Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 54 (Thursday, April 28, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4549-S4595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 933. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for improvements in access to services in rural hospitals and
critical access hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback
in introducing The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. This
legislation is intended to ensure the future of small rural hospitals
by restructuring the way they are reimbursed for Medicare services by
basing the reimbursements on actual costs instead of the current pre-
set cost structure.
Current law allows for very small hospitals--designated Critical
Access Hospitals (CAH) to receive cost-based Medicare reimbursements.
To qualify as a CAH the facility must have no more than 25 acute care
beds.
In rural communities, hospital facilities that are slightly larger
than the 25 bed limit share with Critical Access Hospitals the same
economic conditions, the same treatment challenges, the same disparity
in coverage area but do not share the same reimbursement arrangement.
These rural hospitals have to compete with larger urban-based hospitals
that can perform the same services at drastically reduced costs. They
are also discouraged from investing in technology and other methods to
improve the quality of care in their communities because those
investments are not supported by Medicare reimbursement procedures.
The legislation would provide enhanced cost-based Medicare
reimbursement by creating a new ``rural'' designation under the
Medicare reimbursement system. This new designation would benefit five
Nebraska hospitals. Hospitals in McCook, Beatrice, Columbus, Holdrege
and Lexington would fall under this new designation, and would have
similar benefits provided to nearly sixty other Nebraska hospitals
classified under the CAH system.
The legislation would also improve the hospitals with critical access
status. Sixty CAH facilities in Nebraska already receive enhanced cost-
based reimbursements for inpatient and outpatient services. The
legislation would further assist these existing CAH facilities by
extending the enhanced cost-based reimbursement to certain post-acute
and ambulance services and eliminating the current 35-mile test.
Rural hospitals cannot continue to provide these services without
having Medicare cover the costs. If something is not done, the larger
hospitals may be forced to cut back on the number of beds they keep--
and the number of people they care for, and others may be forced to
close their doors. These hospitals provide jobs, good wages, health
care and economic development opportunity for these communities.
Without access to these hospitals, these communities would not survive.
The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will ensure that the
community has access to high quality health care that is affordable to
the patient and the provider.
______

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 934. A bill to establish an expedited procedure for congressional
consideration of health care reform legislation; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation
that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic
policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.
I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold town
hall meetings. Year after year, the number one issue raised at these
listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health
care system brings people to these meetings in droves. The frustration
I hear, the anger and the desperation, have convinced me that we must
change the system.
So many people now come to tell me that they used to think government
involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they tell me that
their businesses are being destroyed by health care costs, and they
want the government to step in. These costs are crippling our economy
just as the nation is struggling to rebound from the loss of millions
of manufacturing jobs.
Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check. Costs are
skyrocketing, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to
keep up. So in all too many cases, employers are left to offer sub-par
benefits, or to wonder whether they can offer any benefits at all.
Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs
are rising faster than inflation.
One option that could help employers, especially small businesses,
reduce their health care costs is to have them form health care
cooperatives, where employers lower costs by purchasing care as a
group. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to make it easier for
business to create these cooperatives.
But that legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can
address the whole problem. We need to come up with more comprehensive
ways to address rising costs. In most cases, costs are still passed on
to employees, who then face enormous premiums that demand more and more
of their monthly income. People tell me that they don't understand how
anyone can afford these astronomical premiums, and what can you say to
that?
Well, we can say that it's time to move toward universal coverage. I
believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this
country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system
already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's
creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is
uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by
what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is
ending a system where approximately 45 million Americans are uninsured,
and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their
premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to
find long term care.
We can't tolerate a system that strands so many Americans without the
coverage they need. This system costs us dearly: Even though an
estimated 45 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes
more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries.
Leaving this many Americans uninsured affects all of us. Those who
are insured pay more because the uninsured can't afford to pay their
bills. And those bills are exceptionally high, because the uninsured
wait so long to see a doctor. The uninsured often live sicker, and die
earlier, than other Americans, so they also need a disproportionate
amount of acute care.
In 2001 alone, health care providers provided $35 billion worth of
uncompensated care. While providers absorb some of those costs,
inevitably some of the burden is shifted to other patients. And of
course the process of cost-shifting itself generates additional costs.
We are all paying the price for our broken health care system, and it
is time to bring about change.
Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we
should change the health care system in this country. Some propose
using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others
think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a
national single payer health care system is the only way to go.
I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to
consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.
As a former State legislator, I come to this debate knowing that
States are coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health
care problem.

[[Page S4550]]

So in addition to the approaches already mentioned, I think we really
need to look at what our States are doing, and add to the menu of
possibilities an approach under which each State decides the best way
to cover its residents.
I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage
creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country,
without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that states have
a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are,
and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their
State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system,
where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan
to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage.
This approach would achieve universal health care, without the
Federal Government dictating to all of the states exactly how to do it.
The Federal Government would provide States with the financial help,
technical assistance and oversight necessary to accomplish this goal.
In return, a State would have to make sure that every resident has
coverage at least as good as that offered in the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)--in other words, at least as good as
the health insurance Members of Congress have.

States would have the flexibility to expand coverage in phases, and
would be offered a number of Federal ``tools'' to choose from in order
to help them achieve universal coverage. States could use any number of
these tools, or none of them, instead opting for a Federal contribution
for a State-based ``single-payer'' system. In addition to designing and
implementing a plan to achieve universal care, States would also be
required to provide partial funding of these plans. The Federal
Government would approve each State plan, and would conduct oversight
of the implementation of these plans.
Federal tools that States could choose from to help expand health
coverage could include an enhanced Medicaid and SCHIP Federal match for
expanding coverage to currently uninsured individuals; refundable and
advanceable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance for
individuals and/or businesses; the establishment of a community-rated
health pool, similar to FEHBP, to provide affordable health coverage
and expanded choices for those who enroll; and assistance with
catastrophic care costs.
States could be creative in the State resources they use to expand
health care coverage. For example, a State could use personal and/or
employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a
single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a
regional health care plan.
The approach I have set forth would guarantee universal health care,
but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that I believe
is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, quality
health care.
As I have noted, there have been a number of interesting proposals to
move us to universal health care coverage. While I will be advocating
the State-based approach that I have just outlined, others have
proposed alternative approaches that certainly merit consideration and
debate.
And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are
introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health
care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that
Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the
outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens
of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay
their premiums, Washington refuses to address the problem in a
comprehensive way.
That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force
Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and
Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to
each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the
session following enactment of the bill. If a committee chair fails to
introduce a bill within the first month, then the ranking minority
party member of the respective committee may introduce a measure that
qualifies for the expedited treatment outlined in my bill.
The measures introduced by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
will be placed directly on the Senate Calendar. The measures introduced
by the two committee chairs, or ranking minority members, will be
referred to their respective committees.
The committees have 60 calendar days, not including recesses of 3
days or more, to review the legislation. At the end of that time, if
either committee fails to report a measure, the bills will be placed
directly on the legislative calendar.
If the Majority Leader fails to move to one of the bills, any Member
may move to proceed to any qualifying health care reform measure. The
motion is not debatable or amendable. If the motion to proceed is
adopted, the Chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a
measure without intervening motion, order, or other business, and the
measure remains the unfinished business of the Senate until the body
disposes of the bill.
Similar procedures are established for House consideration.
I want to emphasize, my hill does not prejudge what particular health
care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals
that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate
which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered.
But what my bill does do is to require Congress to act.
It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health
care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money
contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The
legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer
be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as
never before for Congress to do something about the country's health
care crisis.
It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive
health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay, because I
believe the cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to
support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 934

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 ``Reform Health Care Now
Act''.

SEC. 2. SENATE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
LEGISLATION.

[[Page S4551]]

calendar-day period beginning on the date of referral, the
committee is, as of that date, automatically discharged from
further consideration of the bill, and the bill is placed
directly on the chamber's legislative calendar. In
calculating the 60-day period, adjournments for more than 3
days are not counted.
(2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the Senate
Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader shall, on
introduction, be placed directly on the Senate Calendar of
Business.
(c) Motion to Proceed.--
(1) In general.--On or after the third day following the
committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on
the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order
for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader,
to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified
bill. Notice shall first be given before proceeding. This
motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be
offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on
which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer
it.
(2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given
qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same
effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such
motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
(3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is
privileged, and all points of order against the motion to
proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived.
The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not
subject to a motion to postpone.
(4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is
not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the
motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in
order.
(d) Consideration of Qualified Bill.--
(1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the
chamber shall immediately proceed to the consideration of a
qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other
business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the
Senate until disposed of. A motion to limit debate is in
order and is not debatable.
(2) Only business.--The qualified bill is not subject to a
motion to postpone or a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business before the bill is disposed
of.
(3) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be
offered to the bill.

SEC. 3. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
LEGISLATION.

(a) Introduction.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the
commencement of the session of Congress that follows the date
of enactment of this Act, the chair of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the chair of the House Committee on Ways
and Means, the Majority Leader of the House, and the Minority
Leader of the House shall each introduce a bill to provide a
significant increase in access to health care coverage for
the people of the United States.
(2) Minority party.--These bills may be introduced by
request and only 1 qualified bill may be introduced by each
individual referred to in paragraph (1) within a Congress. If
either committee chair fails to introduce the bill within the
30-day period, the ranking minority party member of the
respective committee may, within the following 30 days,
instead introduce a bill that will qualify for the expedited
procedure provided in this section.
(3) Qualified bill.--
(A) In general.--To qualify for the expedited procedure
under this section as a qualified bill, the bill shall--
(i) reach the goal of providing healthcare coverage to 95
percent of Americans within 10 years; and
(ii) be deficit neutral.
(B) Determination.--Whether or not a bill meets the
criteria in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the
Speaker's ruling on a point of order based on a Congressional
Budget Office estimate of the bill.
(b) Referral.--
(1) Committee bills.--Upon introduction, the bill authored
by the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
shall be referred to that committee and the bill introduced
by the Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means shall
be referred to that committee. If either committee has not
reported the bill referred to it (or another qualified bill)
by the end of 60 days of consideration beginning on the date
of referral, the committee shall be automatically discharged
from further consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be
placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole House on the
State of the Union. In calculating the 60-day period,
adjournments for more than 3 days are not counted.
(2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the House
Majority Leader and House Minority Leader will, on
introduction, be placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole
House on the State of the Union.
(c) Motion to Proceed.--
(1) In general.--On or after the third day following the
committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on
the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order
for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader,
to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified
bill. Notice must first be given before proceeding. This
motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be
offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on
which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer
it.
(2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given
qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same
effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such
motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
(3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is
privileged, and all points of order against the motion to
proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived.
The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not
subject to a motion to postpone.
(4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is
not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the
motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in
order.
(d) Consideration of a Qualified Bill.--
(1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the
chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a
qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other
business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the
House until disposed of.
(2) Committee of the whole.--The bill will be considered in
the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule, and the
bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at
any time.
(3) Limit debate.--A motion to further limit debate is in
order and is not debatable.
(4) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be
offered to the bill.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 935. A bill to regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for
the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including
armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical
infrastructure; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fifty Caliber
Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005. I am joined by Senators Corzine
and Durbin.
This bill would add the .50-caliber sniper rifle to the list of
``firearms'' governed by the National Firearms Act. This means that
this weapon would be subject to the tax and registration rules imposed
by the Internal Revenue Service under that Act. The practical effect
would be that a transfer of such a weapon, by sale or by gift, would
require registration pursuant to IRS regulations.
The bill would not ban any guns, and existing .50 caliber owners
would be unaffected by this law until, and unless, they sell or give
away their weapon.
I believe this is a reasonable compromise, respecting the rights of
those who have followed the law, but making future changes in the law
to regulate new .50-caliber guns.
.50-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of
companies, are deadly, military weapons, designed for combat with
wartime enemies. They are capable of piercing light armor at more than
four miles. The guns are designed to enable a single soldier to destroy
enemy aircraft, HumVees, bunkers, fuel stations, and communication
centers, as well as target and kill enemy personnel. As a result, their
use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly.
This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, or destroy
machinery, at a great distance. But along with the increasing military
use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by
violent criminals and terrorists around the world, and the potential
for much worse.
These weapons are deadly accurate up to 6,000 feet. This means that a
shooter using a .50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than
a mile away. To further illustrate what this means, a shooter standing
on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial can kill a person standing on
the White House lawn, or shoot down the President's helicopter.
And the gun is effective at more than four miles. Although it may be
hard to aim at this distance, the gun will still have its desired
destructive effect. That means a shooter in Arlington Cemetery can send
a bullet crashing into this building.
This is, of course, is using ordinary ammunition. I had one of my
staff members obtain a blank .50-caliber bullet. I was amazed to see
what was brought back. Senate rules forbid me from bringing the bullet
to the floor, so I will describe it for my colleagues.

