidential 
     runoff elections, including in the implementation of 
     Ukraine's new elections laws.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO UKRAINE.

        (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of 
     Unconditional and Permanent Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Ukraine; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Ukraine, proclaim the extension of unconditional 
     and permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal 
     trade relations treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On and after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Ukraine, 
     chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to 
     apply to that country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 633. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of veterans who became disabled for life while serving 
in the Armed Forces of the United States; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American 
Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005.
  This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a 
commemorative coin (500,000) honoring the millions of veterans of the 
United States Armed Forces who were disabled while serving our country. 
Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Disabled 
Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to help cover the costs of building 
the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in Washington, DC. The 
mint date is scheduled for January 1, 2010.
  In its own distinctive way, the American Veterans Disabled for Life 
Memorial will also allow the American people to show their appreciation 
to those who died defending freedom by honoring the disabled veterans 
who still live among us. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, to 
recognize the special sacrifices that disabled veterans have made to 
this country. It has been said that ``poor is the Nation which has no 
heroes. Poorer still is the Nation which has them, but forgets.'' The 
creation of this memorial will ensure that we, as a Nation, do not 
forget those who have been forever changed in service to our country.
  The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue 
at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full 
view of the U.S. Capitol building. Federal legislation for the 
Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill 
Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, 
Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack 
Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved 
the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001.
  We have an obligation to assure that the men and women who each day 
endure the costs of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans 
Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2005 will honor these 
veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life 
Memorial.
  The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 
by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. 
Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and 
President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. 
In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides 
awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. 
Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit 
organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, 
and survivors.
  The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion 
within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to 
go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman 
Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star 
defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort. 
I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting America's 
disabled veterans with this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
  S. 634. A bill to amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000 to clarify allowable payment terms for sales of 
agricultural commodities and products to Cuba; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
to reverse the unilateral change by the Department of Treasury's Office 
of

[[Page S2849]]

Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that threatens future sales of U.S. 
agricultural products to Cuba.
  Four years ago, Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act (TSREEA), allowing sales of food and medicine to Cuba 
for the first time in nearly four decades. The Act did not signal an 
end to the embargo or efforts to do so but merely exempted food and 
medicine from unilateral sanctions that harm local populations.
  Cuba first purchased U.S. agricultural products under the new 
authorities in December 2001. Since that time, Cuba has contracted to 
purchase approximately $1.25 billion worth of U.S. agricultural goods. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. agriculture, fish 
and forest product exports to Cuba in fiscal year 2004 totaled $402 
million, up 115 percent from a year earlier. The leading export items 
last year were rice, $65 million, poultry meat, $62 million, wheat, $57 
million, corn, $51 million, and soybeans, $38 million, from more than 
40 States in this country. Although U.S. agricultural trade with Cuba 
experienced tremendous growth in the past four years, the future is now 
in doubt.
  Late last year, OFAC and the State Department started considering 
actions to further tighten trade requirements on Cuba. At issue is the 
term ``cash in advance'' and the sale of licensed agricultural 
products. On February 22, 2005, after repeated urgings by Members of 
Congress to the contrary, OFAC amended the Cuban Assets Control 
Regulations to clarify the term whereby goods cannot leave the U.S. 
port at which they are loaded until payment is received by the seller 
or the seller's agent. The interpretation by OFAC runs counter to 
general trade practices and will likely shut down U.S. agricultural 
exports to Cuba.
  Currently, U.S. exporters require payment before turning over title 
and control of the goods. The exporters routinely ship U.S. goods to 
Cuba where they remain under the custody of the seller until such time 
as the seller certifies full payment. Only then are the goods released 
to Cuba. At no time is credit extended in any form to Cuba. This 
standard method of doing business has been in practice since sales to 
Cuba began.
  TSREEA was meant to expand access for agricultural producers to the 
Cuban market. By taking into consideration the unique nature of 
agriculture trade with Cuba, my legislation intends to overturn OFAC's 
new definition of ``cash in advance''. We should not be making it 
harder to export agricultural products when the United States is 
experiencing a massive trade deficit. I am committed to helping expand 
opportunities at home and abroad for our nation's farmers and ranchers. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this 
important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 635. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve the benefits under the medicare program for beneficiaries with 
kidney disease, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Kidney Care 
Quality Act, which Senator Santorum and I introduce today. With all of 
the attention now being paid to improving the quality of health care 
Americans receive, we believe it is important for Congress to reaffirm 
our commitment to patients with kidney failure.
  As part of this commitment, Congress should ensure that these 
patients receive high quality care and should take steps to improve the 
Medicare End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, program. This bill would do 
just that. First, it establishes a quality demonstration project to 
reward high quality dialysis providers. It also establishes education 
programs to assist patients with kidney disease to learn important 
self-management skills that will help them manage their disease more 
effectively and improve their quality of life. The bill also seeks to 
help individuals before they develop irreversible kidney failure by 
teaching individuals about the factors that lead to chronic kidney 
disease, the precursor to kidney failure, and how to prevent it, treat 
it, and, most importantly, avoid it.
  Additionally, we recognize that some patients who currently receive 
dialysis in dialysis facilities and hospitals could benefit by 
receiving the treatments in their homes. Even though home dialysis can 
improve patients' quality of life by allowing them to remain employed 
and to participate in other activities that promote well-being, only a 
small number of patients select the home dialysis option. According to 
the U.S. Renal Data System, less than one percent of all ESRD patients 
relied on home dialysis in 2001. The bill we are introducing today 
would require the Department of Health and Human Services to identify 
barriers patients face in choosing home dialysis benefits and take 
steps toward eliminating them.
  Improving the ESRD program payment system is also a critical 
component of promoting high quality care for patients with kidney 
failure. Medicare established the first prospective payment system, 
PPS, in the ESRD program in the early 1980s. Since that time, we have 
learned a great deal about how the PPS methodology works. Yet, the ESRD 
program remains the only Medicare PPS that does not receive an annual 
update. As a result, dialysis facilities have difficulty hiring 
qualified health care professionals because they simply cannot match 
the salaries offered by hospitals and other providers that do receive 
an annual update. For 2005, MedPAC has calculated a projected margin on 
dialysis services of -0.03 percent when combining the composite rate 
and injectible drugs. Without a fair reimbursement rate, providers face 
significant hurdles in attracting high quality health care 
professionals. Our bill addresses this ongoing problem to ensure that 
providers receive fair payment for the services they provide.
  Congress must reaffirm its commitment to Americans with kidney 
failure by improving the program through new educational programs, 
quality initiatives, and payment reform. The Kidney Care Quality Act is 
a comprehensive bill that moves the program in that direction. I urge 
my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 636. A bill to direct the Inspector General of the Department of 
Justice to submit semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to 
false claims and fraud against the Federal Government; to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill 
directing the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit 
semi-annual reports regarding settlements relating to false claims and 
fraud against the United States.
  The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3729 et seq., is the 
government's single most effective program for recouping money 
improperly obtained from the United States by false claims and fraud. 
Initially passed during the Civil War at President Abraham Lincoln's 
request to suppress fraud against the Union Army, the FCA was 
modernized and updated in 1986. Since President Ronald Reagan signed 
the 1986 amendments into law, settlements and judgments in FCA cases 
have exceeded $13 billion. No other anti-fraud program of the Federal 
Government can match this result.
  Despite the significance of these results, the Congress does not have 
a way to evaluate the performance of the FCA program. While the 
program, which is overseen by the Civil Division of the Department of 
Justice, appears to be doing well, it is not known at this time how the 
program is performing as compared to its potential. What percentage of 
the various frauds perpetrated against the United States is recouped in 
False Claims Act cases? How effectively does DoJ capture the multiple 
damages and penalties provided for by the act? How quickly does DoJ 
move FCA cases? How effectively does DoJ use the tools provided to it 
by the FCA, such as civil investigative demands? How effectively does 
DoJ use relators and how well does it reward them?
  The purpose of this bill is to answer these questions. The bill 
requires DoJ to submit certain information that will allow Congress to 
evaluate the Department's performance in managing FCA cases. Thus, 
under this bill the Department of Justice will be required to describe 
its settlements of FCA cases. The report to Congress shall include a