[[Page S4552]]

The casing for this bullet is about five inches in length, and three-
quarters-of-an-inch in diameter. The entire round is almost as big as
my hand.
But don't just take my word for it. Each one of my colleagues should
examine these bullets for themselves. Take a look at the projectile
these weapons fire. This is not a recreational gun that can be used for
hunting.
This gun can be used by civilians against armored limousines,
bunkers, individuals, and aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the
gun promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars''
worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars worth of cartridges.''
A recent CNN news report powerfully illustrates this issue. In one
on-camera demonstration, a .50 caliber bullet is fired through the door
of a commercial jetliner--it continues to blast through a steel plate.
A marksman on the steps of the Capitol could bring down a plane coming
into National Airport.
This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover General
Accountability Office investigators, ``You'd better buy one soon. It's
only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that
travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will
definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' In fact,
many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety
features to accommodate these guns.
A study by the GAO revealed some eye-opening facts about how and
where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports
that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and
international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs,
drug traffickers, and violent criminals.
According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the
Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most
shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on
law enforcement officers.''
But these fears are not hypothetical. Recently we have learned that
Al Qaeda has received .50-caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were
manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly two years ago
today, Essam al Ridi, an Al Qaeda associate, testified that he acquired
25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda
members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has
obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can
be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will
likely be used against Americans.
In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a
radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to
bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They
were also charged with plotting to assassinate then-Governor Engler,
Federal judges, and our colleague, Senator Levin. A .50-caliber sniper
rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that
included three illegal machine guns.
One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased ten of these
guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands
of rounds of ammunition and other guns.
At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities
after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country.
The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the
guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide.
The U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist
attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article
in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an anti-sniper assessment
claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as
vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from
beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue
and the effectiveness of specially-trained countersnipers to respond to
a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers,
and personnel.
I am glad to know our military has given some consideration to the
threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, but I have real concerns over the
threats posed to civilian aviation.
Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measure at Air
Force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers
and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats
posed by .50-caliber weapons.
Experts have agreed that .50-caliber weapons aimed at a plane while
stationary, or taking off or arriving, could be just as disastrous as a
hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luff, Co-Director of the Institute for
the Analysis of Global Security, has described .50-caliber weapons as
``lethal to slow moving planes.''
For further illustration of the potential destruction of these
weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50-caliber sniper rifle
brochure: ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be
overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than ten
U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.
The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of
helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of
destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to
a vital area.''
The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss
multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor-
piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S.
forces during the Gulf War. According to the company, the ammunition
can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a
20mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts,
light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.''
Ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on
the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Even those categories which are
illegal, such as the ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that
explodes on impact can, according to a recent ``60 Minutes'' news
report, be purchased online.
Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing
ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the
investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored
limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.
Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to
the least government regulation for any firearm. In other words, the
law makes no distinction between the .22-caliber target rifle, a .30-06
caliber hunter's weapon, and this large-caliber combat weapon. Simply,
I believe the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
This weapon is not in the same class as other rifles. Its power and
range are of an order of magnitude higher.
Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly-
regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow
possession of .50-caliber guns by those as young as 14-years old, and
there is no regulation on second-hand sales.
Just this past year, the RAND Corporation released a report which
identified eleven potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles
International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber
rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes:
``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for
such an attack.
Last June, a Department of Homeland Security representative told the
Dallas Morning News that ``we remain concerned about any weapon of
choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50-
caliber rifle.'' I think the Department's concerns are well founded.
The bottom line is that the .50-caliber sniper weapon represents a
national security threat requiring action by Congress.
This is a weapon which should not be available to terrorists and
criminals, and should be responsibly controlled through carefully
crafted regulation.
I urge my colleagues to support this 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. 935

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

[[Page S4553]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons
Regulation Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Certain firearms originally designed and built for use
as long-range .50 caliber military sniper weapons are
increasingly being sold in the United States civilian market.
(2) The intended use of these long-range firearms, and an
increasing number of models derived directly from them, is
the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel,
including armored vehicles and components of the national
critical infrastructure, such as radar and microwave
transmission devices.
(3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any
significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting
purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended
for sporting and hunting use.
(4) Extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these
weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing
incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce.
(5) The virtually unrestricted availability of these
firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their
design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial
threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF .50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE
NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General.--Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking ``(6)
a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of
title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive
device.'' and inserting ``(6) a .50 caliber sniper weapon;
(7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section
921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive
device.''.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) In general.--Section 5845 the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (defining terms relating to firearms) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(n) Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapon.--The term `.50 caliber
sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire
cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant
of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.''.
(2) Modification to definition of rifle.--Section 5845(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rifle) is
amended by inserting ``or from a bipod or other support''
after ``shoulder''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall only apply to a .50
caliber sniper weapon made or transferred after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Sununu):
S. 936. A bill to ensure privacy for e-mail communications; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I introduce today the Leahy-Sununu E-mail
Privacy Act to ensure that last year's decision by the First Circuit
Court of Appeals in a case called United States v. Councilman does not
undermine the online privacy that Americans expect and cherish. Senator
Sununu has been a leader on privacy issues, and I appreciate and
welcome his support.
In a strained reading of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), the majority in this case effectively concluded that it was
permissible for an Internet Service Provider to systematically
intercept, copy and read its customers' incoming e-mails for corporate
gain. This outcome is an unacceptable privacy intrusion that is
inconsistent with Congressional intent and the commonly-held
understanding of the protections provided by ECPA, and requires swift
Congressional response. I offer the E-mail Privacy Act as a simple,
straightforward way to prevent the erosion of the privacy protection
Congress granted to e-mail and ensure that this outcome is not
repeated.
In 1986 Congress passed ECPA to update the Wiretap Act so that
Americans could enjoy the same amount of privacy in their online
communications as they do in the offline world. ECPA was a careful,
bipartisan and long-planned effort to protect electronic communications
in two forms--from real-time monitoring or interception as they were
being delivered, and from searches when they were stored in record
systems. We recognized these as different functions and set rules for
each based on the relevant privacy expectations and threats to privacy
implicated by the different forms of surveillance.
The Councilman decision upset this careful distinction. Functionally,
the ISP was intercepting e-mails as they were being delivered, yet the
majority concluded that the relevant rules were those pertaining to
stored communications, which exempt ISPs. Specifically, the majority
rejected the argument put forth by the Justice Department that an
intercept occurs--and the Wiretap Act--applies when an e-mail is
acquired contemporaneously with its transmission, regardless of whether
the transmission may be in electronic storage for a nanosecond at the
time of acquisition. This majority's conclusion fails to consider the
nature of electronic communications systems and belies the reality that
such searches are functionally an interception.
The implications of this decision are broad. While many ISPs are
responsible online citizens, this does not change the fact that this
decision essentially licenses ISPs to snoop. Even more worrisome is
that this decision creates the opportunity for the type of Big Brother
invasions that understandably make Americans cringe. For practical
reasons, law enforcement often installs surveillance devices at these
nanosecond storage points, but before doing so, they have obtained the
appropriate legal permission to intercept e-mails--a Title III order.
Under the majority's interpretation in the Councilman decision, law
enforcement would no longer need to obtain a Title III order to conduct
such searches, but rather could follow the less rigorous procedures for
stored communications. For example, under the rules for stored
communication, if law enforcement were to get the consent of a
university-operated ISP, such searches could be performed without the
knowledge of users. This is Carnivore unleashed if you will, and is
simply not the outcome that Congress intended or the American people
expect. Searches that occur in nanosecond storage points during the
transmission process are in their function ``interceptions'' and should
be treated as such and subject to the wiretap laws.
The E-mail Privacy Act is a simple approach to prevent the erosion of
privacy protections and clarifies that the wiretap laws apply to e-mail
interceptions like those at issue in the Councilman case. In essence,
the Act would amend ECPA to clarify that the definition of intercept is
not a narrow, rigid concept, but is broad enough to include actions
that are functionally equivalent to an interception. Importantly, these
careful and slight changes would simply restore the status quo prior to
the Councilman decision without disturbing other areas of ECPA and
without raising controversial concerns that may be difficult to resolve
in the few remaining days of this term.
This is an important issue to the American people, and fortunately
the E-mail Privacy Act provides a straightforward approach that we can
all get behind. Again, I thank Senator Sununu for his support on this
important legislation. I am sure he would join me in urging our
colleagues to make e-mail privacy a top priority and support the E-mail
Privacy Act.
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. 936

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 ``E-Mail Privacy Act of
2005''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF INTERCEPT.

Section 2510(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``through the use of any electronic, mechanical,
or other device.'' and inserting ``contemporaneous with
transit, or on an ongoing basis during transit, through the
use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device or
process, notwithstanding that the communication may
simultaneously be in electronic storage;''.
______

By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 937. A bill to combat commercial sexual activities by targeting
demand, to protect children from being exploited by such activities, to
prohibit the operation of sex tours, to assist State and local
governments to enforce laws dealing with commercial sexual activities,
to reduce trafficking in persons, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to combat
the scourge of sex trafficking within our

[[Page S4554]]

borders, by targeting and reducing demand. The bill is entitled the End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.
For the last four years, the President has been a stalwart champion
of strengthening efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking and
slavery, not just abroad, but within our very own borders as well. Last
July, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing I chaired, highlighted
many of the Administration's landmark efforts in this area to date.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the institutions of
slavery and involuntary servitude--institutions that this Nation fought
a bloody war to destroy--continue to persist today--not just around the
world, but hidden in communities across America. It has been nearly two
centuries since the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and
well over a century since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Yet to this day, men, women and children continue to be trafficked into
the United States, and coerced into lives of forced labor and sexual
slavery. The stories they tell are tragic, disturbing, and heart-
rending. And the acts they endure are not just unconstitutional, not
just criminal--they are profoundly evil, immoral, and wrong.
Shortly after the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing I chaired,
the President made clear that ending the demand for trafficking is a
critical component of this effort, in remarks he delivered before the
first national training conference on Human Trafficking in the United
States: Rescuing Women and Children from Slavery, hosted by the Justice
Department in Tampa, Florida, and attended by a representative from my
office. As the President stated, ``we cannot put [human traffickers]
out of business until and unless we deal with the problem of demand.''
Moreover, as the State Department's 2004 Trafficking in Persons
Report notes, ``[c]onsiderable academic, NGO, and scientific research
confirms a direct link between prostitution and trafficking. In fact,
prostitution and its related activities . . . contribute[] to
trafficking in persons by serving as a front behind which traffickers
for sexual exploitation operate. . . . [P]rostitution directly
contributes to the modern-day slave trade and is inherently demeaning.
When law enforcement tolerates . . . prostitution, organized crime
groups are freer to traffic in human beings.''
So it is appropriate to expand our fight against the most coercive
forms of human trafficking and slavery our society has ever witnessed,
to include an effort to combat sex trafficking and prostitution as
well. And it is appropriate to target the demand for sex trafficking as
an essential element of our strategy to eliminating sex trafficking
within our borders.
Accordingly, for the past several months, I have been working with
various anti-trafficking organizations to craft legislation to focus
attention on the demand for sex trafficking within our own country.
Last October, Senators Schumer and Specter and I introduced an earlier
version of the legislation I introduce today (S. 2916). Representatives
Pryce and Maloney introduced a companion bill on the House side that
same day. And today, I am introducing a revised version of the bill,
designed to achieve precisely the same objective: ending demand for sex
trafficking. I am pleased that Senator Specter has again agreed to co-
sponsor the legislation. Moreover, Senator Schumer remains a close
partner on this bill. Our offices are still working out some drafting
issues with some of the anti-trafficking groups, and I am hopeful that
Senator Schumer will once again be the lead Democrat co-sponsor of the
bill. A parallel bill will be introduced in the House later today by
Representatives Deborah Pryce, Carolyn Maloney, and Bobby Scott.
This legislation is the product of extensive discussions over the
last several months between my office, Senator Schumer's office, and
major anti-trafficking organizations, as well as the offices of
Representatives Pryce and Scott. I am pleased to report that, as a
result of those discussions, we now have a bill that is supported by a
broad coalition of anti-trafficking and human rights organizations--
including the Ministerial Alliance of Midland, Texas, Faces of
Children, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Concerned Women
for America, the Hudson Institute, the Institute on Religion and
Democracy, the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, the Leadership
Council for Human Rights, the National Association of Evangelicals, the
Polaris Project, the Protection Project, the Religious Freedom
Coalition, the Salvation Army, Shared Hope International, the Southern
Baptist Convention, Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE), the
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, World Vision, and
other organizations and advocates. I ask unanimous consent that letters
of endorsement from various anti-trafficking organizations be included
in the Record.
In conclusion, this is important legislation to protect the victims
of sex trafficking and to reduce demand. I hope that the Senate will
act favorably on the bill.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Southern Baptist Convention,

Nashville, TN, March 11, 2005.
Mr. James Ho,
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Border Security, Immigration
and Citizenship, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Mr. Derek Lindblom,
Counsel, Office of Senator Chuck Schumer, Hart Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Ms. Shiloh Roehl,
Legislative Director, Office of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Mr. Bobby Vasssar,
Minority Counsel, House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Jim, Derek, Shiloh, and Bobby: I am pleased to notify
you that the following members and organizations of the
National Coalition for Religious Freedom and Human Rights
fully support the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005,
including myself. Others have already notified you of their
support through personal letters. I am also confident that
additional organizations from our Coalition, and groups
closely aligned with us, will join in supporting this
historic legislation.
Best regards,
Barrett Duke, Chairman, National Coalition for Religious
Freedom and Human Rights, Vice President for Public
Policy and Research, Southern Baptist Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission; Richard Cizik, Vice
President for Governmental Affairs, National
Association of Evangelicals; Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior
Fellow, The Beverly Lahaye Institute, Concerned Women
for America; Lisa Thompson, Initiative Against Sexual
Trafficking, Salvation Army; Nathan J. Diament,
Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America; Faith McDonnell, Director,
Religious Liberty Programs, Institute on Religion and
Democracy; Donna M. Hughes, Professor & Carlson Endowed
Chair, Women's Studies Program, University of Rhode
Island; Kathryn Porter, President, Leadership Council
for Human Rights; Peggy Birchfield, Executive Director,
Religious Freedom Coalition; Michael Horowitz, Senior
Fellow, Hudson Institute; Debbie Fikes, Director, Basic
Ministries, International, Midland, TX; Margaret
Purvis, Chairwoman, Faces of Children, Midland, Texas;
Dr. Jae Joong Nam, President, AEGIS Foundation.
____

March 15, 2005.
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.
Hon. Deborah Pryce,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn and Representative Pryce: I am writing
to express my support for the End Demand for Sex Trafficking
Act of 2005.
Though I and several of my colleagues had some serious
concerns about earlier versions of the legislation, I
appreciate your willingness to address our proposed changes.
I believe the bill introduced is greatly improved and will
have a positive effect on reducing demand for commercial sex
practices in the United States. Reducing demand for
commercial sex will help reduce the number of trafficking
victims and help prevent the sexual exploitation of women and
children.
I commend you for commitment to helping end sex trafficking
and your commitment to human rights.

[[Page S4555]]

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Linda Smith,

Founder and Executive Director,
Shared Hope International.
____

Institute on Religion

and Public Policy,

Washington, DC., March 15, 2005.
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing in support of the End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005. This historic
legislation would bring significant attention to the true
roots of sexual trafficking: the demand for illegal sexual
activity. It would also combat the commercial sexual trade by
focusing law enforcement effort on consumers, traffickers,
and exploiters, ending the current isolation of the
individuals exploited in the illegal activity.
The End Demand for Sexual Trafficking Act of 2005 is the
result of many hours of work by lawmakers, religious leaders,
and NGOs under your ledership and is a much-needed addition
to the United States' sexual trafficking laws. This bill will
hopefully focus the attention of sexual trafficking
prosecution on the traffickers and the ``johns'' who pay for
the illegal activities, thereby solidifying America's
position as the world leader in working to end sexual
trafficking and prostitution.
With warm personal regards and best wishes, I am,
Sincerely Yours,
Joseph K. Grieboski,
President.
____

Faces of Children,

Midland, Texas,

March 11, 2005.
Re End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of Faces of Children an
ecumenical prayer ministry under the auspices of First
Presbyterian Church, Midland, Texas, we endorse the End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.
Faces of Children is a prayer ministry that focuses on and
provides prayer support to children in crisis and in
distress. We care deeply about providing assistance to
victims, especially the youngest and most vulnerable ones, of
sex trafficking and about prosecuting those who take
advantage of them in the sex trade.
We are most grateful to you for sponsoring this important
bill!
Blessings,
Margaret Purvis, Chair,
Faces of Children, Midland, TX;
Chris Laufer, Coodinator,
Faces of Children, Midland, TX.
____

Coalition Against Trafficking

in Women,

March 9, 2005.
Dear Senator Cornyn: The Coalition Against Trafficking in
Women, an international organization working against sex
trafficking and prostitution in many parts of the world,
would like to express its support for the proposed ``End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.''
We are confident that this bill, when passed and
implemented, will go a long way in deterring purchasers of
commercial sex acts, help protect children from being
exploited, prohibit the operation of sex tours, and assist
States and local governments in their efforts to reduce
trafficking and commercial sexual activities.
We hope that this bill will soon be passed by the United
States Congress and appreciate your sponsorship of this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Janice G. Raymond,
Co-Executive Director.
____

[From World Vision, March 10, 2005]

World Vision Endorses Legislation to Combat Sex Trafficking and
Increase Assistance to Victims

Washington.--World Vision applauds Senator John Cornyn and
Representatives Chris Smith and Deborah Pryce for their
steadfast work to protect children from exploitation. We
support H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the introduction of the End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005. The combined
strengths of these two bills provide for effective measures
to help combat sex trafficking by increasing law enforcement
efforts, reducing demand and increasing services available to
victims.
An estimated two million children currently are enslaved in
the global commercial sex trade, which has destroyed the
lives of countless women and children throughout history. For
children, the most vulnerable victims, the impact is
catastrophic, including: long-lasting physical and
psychological trauma, disease (including HIV/AIDS), violence/
abuse, drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, malnutrition,
social ostracism, a life of poverty and, in the worst cases,
death. Notably, this abhorrent abuse is found in nearly every
country, including the United States.
The provisions included in the End Demand for Sex
Trafficking Act of 2005 will help remedy this problem by
increasing U.S. law enforcement action against the abusers,
including traffickers, pimps, brothel owners and
``customers'' (a.k.a., ``Johns''), thereby curtailing demand.
In addition, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005 reauthorizes much-needed program
funds, provides for increased law enforcement programs and
tools and bolsters the TIP office at the Department of State.
Both bills measurably increase services available to victims.
World Vision is delighted to support both of these bills
and we have full confidence in the U.S. Congress to resolve
any differences between the two bills in order to arrive at
the most effective legislation possible. We thank Senator
Cornyn and Representatives Smith and Pryce for their
leadership in addressing this global problem. We stand ready
to work with Congress on this important issue.
World Vision is a Christian relief and development
organization dedicated to helping children and their
communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling
the causes of poverty . World Vision serves the world's
poor--regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. In
2004, World Vision operated in nearly 100 countries around
the world.
Standing Against