[[Page S2850]]

description of the estimated damages suffered by the United States, the 
amount recouped, the multiplier used to calculate the settlement 
amount, the criminal fines collected and whether the defendants were 
held liable in previous cases. The report will also inform Congress as 
to whether the defendants have been required to enter into corporate 
integrity agreements.
  In addition, in order to understand how the program is working, the 
Department of Justice will be required to inform Congress as to whether 
civil investigative demands were issued. The Department will also be 
required to provide certain information about the conduct of qui tam 
cases initiated by whistleblowers. For example, Congress will receive 
information about the length of time cases are under seal, whether 
whistleblowers (technically termed ``relators'') sought a fairness 
hearing regarding a settlement and what share of the settlement they 
received. The Congress would also receive information about whether the 
agency that suffered from the fraud involved participated in the 
settlement.
  In regard to cases involving Medicaid Fraud, the report will provide 
Congress with the details of how much money was returned to each state 
participating in the settlement. In a time when many states are 
struggling with their Medicaid budgets, the Congress needs to know how 
effectively DoJ is in suppressing Medicaid fraud and returning money to 
the states.
  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. 636

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

     SECTION 1. FALSE CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS.

       Section 8E of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) In preparing the semi-annual report under section 
     5, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
     describe each settlement or compromise of any claim, suit, or 
     other action entered into with the Department of Justice 
     that--
       ``(A) relates to an alleged violation of section 1031 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or section 3729 of title 31, 
     United States Code (including all settlements of alternative 
     remedies); and
       ``(B) results from a claim of damages in excess of 
     $100,000.
       ``(2) The descriptions of each settlement or compromise 
     required to be included in the semi-annual report under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) the overall amount of the settlement or compromise 
     and the portions of the settlement attributed to various 
     statutory authorities;
       ``(B) the amount of actual damages estimated to have been 
     sustained and the minimum and maximum potential civil 
     penalties incurred as a consequence of the defendants that is 
     the subject of the settlement or compromise;
       ``(C) the basis for the estimate of damages sustained and 
     the potential civil penalties incurred;
       ``(D) the amount of the settlement that represents damages 
     and the multiplier or percentage of the actual damages 
     applied in the actual settlement or compromise;
       ``(E) the amount of the settlement that represents civil 
     penalties and the percentage of the potential penalty 
     liability captured by the settlement or compromise;
       ``(F) the amount of the settlement that represents criminal 
     fines and a statement of the basis for such fines;
       ``(G) the length of time involved from the filing of the 
     complaint until the finalization of the settlement or 
     compromise, including--
       ``(i) the date of the original filing of the complaint;
       ``(ii) the time the case remained under seal;
       ``(iii) the date upon which the Department of Justice 
     determined whether or not to intervene in the case; and
       ``(iv) the date of settlement or compromise;
       ``(H) whether any of the defendants, or any divisions, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities, had previously 
     entered into 1 or more settlements or compromises related to 
     section 1031 of title 18, United States Code, or section 
     3730(b) of title 31, United States Code, and if so, the dates 
     and monetary size of such settlements or compromises;
       ``(I) whether the defendant or any of its divisions, 
     subsidiaries, affiliates, or related entities--
       ``(i) entered into a corporate integrity agreement related 
     to the settlement or compromise; and
       ``(ii) had previously entered into 1 or more corporate 
     integrity agreements related to section 3730(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, and if so, whether the previous corporate 
     integrity agreements covered the conduct that is the subject 
     of the settlement or compromise being reported on or similar 
     conduct;
       ``(J) in the case of settlements involving medicaid, the 
     amounts paid to the Federal Government and to each of the 
     States participating in the settlement or compromise;
       ``(K) whether civil investigative demands were issued in 
     process of investigating the case;
       ``(L) in qui tam actions, the percentage of the settlement 
     amount awarded to the relator, and whether or not the relator 
     requested a fairness hearing pertaining to the percentage 
     received by the relator or the overall amount of the 
     settlement;
       ``(M) the extent to which officers of the department or 
     agency that was the victim of the loss resolved by the 
     settlement or compromise participated in the settlement 
     negotiations; and
       ``(N) the extent to which relators and their counsel 
     participated in the settlement negotiations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 638. A bill to extend the authorization for the ferry boat 
discretionary program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will greatly enhance Federal participation in financing and 
improving our Nation's ferry transportation system.
  Today I again introduce the Ferry Transportation Enhancement Act, or 
Ferry-TEA. I am proud to have Senators Collins, Boxer, Cantwell, 
Clinton, Corzine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Snowe, and Stevens as 
original cosponsors. This bill will provide significantly more 
resources to State governments, public ferry systems, and public 
entities responsible for developing facilities for ferries.
  Specifically, the bill would: provide $150 million a year for the 
Federal Highway Administration's Ferry Boat Discretionary Program. This 
is approximately four times the $38 million a year that is currently 
being provided under this program; add ``ferry maintenance facilities'' 
to the list of allowable use of funds under this program; add 
``ferries'' to the Clean Fuels Program; establish a Ferry Joint Program 
Office to coordinate federal programs affecting ferry boat and ferry 
facility construction, maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry 
service as a component of the nation's transportation system; establish 
an information database on ferry systems, routes, vessels, passengers 
and vehicles carried; and establish an institute for ferries to conduct 
R&D, conduct training programs, encourage collaborative efforts to 
promote ferry service, and preserve historical information. This will 
parallel institutes that now exist for highways, transit, and rail.
  Currently, the Federal investment in ferries is only one-tenth of one 
percent of the total Surface Transportation Program. There is virtually 
no coordination at the federal level to encourage and promote ferries 
as there are for other modes of transportation.
  We need better coordinated ferry services because it's the sole means 
of surface transportation in many areas of the country, including, 
Hawaii, Alaska and my home State of Washington.
  Ferries are also the preferred, and the only feasible, method of 
commuting from home to work in places like Washington State, New York/
New Jersey, North Carolina, Hawaii and Alaska.
  Finally, in many States like my home State of Washington they are an 
important part of the tourism industry and represent a part of our 
cultural identity.
  The symbol of ferries moving people and vehicles on the waterways of 
the Puget Sound is as much a part of our cultural identity as 
computers, coffee, commercial aircraft and the Washington Apple.
  Ferry use is growing.
  In Washington State our ferry system--the Nation's largest--
transports approximately 26 million passengers each year and carries 11 
million vehicles. This is more passengers in my one state than Amtrak 
transports on a yearly basis nationwide.
  Other systems that serve New York/New Jersey, North Carolina, San 
Francisco, and Alaska also have significant numbers of passengers using 
the ferries.
  The Nation's six largest ferry systems recently carried 73 million 
people and 13 million vehicles in just one year.

[[Page S2851]]

  The growth projection for ferry use is very high. For these larger 
systems, it is projected that by 2009 there will be a 14-percent 
increase in passengers and a 17-percent increase in vehicles being 
carried by ferries compared to 2002.
  In San Francisco, that projection is a 46-percent increase.
  It is clear that many people are using ferries and more will be using 
them in the future.
  This is all with very little help from the Federal Government.
  Our investment in ferries pails in comparison to the federal 
investments in highways and other forms of mass transit.
  Our bill would provide the needed funding for these growing systems 
for new ferry boat construction, for ferry facilities and terminals, 
and for maintenance facilities.
  The bill also would make ferries eligible under the Clean Fuels 
Program.
  Like busses, ferries are a form of mass transit that is 
environmentally cleaner than mass use of cars and trucks. Making them 
eligible for the Clean Fuels Program will encourage boat makers to 
design cleaner and more efficient vessels in the future. This will make 
ferry travel an even more environmentally friendly means of 
transportation than it already is today.
  During the 108th Congress, I, with the help of several of my 
colleagues, was able to attach an amendment to the surface 
transportation reauthorization bill--SAFETEA. That amendment would have 
increased the funding for the Ferry Boat Discretionary Program from $38 
million per year to $120 million per year and make other changes.
  I thank Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond, and Senators Jeffords and 
Reid for working with us to include that important amendment.
  As we again move to the Senate consideration of the reauthorization 
bill in the near future, I look forward to working with my cosponsors 
and the leaders of the Committee, which now includes Senator Baucus, to 
see all the elements of Ferry-TEA is included in the bill.
  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. 638

       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 ``Ferry Transportation 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY 
                   BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Funding.--Section 1064(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be available, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), to 
     the Secretary for obligation at the discretion of the 
     Secretary $150,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2009. Sums made available to carry out this section 
     shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--The Secretary shall give 
     priority in the allocation of funds under this section to 
     those ferry systems, and public entities responsible for 
     developing facilities for ferries, that carry the greatest 
     number of passengers and vehicles, carry the greatest number 
     of passengers in passenger-only service, or provide critical 
     access to areas that are not well-served by other modes of 
     surface transportation.''.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF FERRY MAINTENANCE FACILITIES FOR 
                   FEDERAL FUNDING.

       (a) Maintenance Facilities.--Section 129(c) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``and maintenance'' after ``terminal''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or maintenance'' after 
     ``terminal'' each place it appears.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1064 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 
     note) is amended by inserting ``and maintenance'' after 
     ``terminal'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF FERRIES FOR CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM.

       Section 5308 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in clauses (i) and (iii) of subsection (a)(3)(A) and in 
     subsection (e), by inserting ``or ferries'' after ``buses'' 
     each place it appears;
       (2) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or ferry'' after 
     ``bus'' each place it appears;
       (3) in the heading for subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``or 
     Ferries'' after ``Buses''; and
       (4) in the heading for subsection (e)(3), by inserting ``or 
     Ferry'' after ``Bus''.

     SEC. 5. FERRY JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish a Ferry Joint Program Office (in this section, 
     referred to as the ``Office'') to coordinate Federal programs 
     affecting ferry boat and ferry facility construction, 
     maintenance, and operations and to promote ferry service as a 
     component of the Nation's transportation system. The Ferry 
     Joint Program Office shall coordinate ferry and ferry-related 
     programs within the Department of Transportation (including 
     the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit 
     Administration, the Maritime Administration, and the Bureau 
     of Transportation Statistics) and with the Department of 
     Homeland Security and other Federal and State agencies, as 
     appropriate.
       (b) Functions.--The functions of the Office shall include--
       (1) ensuring resource accountability;
       (2) coordinating policy relating to ferry transportation 
     among the various agencies of the Department of 
     Transportation and other departments of the United States 
     Government;
       (3) providing strategic leadership for ferry research, 
     development, testing, and deployment; and
       (4) promoting ferry transportation as a means to reduce 
     social, economic, and environmental costs associated with 
     traffic congestion.

     SEC. 6. NATIONAL FERRY DATA BASE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     maintain a national ferry database, which shall contain 
     current information regarding ferry systems, routes, vessels, 
     passengers and vehicles carried, funding sources, and any 
     other information that the Secretary determines to be useful. 
     The Secretary shall utilize data from the study conducted 
     under section 1207(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 note), and make modifications 
     to that data, as appropriate.
       (b) Updated Database.--The Secretary shall produce the 
     first updated version of the national ferry database not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     shall update such database every 2 years after such date.
       (c) Public Accessibility.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the national ferry database is easily accessible to the 
     public.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL FERRY TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     award grants to an institution of higher education to 
     establish a National Ferry Transportation Institute (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Institute'').
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     administer the Institute in cooperation with the Department 
     of Transportation, State transportation departments, public 
     ferry transportation authorities, private ferry operators, 
     ferry boat builders, ferry employees, and other institutions 
     of higher education and research institutes.
       (c) Functions.--The Institute shall--
       (1) conduct research and recommend development activities 
     on methods of improving ferry transportation programs in the 
     United States, including methods of reducing wake and 
     providing alternative propulsion;
       (2) develop and conduct training programs for ferry system 
     employees, Federal Government employees, and other 
     individuals, as appropriate, on recent developments, 
     techniques, and procedures pertaining to the construction and 
     operation of ferries;
       (3) encourage and assist collaborative efforts by public 
     and private entities to preserve, improve, and expand the use 
     of ferries as a mode of transportation; and
       (4) preserve, utilize, and display historical information 
     about the use of ferries in the United States and in foreign 
     countries.
       (d) Location.--In selecting the location for the Institute, 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       (1) the importance of public and private ferries to the 
     region's transportation system, including both regional 
     travel and long-range travel and service to isolated 
     communities;
       (2) the historical importance of ferry transportation to 
     the region;
       (3) the history and diversity of the region's maritime 
     community, including ferry construction and repair and other 
     shipbuilding activities;
       (4) the anticipated growth of ferry service and ferry boat 
     building in the region;
       (5) the availability of public-private collaboration in the 
     region; and
       (6) the presence of nationally recognized research 
     universities in the region.
       (e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation $2,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2009, to carry out the provisions 
     of this section. The Secretary may authorize the acceptance 
     and expenditure of funding provided to the Institute by 
     public and private entities.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report to Congress describing the activities 
     of the Institute and the progress in carrying out this 
     section.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Lincoln,