Global Exploitation,

San Francisco, CA, March 8, 2005.
Senator John Cornyn,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Honorable Senator John Cornyn: I am writing on behalf of
SAGE Project, Inc to strongly and enthusiastically endorse
the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, a bill
designed to combat commercial activities by targeting demand,
to protect children from being exploited by such activities,
to prohibit the operation of sex tours, to assist State and
local governments to enforce laws dealing with commercial
sexual activities, to reduce trafficking in persons and for
other purposes.
SAGE has designed and implemented cutting-edge, model
restorative justice programs for customers of prostitutes
(the demand), trauma and drug recovery, and job training
programs for women, young men, and girls who are victims of
trafficking, prostitution, sexual exploitation and violence.
The personal knowledge and experience possessed by many of
the survivor, peer staff enables SAGE to effectively provide
support and engender trust without re-traumatizing even the
most fragile of clients. Through advocacy, educational
programs, and as a direct service provider for over 14 years,
SAGE has assisted in raising public awareness concerning the
sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and girls. As a
result of our interventions, SAGE has assisted over 1500
individuals to exit the criminal justice system, escape
traffickers and actively engage in prosecutions, receive
emergency housing and victim services, recover from abuse and
acquire appropriate services such as medical and mental
health care, substance abuse treatment, legal, immigration,
case management, educational and vocational training. Because
of SAGE's commitment to victims of exploitation and
trafficking, a web of prevention education, early
intervention and treatment services and a network of
survivor, peer led programs throughout the United States has
been created. SAGE is the co-founder of the first and largest
program for customers of prostitutes in the world. This
restorative justice program has been replicated in dozens of
other cities and funds a wide range of services for women and
girls.
Studies show that most commercially sexually exploited
children (CSEC) are integrated into the mainstream sex
industry and tend to be concentrated in the cheaper end of
the prostitution market where conditions are the worse and
the concentration of customers/abusers the highest. Although
some children are prostituted by and/or specifically for
pedophiles and preferential abusers, the majority of the
several million men who annually exploit children are first
and foremost prostitute users of adult women who become child
sexual abusers through their prostitute use, rather than the
other way around. The world of prostitution whether legal or
illegal provides an arena where laws and rules which
constrain sex with minors can be evaded. Laws and social
conventions make it difficult and dangerous for individuals
to buy children for sexual purposes in non-commercial
contexts, but prostitution potentially provides instant
access, often to a selection of children. Men surveyed in San
Francisco through SAGE and the First Offenders Prostitution
Program respond when asked how a person justifies having sex
with an underage prostituted child, ''they don't even
think.'' They know that law enforcement efforts are focused
on the youth/child as the perpetrator and not on them. The
End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 is the most
historically significant step toward ending the rape and
sexual abuse of children through prostitution and holding the
true perpetrators accountable.
The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 clearly,
strongly, and unambiguously redefines ``child prostitution''
as sexual abuse on young human beings. This sexual abuse of
children through prostitution is made possible by a society
that has sanctioned and institutionalized numbers of children
for whom routine abuse, torture, rape, trafficking and
kidnapping is considered acceptable. In essence, what society
is saying and enforcing through laws and inappropriate
interventions is that children and

[[Page S4556]]

youth are consenting to their own sexual abuse and that by
consenting to this abuse they are a danger to society. They
are subject to arrest, they are viewed as perpetrators, not
victims, and they are denied any services for their
victimization. Many of these girls have been exploited for
pornography or have suffered or witnessed physical and sexual
violence. For these girls, the average of entry into
prostitution is 13-14, an age at which these girls are
entering an endless cycle of arrest, drug addiction, and
violence. The result is traumatic and profound lack of self-
esteem causing disempowered behaviors: dropping out of
school, prostitution, addiction, selling of drugs, and
violence. Their exploitation is perpetuated by continued
reliance on the very people who have physically, emotionally,
and sexually assaulted them. As these children age into
adults they remain trapped in a system of abuse and
exploitation and could not escape even if they wanted to. The
legal, mental and medical health, human rights consequences
of this abuse remains with the child or woman as she is
arrested, prosecuted, jailed, placed on probation and forced
into treatment. The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of
2005 will send the message that now these severely victimized
and neglected children and women can depend on us for
protection and care.
SAGE is committed to working with you and your office in
passing this historic legislation. Just ask.
Truly,
Norma Hotaling ,
Founder and Director, SAGE.
____

Johns Hopkins University, The Paul H. Hitze School of
Advanced International Studies
Washington, DC, March 18, 2005.
Hon. John Cornyn,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Hon. Deborah Pryce,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Cornyn and Representative Pryce: I am writing
on behalf of The Protection Project at The Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS),
to express my full support for the End Demand for Sex
Trafficking Act of 2005.
The Protection Project is a legal human rights research
institute committed to the eradication of trafficking in
persons. The Protection Project strongly believes that
reducing demand is the most effective way to successfully
combat sex trafficking.
The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 is a
significant step forward in the fight against sex
trafficking, since it introduces appropriate measures to
promote the prosecution of purchasers of commercial sex acts,
exploiters of sexual activities and traffickers. In
particular, in regard to the prosecution of purchasers, I
strongly endorse Section 4(b)(1), which proposes measures
such as educational programs for first time purchasers of
``unlawful commercial sex,'' publication of names and
addresses, the use of female decoys, statutory rape and
felony assaults prosecutions, and other programs enhancing
prosecution and reducing demand. I firmly believe that these
measures would significantly contribute to discouraging
demand.
The Protection Project is committed to working with you and
supports the passage of this important legislation.
Best Regards,

Mohamed Y. Mattar, S.J.D.,

Adjunct Professor of Law
and Executive Director.
____

Polaris Project,

Tokyo, Japan, March 10, 2005.
Mr. James Ho,
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Border Security, Immigration
and Citizenship, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Mr. Derek Lindblom,
Counsel, Office of Senator Chuck Schumer, Hart Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Ms. Shiloh Roehl,
Legislative Director, Office of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ho, Mr. Lindblom, and Ms. Roehl: On behalf of
Polaris Project, we write in support of the End Demand for
Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.
We work everyday with women and children in the sex
industry who have been beaten, raped, and controlled through
threats of death and extreme violence, many of them U.S.
nationals who just a few years ago would be viewed as nothing
more than criminals. This historic legislation will help
change that injustice forever in the United States. The End
Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 generates renewed hope
for our clients, for the survivors on our staff, and for the
rest of us who work everyday protecting some of the most
vulnerable women and children in our country.
Thank you for your work.
Sincerely,
Katherine Chon,
Co-Executive Director.
Derek Ellerman,
Co-Executive Director.
____

[From the Religious Freedom Coalition]

(By Peggy Birchfield)

Statement by Religious Freedom Coalition Chairman, William J. Murray

Although progress has been made in many areas since the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed in 2000, the
tragic human degradation of sexual trafficking continues to
increase in magnitude. The number of those adversely affected
continues to grow, especially among children, the most
pathetic victims.
By focusing more on the male customers and on traffickers,
this proposed legislation can reduce prostitution by
redirecting law enforcement efforts which now
disproportionately lead to the arrest of the women involved
in prostitution, some of whom are trafficking victims.
The legislators who have wisely recognized that
prostitution is not a ``victimless crime'' and who have taken
steps to reduce its prevalence are to be applauded. It has
long been realized that prostitution brutalizes and
desensitizes men, who come to view women as objects and not
as human beings. A new study has shown that prostitution also
leads to more criminal behavior in women, and not just in
drug related offenses. It was found that 7 out of 10 women
who were convicted of felonies of all kinds, first entered
the legal system because of an arrest for prostitution.
Sex tourism is a growing industry that targets children in
third world countries, and the United States is the home of
probably more ``sex tourists'' than any other single nation.
The victims are not American children in this case, but are
poor and often abandoned children in foreign countries where
there is lax law enforcement. This new effort to stop the
victimization of these children should be supported in all
possible ways. The men who travel abroad to exploit children
and the tour operators who are well aware of the nature of
the trips they are providing, should be prosecuted.
This bipartisan effort by members of the Senate and the
House to address this serious humanitarian issue is to be
highly commended, and I hope it will gain many more
supporters and cosponsors in Congress.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 938. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to require that
members of the National Guard and Reserve called or ordered to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days to receive a basic allowance for
housing at the same rate as similarly situated members of the regular
components of the uniformed services; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is now fairly common on the Senate Floor
to hear the statement that we cannot adequately defend our Nation today
without our military reserves. Everybody knows that the activation of
members of the National Guard and Reserve since September 11, 2001,
represents the largest mobilization of our back-up military personnel
since World War II. Everyone knows too that members of the National
Guard and Reserve comprise over 50 percent of the forces on the ground
in Iraq. And, yes, we all know that we are asking the reserves,
particularly the National Guard, to help increase security within the
domestic United States, whether at prominent events or along our porous
national borders.
It is critical that we go beyond mere statements and take concrete
steps to preserve the readiness, morale, and general effectiveness of
this force. This imperative extends particularly to redressing harmful
policies that give the impression to our reservists that they are not
an equally important part of the wider military and the defense of the
Nation.
Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation that will end
one of the most glaring of these inequities. Our legislation, The
National Guard and Reserves Housing Equity Act of 2005, effectively
terminates a patently unfair low housing allowance provided to
reservists when they are called up for a relatively short-term of
active service.
This so-called lower allowance level, known officially as the Basic
Allowance for Housing II, or B.A.H. II, puts on average almost $400
less per month--per month--in the pockets of our reservists than what
they would receive if they were regular, active duty members. To any
reservist who leaves his or her community, profession, and family for
active service, receiving B.A.H. II says that he or she is a second-
class member of the military. You might do the same job as a full-time
member of the military and live in the same type of housing, but you do
not deserve the same allowance. The allowance creates an unacceptable
financial hardship that will decrease the willingness of any reasonable
person to continue service.
This is a very real problem. Last year, Congress and the President
enacted a piece of legislation--which I