[[Page S2852]]

        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 639. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 
years of age to 55 years of age; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
lowering the retirement age for National Guard and Reserves from 60 to 
55. This legislation, which I introduced last year, is an extremely 
modest step toward treating our reservists fairly and in accordance 
with the enormous sacrifices they are making. This bipartisan 
legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Cochran, Lautenberg, Lincoln, 
Leahy, Reid, Kerry, Johnson, Ben Nelson and Dayton.
  This bill merely brings the retirement age for reservists down to the 
Federal civil servant retirement age, as was intended when the 
reservist retirement age was set fifty years ago. Our reservists are 
making enormous sacrifices, risking their lives in combat zones, and, 
in far too many instances, dying for their country. At the very least, 
they should have the same benefits as Federal civil servants.
  But, there are other, bigger reasons for giving our reservists more 
equitable benefits. America has never placed greater demands on its 
reservists than it does now. Since September 11, 2001, more than 
412,000 Guard and Reserve members have been called up, including 6,800 
New Jersey National Guard members and 2,240 New Jersey Reservists. Many 
of them have been sent for yearlong combat tours in Iraq or 
Afghanistan.
  We have entered a new era in which our reservists are no longer 
``weekend warriors.'' They are accepting the lengthy deployments and 
combat roles previously reserved to regular active duty forces. Well 
over forty percent of the troops currently serving in Iraq are members 
of the National Guard and Reserves. It is time that their benefits more 
closely reflect those granted to active duty servicemembers. Lowering 
the retirement age for reservists to 55, when active duty 
servicemembers receive retirement benefits after 20 years, regardless 
of age, is a modest step toward fairness and equity.
  At a time when reservist recruitment is falling short, an improvement 
in benefits will help fill critical gaps. According to recent reports, 
the Army Guard missed its recruiting goal by 12 percent in the last 
fiscal year. For the first four months of fiscal 2005, recruitment is 
24 percent behind. Just a few weeks ago, on February 24, Lt. Gen. Roger 
Schultz, director of the Army Guard, was quoted in the Dallas Morning 
News saying ``No doubt, if we kept up this pace for extended periods, 
our force would come apart.'' And, as the Baltimore Sun reported, the 
head of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James Helmly, told the Army Chief of 
Staff that his arm of the service was in danger of becoming a ``broken 
force'' under the current operations tempo.
  By providing our reservists with the benefits they deserve, we can 
help reverse this course. We will also be sending a powerful message: 
that we value your service and recognize the incredible sacrifices you 
are making. And we will truly be honoring our heroes.
  This bill has broad support and has been endorsed by key members of 
the Military Coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers Association of America, 
the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Association, the 
Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Naval 
Reserve Association, and the National Guard Association.
  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. 639

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN AGE FOR RECEIPT OF MILITARY RETIRED 
                   PAY FOR NONREGULAR SERVICE.

       (a) Reduction in Age.--Section 12731(a)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``at least 60 
     years of age'' and inserting ``at least 55 years of age''.
       (b) Application to Existing Provisions of Law or Policy.--
     With respect to any provision of law, or of any policy, 
     regulation, or directive of the executive branch, that refers 
     to a member or former member of the uniformed services as 
     being eligible for, or entitled to, retired pay under chapter 
     1223 of title 10, United States Code, but for the fact that 
     the member or former member is under 60 years of age, such 
     provision shall be carried out with respect to that member or 
     former member by substituting for the reference to being 60 
     years of age a reference to the age in effect for 
     qualification for such retired pay under section 12731(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month 
     beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to retired pay payable for that month and 
     subsequent months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 641. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Michael Ellis 
DeBakey, M.D.; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 
lifetime achievements of Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant 
and world-renowned cardiologist, by offering legislation to award him 
the Congressional Gold Medal.
  Throughout his life Dr. DeBakey has made numerous advances in the 
field of medicine. When he was only 23 years of age and still attending 
medical school, Dr. DeBakey developed a roller pump for blood 
transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung 
machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led 
to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease. His 
service to our country did not stop there.
  Dr. DeBakey put his practice on hold and volunteered for military 
service during World War II with the Surgeon General's staff. During 
this time, he received the rank of Colonel and Chief of Surgical 
Consultants Division.
  As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made 
numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. 
His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, 
better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 
1945.
  After WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing national 
and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were wounded or 
needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into the 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the 
commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research 
Council.
  In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of 
Medicine, where he started its first surgical residency program and was 
later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine.
  Adding to his list of accomplishments Dr. DeBakey performed the first 
successful procedure to treat patients with anyeurysms. In 1964, Dr. 
DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening 
the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the 
lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to 
successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, 
President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the 
President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led 
to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate 
medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance 
research and training.
  Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered 
the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery 
transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful 
multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were 
transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients.

  These accomplishments have led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey 
has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction 
from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President 
Ronald Reagan.
  Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the 
DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for 
some patients to receive heart transplants.

[[Page S2853]]

  I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and 
significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him 
the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical 
techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of 
people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the 
profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of 
medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not 
a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor 
College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world 
leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. 
DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service not only to the 
medical community but to the world. 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. 641

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D., was born on September 7, 
     1908 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to Shaker and Raheeja 
     DeBakey.
       (2) Dr. DeBakey, at the age of 23 and still a medical 
     student, reported a major invention, a roller pump for blood 
     transfusions, which later became a major component of the 
     heart-lung machine used in the first successful open-heart 
     operation.
       (3) Even though Dr. DeBakey had already achieved a national 
     reputation as an authority on vascular disease and had a 
     promising career as a surgeon and teacher, he volunteered for 
     military service during World War II, joining the Surgeon 
     General's staff and rising to the rank of Colonel and Chief 
     of the Surgical Consultants Division.
       (4) As a result of this first-hand knowledge of military 
     service, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations for the 
     proper staged management of war wounds, which led to the 
     development of mobile army surgical hospitals or MASH units, 
     and earned Dr. DeBakey the Legion of Merit in 1945.
       (5) After the war, Dr. DeBakey proposed the systematic 
     medical follow-up of veterans and recommended the creation of 
     specialized medical centers in different areas of the United 
     States to treat wounded military personnel returning from 
     war, and from this recommendation evolved the Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the 
     Commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National 
     Research Council.
       (6) In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University 
     College of Medicine, where he developed the first surgical 
     residency program in the City of Houston, and today, guided 
     by Dr. DeBakey's vision, the College is one of the most 
     respected health science centers in the Nation.
       (7) In 1953, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful 
     procedures to treat patients who suffered aneurysms leading 
     to severe strokes, and he later developed a series of 
     innovative surgical techniques for the treatment of aneurysms 
     enabling thousands of lives to be saved in the years ahead.
       (8) In 1964, Dr. DeBakey triggered the most explosive era 
     in modern cardiac surgery, when he performed the first 
     successful coronary bypass, once again paving the way for 
     surgeons world-wide to offer hope to thousands of patients 
     who might otherwise succumb to heart disease.
       (9) Two years later, Dr. DeBakey made medical history 
     again, when he was the first to successfully use a partial 
     artificial heart to solve the problems of a patient who could 
     not be weaned from a heart-lung machine following open-heart 
     surgery.
       (10) In 1968, Dr. DeBakey supervised the first successful 
     multi-organ transplant, in which a heart, both kidneys, and 
     lung were transplanted from a single donor into 4 separate 
     recipients.
       (11) In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. 
     DeBakey to the position of Chairman of the President's 
     Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, leading to 
     the creation of Regional Medical Programs established ``to 
     encourage and assist in the establishment of regional 
     cooperative arrangements among medical schools, research 
     institutions, and hospitals, for research and training''.
       (12) In the mid-1960's, Dr. DeBakey pioneered the field of 
     telemedicine with the first demonstration of open-heart 
     surgery to be transmitted overseas by satellite.
       (13) In 1969, Dr. DeBakey was elected the first President 
     of Baylor College of Medicine.
       (14) In 1969, President Lyndon B. Johnson bestowed on Dr. 
     DeBakey the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, 
     and in 1985, President Ronald Reagan conferred on him the 
     National Medal of Science.
       (15) Working with NASA engineers, he refined existing 
     technology to create the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, 
     one-tenth the size of current versions, which may eliminate 
     the need for heart transplantation in some patients.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 
     shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on 
     behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate 
     design, to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D., in recognition of his 
     many outstanding contributions to the Nation.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

       (a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and 
     5136 of title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under 
     this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of 
     the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be 
     deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Talent, Mr. Enzi, 
        Mr. Ensign, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Craig, Mr. Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Brownback, 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
  S. 642. A bill to support certain national youth organizations, 
including the Boy Scouts of America, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that my Senate 
colleagues and I will be introducing the ``Support Our Scouts Act of 
2005'' today.
  This legislation will ensure that the Defense Department can and will 
continue to provide the Scouts the type of support it has provided in 
the past, such as at Jamborees and on bases. This bill also ensures 
Scouts have equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs 
that are open to a variety of other youth or community organizations.
  Why am I introducing this legislation? Since the Supreme Court 
decided Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Boy Scouts of America's 
relationship with government at all levels has been the target of 
multiple lawsuits.
  The Federal Government is defending a lawsuit brought by the ACLU 
aimed at severing ties between Boy Scouts and the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The effect of 
these attempts at exclusion at the Federal, State, and local levels are 
far-reaching and has had a discernible ``chilling'' effect on 
government support for our Scouts.
  This is the greatest legal challenge facing Boy Scouts today. Boy 
Scouts of America, like other non-profit youth organizations, depend, 
on its ability to use public facilities and participate in these 
programs and forums. The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 addresses these 
issues by removing any doubt that Federal agencies may welcome Scouts 
to hold meetings and go camping on Federal property.
  The Boy Scouts of America is a congressionally chartered 
organization. Pentagon support for Scouts is authorized in U.S. law. It 
serves a patriotic, charitable, and educational purpose. Since 1910, 
Boy Scout membership has totaled more than 110 million young Americans.
  Today, more than 3.2 million youths and 1.2 million adults are 
members of the Boy Scouts and are dedicated to fulfilling the Boy 
Scouts' mission. That number includes more than 40

[[Page S2854]]

members of the United States Senate and more than 150 members of the 
House of Representatives who have been involved in Scouting. I was a 
Boy Scout, and all three of my sons were as well. This unique American 
institution is committed to preparing our youth for the future by 
instilling in them values such as honesty, integrity, and character.
  Through exposure to the outdoors, hard work, and the virtues of civic 
duty, the Boy Scouts have developed millions of Americans into superb 
citizens and future leaders.
  The Support Our Scouts Act ratifies our longstanding commitment to 
this valued civic organization. It clarifies that no Federal law, 
including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or order, shall 
be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of 
support to the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of the United 
States of America or any organization chartered by the Boy Scouts of 
America or the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.
  Activities supported include holding meetings, jamborees, camporees, 
or other scouting activities on Federal property, or hosting or 
sponsoring any official event of such organization. The Scouts Act is 
also being introduced by a bipartisan group of Members in the House. I 
believe this bill will receive broad, bipartisan support in both 
chambers of Congress and that we will pass it this year. It is common 
sense legislation that all fair and reasonable people can support. I 
encourage Scout supporters--indeed, all Americans--to contact their 
Senators and Representatives and ask them to support the ``Support Our 
Scouts Act of 2005.''
  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. 642

       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 ``Support our Scouts Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``Federal agency'' means each department, 
     agency, instrumentality, or other entity of the United States 
     Government; and
       (2) the term ``youth organization'' means any organization 
     described under part B of subtitle II of title 36, United 
     States Code, that is intended to serve individuals under the 
     age of 21 years.
       (b) In General.--
       (1) Support for youth organizations.--No Federal law 
     (including any rule, regulation, directive, instruction, or 
     order) shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from 
     providing any form of support for a youth organization 
     (including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially 
     affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America) that would result 
     in that Federal agency providing less support to that youth 
     organization (or any similar organization chartered under the 
     chapter of title 36, United States Code, relating to that 
     youth organization) than was provided during each of the 
     preceding 4 fiscal years.
       (2) Types of support.--Support described under paragraph 
     (1) shall include--
       (A) holding meetings, camping events, or other activities 
     on Federal property; and
       (B) hosting any official event of such organization.