[[Page S4557]]

sponsored along with my fellow Guard Caucus Co-Chair Senator Kit Bond--
that authorized greater use of the National Guard for national homeland
security missions. Using this new authority, members of the National
Guard from my home State of Vermont were called to active duty late
last year to help increase security along the Northern Border. Those
members of the Guard worked side-by-side with their active duty
counterparts. Yet the Guard personnel received over $300 less per month
in housing allowances.
I cannot tell you how many soldiers and airmen who participated in
that mission came up to me and made clear how slighted and insulted
they felt by that housing allowance. Those comments mirror what I heard
from other members of the Guard who received B.A.H. II on a similar
mission. This second-tier housing allowance really burns in the saddle
of every citizen-soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, and it is having
a real effect on morale.
We simply cannot tolerate this inequity to continue, and it is within
our power to do something about this. So we have a choice today: Either
we can keep this second-tier housing allowance in place and send a
signal that we need to save some dollars on the backs of those who have
stepped forward to serve, or we can remedy this inequity, making the
firm statement that we will take the real steps necessary to support
our reservists and provide them the resources so that they can do their
jobs and be treated fairly while they serve.
The National Guard and Reserves Housing Equity Act of 2005
specifically provides that any member of the reserves called up for
more than 30 days will receive the exact same housing allowance as a
regular active duty service-member. The legislation gives the Office of
Secretary of Defense some discretion to set the allowance under the 30
days, but it should be done on a pro-rated basis on the higher regular
allowance. The effect of this legislation will be to end the category
of Basic Allowance of Housing II.
This legislation has been endorsed unanimously by the 35-military
association umbrella group, The Military Coalition. So that all
senators may read the specific views of the military associations, I
ask that letters from the National Guard Association of the United
States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States, the Reserve Officers Associations, the Reserve Enlisted
Association, the Association of the United States Army, and the Fleet
Reserve Association be printed in the Record. The Military Officer's
Association of America and the Air Force Sergeant's Association have
also directly endorsed this legislation.
We often hear statements about supporting our troops, but this is a
chance to actually support them. This is an issue that literally
affects our troops where they live. I invite our colleagues to join
Senator Bond and me in co-sponsoring this legislation and in working to
end this grossly unfair system. With the National Guard and Reserves
Housing Equity Act of 2005, we are backing up our thanks with
meaningful action. With this step we are saying that we are ready to
provide a strong foundation of policies that will actually encourage
our reservists to continue to serve the country superbly. This is the
right thing to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to enacting this legislation this year.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Guard Association

of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 26, 2005.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing on behalf of the men and
women of the National Guard Association of the United States
to thank you for introducing legislation which addresses the
inequities in housing allowances paid to members of the
National Guard.
Your bill, which reduces the threshold for receipt of full
BAH from 140 days to 30 days, will have an immediate and
positive impact on many of our members who are receiving
housing allowances at a rate which is on average $400 less
than the regular BAR rate. Because BAH II is not adjusted for
location, in some places the loss of income could be as high
as $1,000.00, depending on rank.
As you know, when a Guard member is on duty, the mortgage
payment or rent is not reduced. Your bill will rectify this
injustice and allow National Guard members to receive full
BAH when on orders for more than 30 days.
At no other time in recent history have the men and women
of the National Guard been asked to sacrifice so much for the
good of the Nation. We thank you for recognizing their
contribution and sacrifice and working to remove this
inequity in their housing allowance.
Please don't hesitate to call on us if there is anything we
else we can do to support this worthwhile legislation.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General, Retired President.
____

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States,
Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2005.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the Enlisted men and women
of the Army and Air National Guard, thank you for introducing
legislation to reduce the threshold for the receipt of Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) to 30 days. This bill will
authorize National Guard and Reserve members on active duty
for more than 30 days to receive full BAH instead of the
lower BAH II they now receive if their orders are for less
than 140 days.
Almost all National Guard members must maintain a private
residence while performing periods of active duty. Their rent
or mortgage payment doesn't go away when they are called to
active duty.
National Guard and Reserve members who are on active duty
for less than 140 days receive BAH II instead of the BAH that
every other servicemembers receives. BAH II is based on the
old BAQ rate and is, on average, $400 less than the average
BAH rate. it is not adjusted for location. In some places,
such as the Washington, DC Metro area, the difference can be
$1,000, depending upon the rank of the servicemember.
A significant percentage of mobilized Guard members earn
less on active duty than in their civilian careers and paying
them a reduced housing allowance only makes the financial
difficulty worse. Your bill would eliminate this inequity for
most National Guard and Reserve members by changing the
threshold from 140 days to 30 days.
Thank you so much for addressing one of the many needs of
our National Guard members. EANGUS will support this
legislation in any way possible. If there is anything we can
do to assist, please let us know.
Working for America's Best!
MSG (Ret) Michael P. Cline AUS,
Executive Director.
____

Reserve Enlisted Association,

April 21, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Hon. Christopher S. ``Kit'' Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Bond: The Reserve Officers
Association, representing over 75,000 Reserve Component
members and the Reserve Enlisted Association supporting all
Reserve enlisted members, supports your bill to require that
members of the National Guard and Reserve called or ordered
to active duty for a period of more than 30 days receive a
basic allowance for housing at the same rate as similarly
situated members of the regular components of the uniformed
services.
This bill tears down a barrier at a time when the services
will need to rely on volunteerism as they run out of
mobilization authority. The lower Reserve Component housing
allowance has been reported by ROA members as a reason why
they are not encouraged to volunteer for active duty.
Additionally, it will also help to offset pay differential
and positively affect the financial health of our military
families. The provisions of your bill meet sound business
practices by targeting entitlements and we are encouraged it
will receive bipartisan interest. Congressional support for
our nation's military men and women in the Guard and Reserve
is and always will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Robert A. McIntosh,
Major General (Ret), USAFR, ROA Executive Director.
Lani Burnett,
CMSgt, USAFR (Ret), REA Executive Director.
____

Association of the U.S. Army,

Arlington, VA, April 22, 2005.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the more than 100,000
members of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA),
I thank you for introducing legislation to reduce the
threshold for the receipt of Basic Allowance for Housing II
(BAH II) to 30 days.
Almost all National Guard members must maintain a private
residence while performing periods of active duty. Their rent
or mortgage payment doesn't go away when they are called to
active duty.
National Guard and Reserve members who are on active duty
for less than 140 days receive BAH II instead of the Basic
Allowance

[[Page S4558]]

for Housing (BAH) that every other servicemember receives.
BAH II is based on the old BAQ rate and is, on average, $400
less than the average BAH rate. It is not adjusted for
location. In some places, such as the Washington, D.C. Metro
area, the difference can be $1,000, depending upon the rank
of the servicemember.
A significant percentage of mobilized Guard members earn
less on active duty than in their civilian careers and paying
them a reduced housing allowance only makes the financial
difficulty worse. Your bill would eliminate this inequity for
most National Guard and Reserve members by changing the
threshold from 140 days to 30 days.
AUSA will support this legislation in any way possible. If
there is anything we can do to assist, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Gordon R. Sullivan,
General, USA Retired.
____

Fleet Reserve Association,

Alexandria, VA, April 22, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: FRA wholeheartedly endorses your
introduction of legislation authorizing National Guard and
Reservists called to active duty for a period of more than 30
days to receive a basic allowance for housing (BAH) at the
same rate as their active duty counterparts.
Current policy require Reservists serving less than 140
days receive ``BAH II,'' which is generally a flat-rate
amount based on pay grade and marital status rather than the
market-influenced, geographically-driven allowance that
active duty personnel receive.
At the specific request of senior enlisted leaders of the
Coast Guard, FRA addressed this inadequacy in Congressional
testimony, recommending a policy change authorizing
Reservists activated 30 days or more to be eligible for
locally based BAH. This measure significantly helps ensure
Reservists' compensation reflects the duties our Nation has
asked them to perform.
The Association salutes you for your efforts and is
committed to working toward enactment of this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Barnes,
National Executive Secretary.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Reed):
S. 941. A bill to amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 to establish a program to provide assistance to States and
nonprofit organizations to preserve suburban forest land and open space
and contain suburban sprawl; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been
faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous
value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of
undeveloped land in the north to the small woodlots in the south,
forest land helps shape the character of our entire State.
While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for
generations, there is a threat to Maine's working landscape that
requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl, which has
already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in southern
Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land
cannot compete with the value of developed land.
Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys
ecosystems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental
hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities,
increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money.
It leads to the fragmentation of woodlots, reducing the economic
viability of the remaining working forests.
No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the
Virginia State Forester says that since 1992, Virginia has lost 54,000
acres of forest land per year to other uses.
The Southeastern Michigan Council of Government reported that
southeastern Michigan saw a 17 percent increase in developed land
between 1990 and 2000.
In my State of Maine alone, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens
of thousands of acres of forest and farm land. The problem is
particularly acute in southern Maine where an 108 percent increase in
urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling
of greater Portland as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''
I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and farm
land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that have given way
to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows
are lost to development, they are lost forever.
Maine is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine
continue to contribute their time and money to preserve important lands
and to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal
Government to support these State and community-based efforts.
For these reasons, I am introducing the Suburban and Community
Forestry and Open Space Program Act. This legislation, which was
drafted with the advice of land owners and conservation groups,
establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service
to support locally driven land conservation projects that preserve
working forests. Local government and nonprofit organizations could
compete for funds to purchase land or access to land to protect working
landscapes threatened by development.
Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands
located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In
addition, this legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched
dollar-for-dollar by state, local, or private resources.
This is a market-driven program that relies upon market forces rather
than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather than
preserving our working forests, farmland and open spaces by zoning or
other government regulation, at the expense of the landowner, with this
program we will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes
to keep his or her land as a working woodlot to do so.
My legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the
inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision, which requires the consent
of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the program.
The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help
achieve a number of stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help
prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to
maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant
industry.
Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that
are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.
Understanding land ownership issues in other parts of the nation, I
have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation
would exempt any state where the Federal Government owns twenty-five
percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community
Forestry and Open Space Program. With the twenty-five percent
limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the
highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to
participate in this new program. Those States, however, who are
struggling most with the loss of working landscapes would be authorized
to receive Federal assistance in their efforts to combat sprawl.
Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME, or another community trying to
cope with the effects of sprawl turned to the Federal Government for
assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the
Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest and farm land
and managing sprawl, while leaving decision-making at the state and
local level where it belongs.
In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the
Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry
title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. Again, in
2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during
consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress provides us a
further opportunity to consider this legislation and ultimately have
this bill enacted.
There is great working being done on the local level to protect
working landscapes for the next generation. By enacting the Suburban
and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide an
additional avenue of support for these conservation initiatives, help
prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based
industries.
______

By Mr. WARNER:

[[Page S4559]]

S. 942. A bill to designate additional National Forest System lands
in the State of Virginia as wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain
and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail
plans for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
piece of legislation for my State, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of
2005. This bill will add seven new wilderness areas, six additions to
existing wilderness areas, and two National Scenic Areas to the
Jefferson National Forest. Congressman Rick Boucher is introducing
companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.
Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have strived to
preserve Virginia's natural resources and heritage through the
designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that
Virginia boasts approximately 100,434 acres of designated wilderness
lands. However, there is still much work to be done. Within the
Jefferson National Forest, designated wilderness areas currently
account for only 7 percent of the total forest acreage. If enacted, the
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005 will substantially increase this
figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in
the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness
areas and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.
Virginia is blessed with great beauty and natural diversity. From the
complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite vistas,
streams, vegetation, and wildlife of the Shenandoah Mountains,
residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural
treasures. As demand for development in Virginia increases, it becomes
incumbent upon Congress to act expeditiously to protect these wild
lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can
ensure that these areas retain their primeval character and influences.
Mr. President, I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, and I enjoy
opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to
stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the
wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing,
hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. In
addition, the Act is flexible and provides for reasonable local forest
management and emergency services in wilderness areas, such as the use
of motorized equipment and aircraft for search and rescue operations;
or to combat fire, insects and disease.
I am particularly pleased to include in the legislation an
authorization for the establishment of a non-motorized trail between
County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018 outside of the new
Raccoon Branch Wilderness area. This trail will follow the historic Rye
Valley Railroad Grade and will be a popular route for mountain bikers,
equestrians and hikers. In addition, this bill directs the Forest
Service to develop trail plans for the wilderness and national scenic
areas.
As a father and a grandfather, I feel a weighty obligation to ensure
that our children have lasting opportunities to enjoy Virginia's
immense natural beauty and diversity. This legislation is a crucial
step in our quest to preserve these lovely areas for the enjoyment and
use of future generations.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
Sarbanes, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 943. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with
expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the
conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or
indirectly affect cranes and the ecosystems of cranes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation
Act of 2005. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo,
Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl and Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes,
have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation
in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of
these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen
worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of
Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane
species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane
conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries,
promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will
go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to
legislation that I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses.
In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided
support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF.
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds
in the world, with 11 of the world's fifteen species at risk of
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2010.
In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this
bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over five
years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation
should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative
budget.
I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without
further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success
in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on
earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world.
This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The
North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds'
tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the
United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American
whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in
coastal Texas. Two new flocks of cranes are currently being
reintroduced to the wild, one of which is a migratory flock on the
Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress
to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in
the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional
watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance,
disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population,
and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made.
The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom
have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land.
Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping
Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of
farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery
program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. One of
the program's supporters has told me that this program is the
conservation equivalent of putting a man on the moon. I think it is
quite appropriate then that the Smithsonian announced that one of the