     SEC. 3. EQUAL ACCESS FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5309) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by inserting 
     ``or (e)'' after ``subsection (a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Equal Access.--
       ``(1) Definition.--The term `youth organization' means any 
     organization described under part B of subtitle II of title 
     36, United States Code, that is intended to serve individuals 
     under the age of 21 years.
       ``(2) In general.--No State or unit of general local 
     government that has a designated open forum, limited public 
     forum, or nonpublic forum and that is a recipient of 
     assistance under this chapter shall deny equal access or a 
     fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any 
     youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America or 
     any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of 
     America, that wishes to conduct a meeting or otherwise 
     participate in that designated open forum, limited public 
     forum, or nonpublic forum.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Cantwell, and 
        Mr. Dodd):
  S. 644. A bill to establish new special immigrant categories, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many innocent human beings are forced 
from their homes and separated from their families because of war and 
civil strife. We are seeing it right now in Darfur, Sudan where over 2 
million have been displaced from their homes due to the conflict and 
ongoing genocide. It is frightening to think that some of those people 
are still susceptible to persecution just for being a woman or a child. 
I have heard stories that the refugees and internally displaced persons 
(IDPs) are still not safe from being persecuted by their attackers. 
Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will save the lives 
of some of the world's most vulnerable populations.
  The Widows and Orphans Act of 2005, similar to the one I introduced 
last Congress, will benefit women and children fleeing war and civil 
strife, who are often vulnerable and in grave danger. They may not be 
fleeing political persecution--something that would allow them to apply 
for refugee status--but they may nevertheless be subjected to violence 
or exploitation. When a culture does not recognize female heads of 
households, when a young child loses his or her family structure, or 
when a woman's home community will not allow her to return at the end 
of hostilities, abuse and exploitation often follow.
  For example, a widow fleeing an armed conflict risks being raped, 
being sold into sexual slavery or becoming a victim of violence. In 
another example, a child who loses his or her parents when fleeing a 
conflict is in grave danger of sexual exploitation and forced 
servitude. The child could even be forced into service as a child 
soldier, as we have seen happen to scores of children in Northern 
Uganda. Even within a refugee camp--a place that might otherwise be 
thought of as safe--women and children face forced prostitution and 
involuntary servitude.
  U.S. and international law does not currently provide refugee 
protection for age and sex-based violence. The Widows and Orphans Act 
of 2005 is much-needed legislation which would fill this void by 
admitting as special immigrants children and females at risk of harm. 
Under this bill, government officials, the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and appropriate non-governmental 
organizations will be able to identify vulnerable women and children 
for consideration as special immigrants who then can gain permanent 
residence in the United States.
  This legislation will allow officials in the field--those monitoring 
armed conflict and civil strife and those in refugee camps--to identify 
women and children who face harm because of their sex or age and refer 
them for consideration as special immigrants. The bill will essentially 
speed up the acceptance process by allowing officials with first-hand 
knowledge of cases to step in and identify those in dire need. With 
reliable security measures, it will also help eliminate fraud and abuse 
from those who wish to do us harm.
  For widows and orphans, abuse and exploitation are immediate dangers. 
This legislation provides officials at the grass-roots level the 
ability to prevent further harm from coming upon those who have already 
faced terrible situations.
  More than 80 percent of the world's displaced people are women and 
children, and thousands of them are waiting patiently for the OK to 
enter our country. While they wait, they are often victimized; some 
even die waiting. We must not stand by as they are left to die.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 645. A bill to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational 
Firearms Use Protection Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a common sense 
bill that will protect American citizens and law enforcement officers. 
The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act is designed 
to restore and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that expired on 
September 13, 2004.

[[Page S2855]]

  The Government Accountability Office recently reported that 47 people 
on the terrorist watch list legally purchased firearms in this country 
last year. I personally believe that a person on the terrorist watch 
list, who isn't allowed to board a commercial airliner, should not be 
able to purchase any weapon. But they especially shouldn't be able to 
buy assault weapons, which possess unique, military-bred, anti-
personnel design characteristics. These features, taken together, make 
it easy for a shooter to simply point a weapon--as opposed to taking 
careful aim--and quickly spray a wide area with a lethal hail of 
bullets.
  These features make assault weapons especially attractive to 
terrorists and criminals, and virtually useless to hunters or sport 
shooters.
  Before the previous ban on assault weapons expired last November, 
some attempted to justify that expiration by saying that it wasn't 
working as intended.
  That is true. Some gun manufacturers were exploiting loopholes in the 
law by selling kits that made it possible to modify legal firearms into 
assault-style weapons, or by changing a few features of a weapon so it 
would slip through the legal definition of an assault rifle. The proper 
response to these abuses was not to let the ban expire, however. 
Instead, we should have fixed the ban so it really kept assault-style 
weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. This bill will do 
that.
  It improves and simplifies the definition of assault weapons; expands 
the scope of the ban to include conversion parts kits that can be 
purchased through the mail and used to build an assault weapon; 
regulates the transfer of grandfathered assault weapons; clarifies 
definitions of assault weapon characteristics; and enhances tracing of 
assault weapons.
  Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and criminals 
is simply a matter of common sense. Innocent lives are at stake--
including the lives of law enforcement officers who are our last line 
of defense against terrorists who would attack our communities. Make no 
mistake--military-style assault weapons are a threat to cops on the 
street.
  An analysis of FBI data found that one in five law enforcement 
officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and 
December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons. How many of those 
officers would be alive today if criminals hadn't been able to get 
their hands on assault weapons?
  Hundreds of organizations are on record in support of a ban on 
assault weapons, including the Anti-Defamation League, Brady Campaign 
to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, Consumer 
Federation of America, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
National League of Cities, and Voices for America's Children. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this common-sense measure.
  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. 645

       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 ``Assault Weapons Ban and Law 
     Enforcement Protection Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION 
                   OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