[[Page S4560]]

ultralight planes from Operation Migration, which leads the migration
from Necedah to Chassahowitzka, will be inducted into the National Air
and Space Museum. The plane will be on display in the Museum early next
year. I cannot think of a better way to showcase this innovative
conservation program.
Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941,
however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While
over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping
cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in
Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and
the wattled crane of Africa.
The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the
wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large,
open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to
agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent
in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in
decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population
concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs
through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population
growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane.
Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences
of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg
stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane.
Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction,
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of
oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in
these regions.
If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile
habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore,
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 943

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 ``Crane Conservation Act of
2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) crane populations in many countries have experienced
serious decline in recent decades, a trend that, if continued
at the current rate, threatens the long-term survival of the
species in the wild in Africa, Asia, and Europe;
(2) 5 species of Asian crane are listed as endangered
species under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1533) and appendix I of the Convention, which
species are--
(A) the Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus);
(B) the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis);
(C) the white-naped crane (Grus vipio);
(D) the black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis); and
(E) the hooded crane (Grus monacha);
(3) the Crane Action Plan of the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature considers 4 species of cranes from
Africa and 1 additional species of crane from Asia to be
seriously threatened, which species are--
(A) the wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus);
(B) the blue crane (Anthropoides paradisea);
(C) the grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum);
(D) the black-crowned crane (Balearica pavonina); and
(E) the sarus crane (Grus antigone);
(4)(A) the whooping crane (Grus americana) and the
Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) are listed
as endangered species under section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533); and
(B) with approximately 200 whooping cranes in the only
self-sustaining flock that migrates between Canada and the
United States, and approximately 100 Mississippi sandhill
cranes in the wild, both species remain vulnerable to
extinction;
(5) conservation resources have not been sufficient to cope
with the continued diminution of crane populations from
causes that include hunting and the continued loss of
habitat;
(6)(A) cranes are flagship species for the conservation of
wetland, grassland, and agricultural landscapes that border
wetland and grassland; and
(B) the establishment of crane conservation programs would
result in the provision of conservation benefits to numerous
other species of plants and animals, including many
endangered species;
(7) other threats to cranes include--
(A) the collection of eggs and juveniles;
(B) poisoning from pesticides applied to crops;
(C) collisions with power lines;
(D) disturbance from warfare and human settlement; and
(E) the trapping of live birds for sale;
(8) to reduce, remove, and otherwise effectively address
those threats to cranes in the wild, the joint commitment and
effort of countries in Africa, Asia, and North America, other
countries, and the private sector, are required;
(9) cranes are excellent ambassadors to promote goodwill
among countries because they are well known and migrate
across continents;
(10) because the threats facing cranes and the ecosystems
on which cranes depend are similar on all 5 continents on
which cranes occur, conservation successes and methods
developed in 1 region have wide applicability in other
regions; and
(11) conservationists in the United States have much to
teach and much to learn from colleagues working in other
countries in which, as in the United States, government and
private agencies cooperate to conserve threatened cranes.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to perpetuate healthy populations of cranes;
(2) to assist in the conservation and protection of cranes
by supporting--
(A) conservation programs in countries in which endangered
and threatened cranes occur; and
(B) the efforts of private organizations committed to
helping cranes; and
(3) to provide financial resources for those programs and
efforts.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Conservation.--
(A) In general.--The term ``conservation'' means the use of
any method or procedure to improve the viability of crane
populations and the quality of the ecosystems and habitats on
which the crane populations depend to help the species
achieve sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the
long-term viability of the species.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``conservation'' includes the
carrying out of any activity associated with scientific
resource management, such as--
(i) protection, restoration, acquisition, and management of
habitat;
(ii) research and monitoring of known populations;
(iii) the provision of assistance in the development of
management plans for managed crane ranges;
(iv) enforcement of the Convention;
(v) law enforcement and habitat protection through
community participation;
(vi) reintroduction of cranes to the wild;
(vii) conflict resolution initiatives; and
(viii) community outreach and education.
(2) Convention.--The term ``Convention'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532).
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Crane Conservation
Fund established by section 6(a).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 5. CRANE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations and in consultation

[[Page S4561]]

with other appropriate Federal officials, the Secretary shall
use amounts in the Fund to provide financial assistance for
projects relating to the conservation of cranes for which
project proposals are approved by the Secretary in accordance
with this section.
(b) Project Proposals.--
(1) Applicants.--
(A) In general.--An applicant described in subparagraph (B)
that seeks to receive assistance under this section to carry
out a project relating to the conservation of cranes shall
submit to the Secretary a project proposal that meets the
requirements of this section.
(B) Eligible applicants.--An applicant described in this
subparagraph is--
(i) any relevant wildlife management authority of a country
that--

(I) is located within the African, Asian, European, or
North American range of a species of crane; and
(II) carries out 1 or more activities that directly or
indirectly affect crane populations;

(ii) the Secretariat of the Convention; and
(iii) any person or organization with demonstrated
expertise in the conservation of cranes.
(2) Required elements.--A project proposal submitted under
paragraph (1)(A) shall include--
(A) a concise statement of the purpose of the project;
(B)(i) the name of each individual responsible for
conducting the project; and
(ii) a description of the qualifications of each of those
individuals;
(C) a concise description of--
(i) methods to be used to implement and assess the outcome
of the project;
(ii) staff and community management for the project; and
(iii) the logistics of the project;
(D) an estimate of the funds and the period of time
required to complete the project;
(E) evidence of support for the project by appropriate
government entities of countries in which the project will be
conducted, if the Secretary determines that such support is
required to ensure the success of the project;
(F) information regarding the source and amount of matching
funding available for the project; and
(G) any other information that the Secretary considers to
be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project to
receive assistance under this Act.
(c) Project Review and Approval.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) not later than 30 days after receiving a final project
proposal, provide a copy of the proposal to other appropriate
Federal officials; and
(B) review each project proposal in a timely manner to
determine whether the proposal meets the criteria described
in subsection (d).
(2) Consultation; approval or disapproval.--Not later than
180 days after receiving a project proposal, and subject to
the availability of appropriations, the Secretary, after
consulting with other appropriate Federal officials, shall--
(A) consult on the proposal with the government of each
country in which the project is to be carried out;
(B) after taking into consideration any comments resulting
from the consultation, approve or disapprove the proposal;
and
(C) provide written notification of the approval or
disapproval to--
(i) the applicant that submitted the proposal;
(ii) other appropriate Federal officials; and
(iii) each country described in subparagraph (A).
(d) Criteria for Approval.--The Secretary may approve a
project proposal under this section if the Secretary
determines that the proposed project will enhance programs
for conservation of cranes by assisting efforts to--
(1) implement conservation programs;
(2) address the conflicts between humans and cranes that
arise from competition for the same habitat or resources;
(3) enhance compliance with the Convention and other
applicable laws that--
(A) prohibit or regulate the taking or trade of cranes; or
(B) regulate the use and management of crane habitat;
(4) develop sound scientific information on, or methods for
monitoring--
(A) the condition of crane habitat;
(B) crane population numbers and trends; or
(C) the current and projected threats to crane habitat and
population numbers and trends;
(5) promote cooperative projects on the issues described in
paragraph (4) among--
(A) governmental entities;
(B) affected local communities;
(C) nongovernmental organizations; or
(D) other persons in the private sector;
(6) carry out necessary scientific research on cranes;
(7) provide relevant training to, or support technical
exchanges involving, staff responsible for managing cranes or
habitats of cranes, to enhance capacity for effective
conservation; or
(8) reintroduce cranes successfully back into the wild,
including propagation of a sufficient number of cranes
required for this purpose.
(e) Project Sustainability; Matching Funds.--To the maximum
extent practicable, in determining whether to approve a
project proposal under this section, the Secretary shall give
preference to a proposed project--
(1) that is designed to ensure effective, long-term
conservation of cranes and habitats of cranes; or
(2) for which matching funds are available.
(f) Project Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Each person that receives assistance under
this section for a project shall submit to the Secretary, at
such periodic intervals as are determined by the Secretary,
reports that include all information that the Secretary,
after consulting with other appropriate government officials,
determines to be necessary to evaluate the progress and
success of the project for the purposes of--
(A) ensuring positive results;
(B) assessing problems; and
(C) fostering improvements.
(2) Availability to the public.--Each report submitted
under paragraph (1), and any other documents relating to a
project for which financial assistance is provided under this
Act, shall be made available to the public.

SEC. 6. CRANE CONSERVATION FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund established by the
matter under the heading ``MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION
FUND'' in title I of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-
237; 16 U.S.C. 4246) a separate account to be known as the
``Crane Conservation Fund'', consisting of--
(1) amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury
for deposit into the Fund under subsection (e);
(2) amounts appropriated to the Fund under section 8; and
(3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the
Fund under subsection (c).
(b) Expenditures From Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), upon
request by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer from the Fund to the Secretary, without further
appropriation, such amounts as the Secretary determines are
necessary to provide assistance under section 5.
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts in the Fund
available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not
more than 3 percent, or $150,000, whichever is greater, to
pay the administrative expenses necessary to carry out this
Act.
(3) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the amounts
made available from the Fund for any fiscal year may be used
for projects relating to the conservation of North American
crane species.
(c) Investments of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States.
(2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be
acquired--
(A) on original issue at the issue price; or
(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
(3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(4) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
(d) Transfers of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to
the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least
monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on
the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
(e) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept and use donations
to provide assistance under section 5.
(2) Transfer of donations.--Amounts received by the
Secretary in the form of donations shall be transferred to
the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the Fund.

SEC. 7. ADVISORY GROUP.