       (a) Restriction.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the 
     following:
       ``(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, 
     transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or 
     transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise 
     lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--
       ``(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide 
     action;
       ``(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
       ``(C) is an antique firearm.
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by 
     the United States or a department or agency of the United 
     States or a State or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a 
     law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and 
     maintaining an onsite physical protection system and security 
     organization required by Federal law, or possession by an 
     employee or contractor of such licensee onsite for such 
     purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized 
     training or transportation of nuclear materials;
       ``(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from 
     service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise 
     prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic 
     assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency 
     upon such retirement; or
       ``(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or 
     licensed importer for the purposes of testing or 
     experimentation authorized by the Secretary.
       ``(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not 
     apply, except through--
       ``(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) 
     in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be 
     considered to be transferred from the business inventory of 
     the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be 
     the transferor; or
       ``(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the 
     transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided 
     for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).
       ``(6) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in 
     a timely manner, a record of the make, model, and date of 
     manufacture of any semiautomatic assault weapon which the 
     Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a 
     crime under Federal or State law, and the nature and 
     circumstances of the crime involved, including the outcome of 
     relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The 
     Attorney General shall annually submit the record to Congress 
     and make the record available to the general public.''.
       (b) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.--Section 
     921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     after paragraph (29) the following:
       ``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of 
     the following:
       ``(A) Rifles.--The following rifles or copies or duplicates 
     thereof--
       ``(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, 
     NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
       ``(ii) AR-10;
       ``(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic 
     Arms PCR;
       ``(iv) AR70;
       ``(v) Calico Liberty;
       ``(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
       ``(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
       ``(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
       ``(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
       ``(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
       ``(xi) M1 Carbine;
       ``(xii) Saiga;
       ``(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
       ``(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
       ``(xv) SLG 95;
       ``(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
       ``(xvii) Steyr AUG;
       ``(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
       ``(xix) Tavor;
       ``(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 
     Commando; or
       ``(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil 
     Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
       ``(B) Pistols.--The following pistols or copies or 
     duplicates thereof--
       ``(i) Calico M-110;
       ``(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
       ``(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
       ``(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
       ``(v) Uzi.
       ``(C) Shotguns.--The following shotguns or copies or 
     duplicates thereof--
       ``(i) Armscor 30 BG;
       ``(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
       ``(iii) Striker 12; or
       ``(iv) Streetsweeper.
       ``(D) Detachable magazine rifles.--A semiautomatic rifle 
     that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that 
     has--
       ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
       ``(ii) a threaded barrel;
       ``(iii) a pistol grip;
       ``(iv) a forward grip; or
       ``(v) a barrel shroud.
       ``(E) Fixed magazine rifles.--A semiautomatic rifle that 
     has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 
     rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to 
     accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber 
     rimfire ammunition.
       ``(F) Detachable magazine pistols.--A semiautomatic pistol 
     that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and 
     has--
       ``(i) a second pistol grip;
       ``(ii) a threaded barrel;
       ``(iii) a barrel shroud; or
       ``(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a 
     location outside of the pistol grip.
       ``(G) Fixed magazine pistols.--A semiautomatic pistol with 
     a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 
     rounds.
       ``(H) Semiautomatic shotguns.--A semiautomatic shotgun that 
     has--
       ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
       ``(ii) a pistol grip;

[[Page S2856]]

       ``(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
       ``(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
       ``(I) Other shotguns.--A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
       ``(J) Frames or receivers.--A frame or receiver that is 
     identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver 
     of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (I) or (L).
       ``(K) Conversion kits.--A conversion kit.
       ``(L) Military or law enforcment weapons.--A semiautomatic 
     rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law 
     enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a 
     firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting 
     purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making 
     the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption 
     that a firearm procured for use by the United States military 
     or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly 
     suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be 
     determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes 
     solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting 
     event.''.
       (c) Penalties.--
       (1) Violation of section 922(v).--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or (q) 
     of section 922'' and inserting ``(r), or (v) of section 
     922''.
       (2) Use or possession during crime of violence or drug 
     trafficking crime.--Section 924(c)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or 
     semiautomatic assault weapon,'' after ``short-barreled 
     shotgun,''.
       (d) Identification Markings for Semiautomatic Assault 
     Weapons.--Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The serial 
     number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after 
     the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show 
     the date on which the weapon was manufactured.''.
       (e) Related Definitions.--Section 921(a) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) Barrel shroud.--The term `barrel shroud' means a 
     shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely 
     encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud 
     protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the 
     barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the 
     barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along 
     the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or 
     substantially encircle the barrel.
       ``(37) Conversion kit.--The term `conversion kit' means any 
     part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in 
     converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and 
     any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or 
     under the control of a person.
       ``(38) Detachable magazine.--The term `detachable magazine' 
     means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be 
     inserted into a firearm.
       ``(39) Fixed magazine.--The term `fixed magazine' means an 
     ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently 
     attached to, a firearm.
       ``(40) Folding or telescoping stock.--The term `folding or 
     telescoping stock' means a stock that folds, telescopes, or 
     otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other 
     dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of a 
     firearm.
       ``(41) Forward grip.--The term `forward grip' means a grip 
     located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol 
     grip.
       ``(42) Pistol grip.--The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a 
     thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can 
     function as a grip.
       ``(43) Threaded barrel.--The term `threaded barrel' means a 
     feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner 
     to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in 
     section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 
     5845(a)).''.

     SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after 
     subsection (v) the following:
       ``(w)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it 
     shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession or 
     transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     otherwise lawfully possessed in the United States on the date 
     of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or 
     bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device.
       ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by 
     the United States or a department or agency of the United 
     States or a State or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a 
     law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and 
     maintaining an onsite physical protection system and security 
     organization required by Federal law, or possession by an 
     employee or contractor of such licensee onsite for such 
     purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized 
     training or transportation of nuclear materials; or
       ``(C) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer 
     or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or 
     experimentation authorized by the Secretary.
       ``(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on 
     or before the date of enactment of this subsection, to fail 
     to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-
     day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney 
     General, that the device was manufactured on or before the 
     date of enactment of this subsection.''.
       (b) Definition of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding 
     Device.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 2(b), is amended by adding after paragraph 
     (30) the following:
       ``(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device'--
       ``(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar 
     device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily 
     restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of 
     ammunition; but
       ``(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed 
     to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber 
     rimfire ammunition.''.
       (c) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 2(c), is amended by 
     striking ``or (v)'' and inserting ``(v), or (w)''.
       (d) Identification Markings for Large Capacity Ammunition 
     Feeding Devices.--Section 923(i) of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2(d), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``A large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this 
     sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly 
     shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the 
     effective date of this subsection, and such other 
     identification as the Attorney General may by regulation 
     prescribe.
       (e) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With 
     Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device.--
       (1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any 
     assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device.''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both.
       ``(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.

     SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General shall investigate and 
     study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, 
     on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be 
     conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 30 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report setting forth in detail the 
     findings and determinations made in the study under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.

       Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calendar year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal 
Government's fiscal year 2006 budget, I can think of no better time to 
discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to

[[Page S2857]]

introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  This is the same amendment that I have introduced every Congress 
since the 97th Congress. Throughout my tenure in Congress, during good 
economic times and bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this 
idea because I believe that one of the most important things the 
Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and 
future generations is to balance the Federal budget.
  Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding 
the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary 
constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that: ``. . . there is a 
general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of 
man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas 
Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the 
burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question 
whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it 
imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the 
fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves 
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to 
pay them ourselves.''
  I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that 
Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future 
generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the 
past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal 
Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's 
assessment of the significance of this is also correct: 
intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.
  Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and 
``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the 
promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, 
the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, 
it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are 
allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for 
current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this 
same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and 
the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. 
But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a 
ballooning Federal debt.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain 
mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the 
Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren 
with the current generation's debts. A permanently balanced budget 
would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American 
people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates 
thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a 
car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive 
payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal 
Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. 
Moreover, if the governments demand for capital is reduced, more money 
would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would 
generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.
  More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the 
economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget 
amendment. On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the 
Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary 
interest payments. In fiscal year 2004, the Federal Government spent 
more than $321 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. 
That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and 
crime programs combined.
  We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring 
them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on 
improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a 
cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in 
the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is 
being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government 
continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.
  A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution 
to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a 
path to paying off our national debt, which is currently almost $8 
trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no 
longer be wasted on interest payments.
  Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is 
something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget 
would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that 
would require the Federal Government to do what every American already 
has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs 
to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this 
extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to 
the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned 
tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and 
future generations of Americans that much.
  We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from 
Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force 
Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this 
year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal 
budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 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. 10

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
     ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
     States within 7 years of the date of final passage of this 
     joint resolution:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. The total amount of money expended by the 
     United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the total 
     amount of revenue received by the United States during such 
     fiscal year, except revenue received from the issuance of 
     bonds, notes, or other obligations of the United States.
       ``Section 2. The total amount of money expended by the 
     United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed the amount 
     equal to 20 per centum of the gross national product of the 
     United States during the last calendar year ending before the 
     beginning of such fiscal year.
       ``Section 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall not 
     apply during any fiscal year during any part of which the 
     United States is at war as declared by Congress under section 
     8 of Article I of the Constitution.
       ``Section 4. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article may be 
     suspended by a concurrent resolution approved by a three-
     fifths vote of the Members of each House of Congress. Any 
     suspension of sections 1 and 2 of this Article under this 
     section shall be effective only during the fiscal year during 
     which such suspension is approved.
       ``Section 5. This Article shall take effect on the first 
     day of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the 
     adoption of this Article.
       ``Section 6. Congress shall have power to enforce this 
     Article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S.J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and 
to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice 
President of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the 
Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.
  I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our 
country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and 
debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and 
questions.
  The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable 
during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate 
for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

[[Page S2858]]

  Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count 
of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point 
for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.
  My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct 
popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the 
same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All 
the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept 
away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the 
individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.
  For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for 
electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country 
today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on 
the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.
  Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the 
current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 
States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the 
Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 
million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a 
recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million 
popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that 
translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an 
elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a 
presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily 
switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which 
has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election 
produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the 
President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the 
House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single 
vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose 
population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; 
making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House 
members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote 
in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they 
see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically 
assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate 
advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with 
more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a 
State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who 
supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral 
College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential 
candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the 
concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.
  The political and substantive utility of this system, full of 
pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a 
function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not 
count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.
  Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the 
Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the 
nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common 
sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the 
Electoral College.
  My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial 
manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states 
and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my 
motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a 
way that eliminates undue consequences.
  I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, 
constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I 
believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands 
that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that 
through the Senate hearing process.
  There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately 
represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no 
formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting 
national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States 
large and small about protecting their interests.
  The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and 
political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the 
federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, 
the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made 
national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local 
``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national 
presidential election.
  This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the 
President through a College of Electors.
  Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the 
Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, 
Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national 
elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the 
President than southern states. And States that independently extended 
rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.
  The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and 
many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to 
rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons 
justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over 
why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.
  Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State 
governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern 
states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these 
voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was 
considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the 
Constitutional Convention of 1787.
  Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage 
of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral 
College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas 
Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing 
the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a 
``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was 
only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the 
Presidency.
  Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to 
streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that 
passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College 
system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.
  Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for 
reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to 
address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American 
public.
  Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed 
to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th 
century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote 
but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy 
Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 
1888.

  And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our 
Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush 
by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 
votes.
  The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed 
elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes 
from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have 
ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite 
losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, 
Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in 
Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would 
have been returned to the White House.
  And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in 
Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 
2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever 
with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.
  And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from 
President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the 
Democrat to

[[Page S2859]]

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even 
though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.
  According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near 
misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 
contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later 
a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner 
contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of 
victory runs into the millions.
  Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the 
electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless 
Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College 
System.
  History shows that electors have not been faithful to the 
presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in 
their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning 
candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when 
electoral votes are formally counted.
  Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a 
North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, 
switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; 
in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched 
his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike 
Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; 
in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, 
voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the 
positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 
2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat 
Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.
  These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those 
presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of 
the people.
  The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of 
the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is 
cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their 
pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and 
legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.
  In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to 
envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of 
votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the 
White House.
  In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his 
electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the 
Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month 
following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary 
majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive 
cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What 
element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an 
unfortunate outcome?
  This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is 
possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, 
because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our 
indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College 
system.
  Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate 
voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace 
it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell 
short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional 
amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported 
the concept.
  A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st 
Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of 
the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.
  I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, 
through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. 
The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building 
blocks of our democracy.
  Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a 
political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the 
Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such 
as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate 
influence in the process compared to California.
  I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote 
of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But 
it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in 
future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. 
Their votes will count for something.
  In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in 
California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 
54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.
  Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in 
California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not 
benefit from a direct popular election in California.
  But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right 
thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential 
candidates in my home State.
  As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and 
Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They 
come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with 
real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for 
New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.
  I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide 
popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural 
interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive 
power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities 
and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, 
New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral 
landscape.
  At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and 
vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating 
and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of 
American voters, who represent different economic and social 
backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and 
so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority 
of votes in presidential races.
  I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the 
broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. 
In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person 
lives in the country, should be counted equally.
  Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, 
but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College 
Abolition 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. 11

       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 within seven years after 
     the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be 
     elected by the people of the several States and the district 
     constituting the seat of government of the United States. The 
     persons having the greatest number of votes for President and 
     Vice President shall be elected.
       ``Section 2. The voters in each State shall have the 
     qualifications requisite for electors of Representatives in 
     Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any 
     State may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with 
     respect to residence and Congress may establish uniform 
     residence and age qualifications. Congress may establish 
     qualifications for voters in the district constituting the 
     seat of government of the United States.
       ``Section 3. Congress may determine the time, place, and 
     manner of holding the election, and the entitlement to 
     inclusion on the ballot. Congress shall prescribe by law the 
     time, place, and manner in which the results of the election 
     shall be ascertained and declared.
       ``Section 4. Each voter shall cast a single vote jointly 
     applicable to President and Vice President in any such 
     election. Names of candidates shall not be joined unless both 
     candidates have consented thereto, and no

[[Page S2860]]

     candidate shall consent to being joined with more than one 
     other person.
       ``Section 5. Congress may by law provide for the case of 
     the death of any candidate for President or Vice President 
     before the day on which the President-elect or the Vice 
     President-elect has been chosen, and for the case of a tie in 
     any such election.
       ``Section 6. This article shall take effect one year after 
     the twenty-first day of January following ratification.''.

                          ____________________