(a) In General.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the
Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of
individuals representing public and private organizations
actively involved in the conservation of cranes.
(b) Public Participation.--
(1) Meetings.--The advisory group shall--
(A) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open
to the public; and
(B) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for interested
persons to present oral or written statements concerning
items on the agenda.
(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public
timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
(3) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group
shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to
the public.

SEC. 8. FUNDING.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006

[[Page S4562]]

through 2010, to remain available until expended.
(b) Offset.--Of amounts appropriated to, and available at
the discretion of, the Secretary for programmatic and
administrative expenditures, a total of $25,000,000 shall be
used to establish the Fund.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, on Workers' Memorial Day, we
remember and honor the working men and women here at home who have died
or been injured on the job in the past year. We also think of their
families and the losses they have suffered. And we pledge to do more to
end the unsafe and unhealthy conditions that still plague so many
workplaces across America.
Thirty-five years have now passed since the enactment of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and that basic law has made
an immense difference in the safety of our Nation's workers. The rate
of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses dropped year after year--a 78
percent reduction in the rate of workplace deaths and a 52 percent
reduction in the rate of workplace-related injuries and illnesses since
the law was passed, and the reductions have been even greater in
industries that OSHA has targeted in its standards and enforcement
activities.
But we still have a long way to go. There are still too many workers
being hurt on the job. An average of 15 workers are killed and 12,000
more are injured every single day. That's over 5,500 worker deaths and
4.4 million worker injuries a year. In Massachusetts, 72 workers died
from traumatic injuries on the job in 2004 and over 600 died from
occupational disease.
These numbers represent real workers and their families. They
represent fathers like Jeff Walters. His son Patrick was killed when a
trench in Ohio caved in three years ago--at a company with a history of
safety violations. They include people like Ron Hayes, who also lost
his son in a workplace accident. Since then, he and his wife Dot have
made safety their cause and done a great deal to help families whose
lives have been hurt by these deaths--including deaths that in many
cases could, and should have been prevented.
Ron and Jeff asked us to prevent this from happening to other
families. That's why I am introducing this bill--to fight for families
like the Walters and the Hayes, and to do everything we can to see that
other families don't have to suffer the same grief.
Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. They
blatantly ignore the law, but they are rarely held accountable, even
when their actions or neglect kill loyal employees who work for them.
Offenders never go to jail. Criminal penalties are so low that
prosecutors don't pursue these cases. Employers who violate safety laws
again and again pay only minimal fines--they treat them as just another
cost of doing business.
We cannot allow these shameful practices to continue. These companies
are putting millions of workers at risk in factories, construction
sites, nursing homes, and many other workplaces every day.
We also need to hold this Administration accountable for improving
worker safety and enforcing the safety laws. We should require OSHA to
do more to stop serious safety violations before they can hurt or kill
workers, instead of sweeping them under the rug. We also need to
protect workers with the courage to speak out against health and safety
violations in the workplace.
The most glaring flaw in current law is that too many workers are
left uncovered. The Protecting America's Workers Act will extend the
scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover 8 million
public employees and millions of transportation and other workers.
In addition, the bill imposes jail time--up to ten years, instead of
only six months under current law--on those whose blatant violation of
safety laws leads to a worker's death. Incredibly, under current law,
it is only a misdemeanor--punishable by 6 months in jail--for an
employer to cause a worker's death through willfully violating our
safety and health laws. In fact, we impose sentences twice that long
for acts like harassing a wild burro on federal lands. Our laws should
reflect our serious commitment to protecting workers' safety, instead
of letting violators off with a slap on the wrist. We also increase
civil penalties, to provide additional deterrence against employers.
We require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to
investigate more cases. We give workers and their families more rights
in the investigation, and provide stronger protections for workers who
report health or safety violations.
I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for
all of America's workers. The promise of OSHA is waiting to be
fulfilled. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's dedicated
working men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our
complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine
reality for every working family in every community in America.
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Corzine, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Specter, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lautenberg, and
Mr. Obama):
S. 945. A bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education,
community prosecutors, and raining in our neighborhoods; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS). This program has achieved what my colleagues
and I hoped for back when we were debating the 1994 Crime Bill. Prior
to the final vote, in August of 1994, I stated that ``I will vote for
this bill, because, as much as anything I have ever voted on in 22
years in the U.S. Senate, I truly believe that passage of this
legislation will make a difference in the lives of the American people.
I believe with every fiber in my being that if this bill passes, fewer
people will be murdered, fewer people will be victims, fewer women will
be senselessly beaten, fewer people will continue on the drug path, and
fewer children will become criminals.''
Fortunately, with the creation of the COPS program, we were able to
form a partnership amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement
and create programs that helped drive down crime rates for eight
consecutive years. In 1994 we had historically high rates of violent
crimes, such as murders, forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults. We
were able to reduce these to the lowest levels in a generation. We
reduced the murder rate by 37.8 percent; we reduced forcible rapes by
19.1 percent; and we reduced aggravated assaults by 25.5 percent.
Property crimes, including auto thefts also were reduced from
historical highs to the lowest levels in decades.
How were we able to achieve such great results? Well, we all know it
was a combination of factors, but most law enforcement officials credit
the Office of Community Oriented Policing with a pivotal role. Indeed,
in the words of Attorney General Ashcroft the Community Oriented
Policing program (``COPS'') has been ``a miraculous success.'' Just a
few months ago, Attorney General Gonzalez reached the same conclusion,
stating that ``we put additional officers on the street and now we have
crime at an all-time low.'' In addition, this program has been endorsed
by every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the National Sheriffs
Association (NSA), the International Brotherhood of Police
Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Officials (NOBLE), the International Union of Police Associations
(IUPA), the Fraternal Order of Police, and others. The bottom line is
that from the Top Cop in the United States to the beat officer
patrolling a local community, the impact of this program is clear.
Rather than support this program, the Bush Administration and
Republican leadership is set on eliminating

[[Page S4563]]

it. President Bush has proposed cuts each year he has been in office,
and while we have fought to maintain funding for COPS, we are fighting
an uphill battle. Funding for State and local law enforcement programs
run out of the Department of Justice is down 75.6 percent since fiscal
year 2002. This year, funding for State and local law enforcement is at
$118 million for the entire Nation, with no funding for hiring.
These cuts are coming at the worst possible time. Local law
enforcement is facing what I have called a perfect storm. The FBI is
reprogramming its field agents from local crime to terrorism.
Undoubtedly, this is necessary given the threats facing our Nation.
But, this means that there will be less Federal assistance for drug
cases, bank robberies, and violent crime. Local law enforcement will be
required to fill the gap left by the FBI in addition to performing more
and more homeland security duties. Due to budget restraints at the
local level and the unprecedented cuts in Federal assistance they will
be less able to do either. Articles in the USA Today and the New York
Times highlighted the fact that many cities are being forced to
eliminate officers because of local budgets woes. In fact, New York
City has lost over 3,000 officers in the last few years. Other cities,
such as Cleveland, Minnesota, and Houston, TX, are facing similar
shortages. As a result, local police chiefs are reluctantly pulling
officers from the proactive policing activities that were so successful
in the nineties, and they are unable to provide sufficient numbers of
officers for Federal task forces. These choices are not made lightly.
Police chiefs understand the value of proactive policing and the need
to be involved in homeland security task forces; however, they simply
don't have the manpower to do it all. Responding to emergency calls
must take precedence over proactive programs and task forces, and I
fear that we will see the impact in our national crime rates soon.
Local chiefs and sheriffs are reporting increased gang activity. And,
murder rates and auto thefts--two very accurate indicators of crime
trends--have gone up for three consecutive years.

To me, cutting assistance for State and local law enforcement is
inexplicable, particularly because the need for Federal assistance
remains so pressing. In fact, last month I offered an amendment to
restore funding for the COPS program in the sum of $1 billion. This
amount would have provided enough funding to eliminate the backlog of
pending officer requests of 10,000 from 3,700 jurisdictions throughout
the Nation. And, it would have provided funding to support on-going
needs this year. Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down on a
party-line vote. The Bush Administration's response to these criticisms
about its budget is that funding for the Department of Homeland
Security is up. Undoubtedly, these are critical, necessary
expenditures, and I believe that the Administration has not invested
enough for homeland security. We have an obligation to do both. We must
fund homeland security and invest in the programs that help reduce
traditional crime and prevent terrorism. As terrorism and security
experts have pointed out, funding additional officers through the COPS
program can help do both.
The legislation that I am introducing today provides $1.5 billion per
year for six years for the COPS program. This includes $600 million per
year for officer hiring grants, $350 million per year for technology
grants, and $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire
community prosecutors. This funding will help keep faith with our State
and local law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line
every day to keep our communities safe from crime and terrorism. I
would ask all of my colleagues to go to their local police chief or
sheriff and ask them if they should support this legislation, and I
hope that they will, because if they did, it would be passed 100-0.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 945

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 ``Providing Reliable Officers,
Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors, and Training In
Our Neighborhoods Act of 2005'' or the ``PROTECTION Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING RELIABLE OFFICERS, TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION,
COMMUNITY PROSECUTORS, AND TRAINING IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE.

(a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(a) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd(a)) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``and prosecutor'' after ``increase police'';
and
(2) inserting ``to enhance law enforcement access to new
technologies,'' after ``presence,''.
(b) Hiring and Redeployment Grant Projects.--Section
1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting after ``Nation'' the following: ``, or pay
overtime to existing career law enforcement officers to the
extent that such overtime is devoted to community-oriented
policing efforts''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by--
(i) striking ``, or pay overtime''; and
(ii) striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) promote higher education among in-service State and
local law enforcement officers by reimbursing them for the
costs associated with seeking a college or graduate school
education.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking all that follows
``SUPPORT SYSTEMS.--'' and inserting ``Grants pursuant to--
``(A) paragraph (1)(B) for overtime may not exceed 25
percent of the funds available for grants pursuant to this
subsection for any fiscal year;
``(B) paragraph (1)(C) may not exceed 20 percent of the
funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection in any
fiscal year; and
``(C) paragraph (1)(D) may not exceed 5 percent of the
funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection for
any fiscal year.''.
(c) Additional Grant Projects.--Section 1701(d) of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``integrity and ethics'' after
``specialized''; and
(B) by inserting ``and'' after ``enforcement officers'';
(2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``, school officials,
religiously-affiliated organizations,'' after ``enforcement
officers'';
(3) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison
with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and
regulatory agencies, and to combat school-related crime and
disorder problems, gang membership and criminal activity,
firearms and explosives-related incidents, the illegal use
and possession of alcohol, and the illegal possession, use,
and distribution of drugs;'';
(4) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in paragraph (12), by striking the period that appears
at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) develop and implement innovative programs (such as
the TRIAD program) that bring together a community's sheriff,
chief of police, and elderly residents to address the public
safety concerns of older citizens.''.
(d) Technical Assistance.--Section 1701(f) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``use up to 5 percent of the funds
available for grants pursuant to subsection (a) in any fiscal
year to'' after ``The Attorney General may'';
(B) by inserting at the end the following: ``In addition,
the Attorney General may use up to 5 percent of the funds
available for grants pursuant to subsections (d), (e), and
(f) in any fiscal year for technical assistance and training
to States, units of local government, Indian tribal
governments, and to other public and private entities for
those respective purposes.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``under subsection (a)''
after ``the Attorney General''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``the Attorney General may'' and inserting
``the Attorney General shall'';
(B) by striking ``operation of training centers'' and
inserting ``regional community policing institutes, training
centers,''; and
(C) by inserting ``representatives of police labor and
management organizations, community residents,'' after
``supervisors,''.
(e) Technology and Prosecution Programs.--Section 1701 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended by--
(1) striking subsection (k);
(2) redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as
subsections (g) through (k); and

[[Page S4564]]

(3) striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Law Enforcement Technology Program.--Grants made
under subsection (a) may be used to assist police
departments, in employing professional, scientific, and
technological advancements that will help them--
``(1) improve police communications through the use of
wireless communications, computers, software, videocameras,
databases, and other hardware and software that allow law
enforcement agencies to communicate more effectively across
jurisdictional boundaries and effectuate interoperability;
``(2) develop and improve access to crime solving
technologies, including DNA analysis, photo enhancement,
voice recognition, and other forensic capabilities; and
``(3) promote comprehensive crime analysis by utilizing new
techniques and technologies, such as crime mapping, that
allow law enforcement agencies to use real-time crime and
arrest data and other related information, including non-
criminal justice data, to improve their ability to analyze,
predict, and respond pro-actively to local crime and disorder
problems, as well as to engage in regional crime analysis.
``(f) Community-Based Prosecution Program.--
``(1) In general.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be
used to assist State, local or tribal prosecutors' offices in
the implementation of community-based prosecution programs
that build on local community-oriented policing efforts.
``(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this
subsection may be used to--
``(A) hire additional prosecutors who will be assigned to
community prosecution programs, including programs that
assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic
areas, to address specific violent crime and other local
crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun, and
drug enforcement projects and quality of life initiatives),
and to address localized violent and other crime problems
based on needs identified by local law enforcement agencies,
community organizations, and others;
``(B) redeploy existing prosecutors to community
prosecution programs as described in paragraph (1) of this
section by hiring victim and witness coordinators,
paralegals, community outreach, and other such personnel; and
``(C) establish programs to assist local prosecutors'
offices in the implementation of programs that help them
identify and respond to priority crime problems in a
community with specifically tailored solutions.
``(3) Allocation.--At least 75 percent of the funds made
available under this subsection shall be reserved for grants
under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) and of those
amounts no more than 10 percent may be used for grants under
paragraph (2)(B) and at least 25 percent of the funds shall
be reserved for grants under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2) to units of local government with a population
of less than 50,000.''.
(f) Retention Grants.--Section 1703 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796dd-2) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(d) Retention Grants.--The Attorney General may use no
more than 50 percent of the funds under subsection (a) to
award grants targeted specifically for retention of police
officers to grantees in good standing, with preference to
those that demonstrate financial hardship or severe budget
constraint that impacts the entire local budget and may
result in the termination of employment for police officers
funded under subsection (b).''.
(g) Definitions.--
(1) Career law enforcement officer.--Section 1709(1) of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8(1)) is amended by inserting after
``criminal laws'' the following: ``, including sheriffs
deputies charged with supervising offenders who are released
into the community but also engaged in local community-
oriented policing efforts.''.
(2) School resource officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796dd-8(4)) is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory
agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems
including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of
alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or
secondary school;'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative
justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to
and coordinate with other officers, mental health
professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for
the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within
the schools;'';
(C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in subparagraph (G) by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the
local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law
enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical
personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a
school violence prevention plan;
``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all
firearms found or taken into custody on school property and
to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for
each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms;
``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or
explosive devices found or taken into custody on school
property and report to the local office of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation
of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which tracks the
number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon,
firearm, or explosive to school.''.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11)
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part Q, to remain available until expended--
``(i) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(ii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(iii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(iv) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(v) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
``(vi) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``3 percent'' and inserting ``5 percent'';
(B) by striking ``1701(f)'' and inserting ``1701(g)'';
(C) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``Of the
remaining funds, if there is a demand for 50 percent of
appropriated hiring funds, as determined by eligible hiring
applications from law enforcement agencies having
jurisdiction over areas with populations exceeding 150,000,
no less than 50 percent shall be allocated for grants
pursuant to applications submitted by units of local
government or law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction
over areas with populations exceeding 150,000 or by public
and private entities that serve areas with populations
exceeding 150,000, and no less than 50 percent shall be
allocated for grants pursuant to applications submitted by
units of local government or law enforcement agencies having
jurisdiction over areas with populations less than 150,000 or
by public and private entities that serve areas with
populations less than 150,000.'';
(D) by striking ``85 percent'' and inserting
``$600,000,000''; and
(E) by striking ``1701(b),'' and all that follows through
``of part Q.'' and inserting the following: ``1701 (b) and
(c), $350,000,000 to grants for the purposes specified in
section 1701(e), and $200,000,000 to grants for the purposes
specified in section 1701(f).''.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden
and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the
Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so
vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes
$1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's
COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the
United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I
understood how important this program could be when we passed it
originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've
seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I
know that there are few government programs that have done more to make
the whole country safer and more secure.
President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers
on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the
COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program,
they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even
exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government
should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do
their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police
departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial
responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to
close out this program have been included in the President's budget
each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget,
funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing
projects were slashed by varying degrees.
There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of
this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to
hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent

[[Page S4565]]

crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself,
commenting that these officers were put on the street and crime is at a
thirty-year low.
The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of
West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers.
There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and
train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to
replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had
never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you
that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better
throughout my State.
West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs
administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges
from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best
handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools
(CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource
officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire
four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7
million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a
burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH
grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap
into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect
my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America
like wildfire.
I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new
assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies
throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide:
$600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the
country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies,
including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA
analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire
new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started.
I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law
enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted
for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.
______

By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 946. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require
multi-channel video programming distributors to provide a kid-friendly
tier of programming; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly believe that parents in our
country should have more wholesome entertainment choices for their
children. To make that possible, I am today introducing legislation to
require that cable and satellite owners allow parents to purchase a
child-friendly tier of television programming.
For years, the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission
have labored, to little avail, to turn off offensive programming with a
variety of technologies. My legislation would ensure that America's
families, 24/7, could turn on programming that is reliably friendly to
our children.
While the legislation ensures that parents have more choices, the
entertainment industry is assured that it has choices as well. Under
the bill, Congress does not direct how the law is to be implemented.
The Congress does not set prices. And the Congress does not take any
step that is inconsistent with the first amendment.
About the only part of the legislation that is nonnegotiable is my
belief that Congress should not dawdle any longer when the volume of
degrading, violent, and antisocial entertainment our children are
exposed to continues to grow.
Here is what America's parents deal with now. A recent study found
that the average child in America has seen 8,000 murders depicted on
television by the time they graduate from elementary school. Kids see
about 10,000 television rapes, assaults, and murders each year. And in
2004, Americans filed more than 1 million complaints with the Federal
Communications Commission about indecent programming.
Yesterday the National Cable and Telecommunications Association
launched a new public service campaign to alert subscribers to parental
control features that are already available and to introduce new larger
TV rating icons. I haven't studied their proposal, but it certainly
sounds constructive and I look forward to hearing more about their
efforts.
The legislation I am introducing today is a truly new approach that
has teeth. It is going to give parents more kid-friendly entertainment
choices that are easy to understand. The legislation would require that
all cable and satellite operators within 1 year of enactment offer a
kid-friendly tier of programming. It would require monthly billing
statements to include information about how customers can use blocking
technology to stop offensive programming. And it would impose big-
league fines of $500,000 a day on any cable or satellite operator who
doesn't comply with the requirement that they give parents the chance
to purchase kid-friendly programming. In this tier parents will know
that there will be no content and no advertisements of a violent or
sexual nature. Parents and adults who are not concerned about the
current level of violence and sex on television would, of course, have
access to those options with respect to current law.
This proposal is the first to tell cable and satellite operators they
must offer a kid-friendly television tier so parents have more choices.
The legislation does not dictate how it must be accomplished. It only
says this tier of kid-friendly programming must carry a number of
channels.
The legislation leaves it up to the operator whether to offer the
kids tier as part of a basic or expanded basic package or as a
completely separate package.

Certainly there is going to be some opposition. But I believe good
quality programming and an option for families could translate to
pretty good profits for those cable and satellite providers. Parents
are going to find this option very attractive. If children are watching
TV 4 hours a day, you can bet mom and dad are not able to stand there
the whole time. A kids tier is going to take the guesswork out of TV
time for America's parents.
Now there is an awful lot of guesswork. Time magazine found last
month 53 percent of respondents said they thought the Federal
Communications Commission ought to place stricter controls on broadcast
channel shows depicting sex and violence. Sixty-eight percent of those
surveyed said the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers'
moral standards. Sixty-six percent said there is too much violence on
open air TV. Fifty-eight percent said there is too much cursing. Fifty
percent said there is too much sexual content.
I have worked to make sure that this legislation strikes an
appropriate balance, offering choices to parents, not taking them away.
A recent Pew Research survey found although 60 percent of Americans are
very concerned about what kids see and hear on television, about half
of those surveyed were more worried about the Government imposing undue
restrictions and thought this was essentially the responsibility of the
audience.
So what we are doing here shows a balanced kind of approach in line
with the kinds of values Americans are expressing. Don't make choices
for parents, but help parents make good choices for their children.
With 8 out of 10 American households getting their television through
cable or satellite programmers, it is time that parents be given the
chance to sign up for programming that works for their family.
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. 946

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 ``Kid Friendly TV Programming
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) More than a decade ago, the American Psychological
Society concluded that ``There is absolutely no doubt that
higher levels of viewing violence on television are

[[Page S4566]]

correlated with increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes
and increased aggressive behavior.''
(2) A study in 2003 found that adults who were ``high TV-
violence viewers'' as children are more than three-to-four
times as likely as other adults to be convicted of a crime
and to use violence against their spouses and other adults.
(3) Adults who watched more violent programming as children
were more likely to be arrested and convicted for spousal and
child abuse, murder and aggravated assault.
(4) Ten percent of violent acts committed by youths are
attributable to their exposure to violence on television.
(5) Forty percent of parents surveyed in l999 in Rhode
Island reported that at least one symptom of post-traumatic
stress disorder occurred after their child viewed a scary
event on television, and that this symptom lasted at least 1
month.
(6) The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day
will view almost 10,000 violent acts a year.
(7) Teenagers who watched television with the greatest
amount of sexual content were twice as likely to initiate
sexual intercourse the following year as those who watched
television with the least amount of sexual content.
(8) The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2002 that 72
percent of teenagers think sex on television influences
``somewhat'' or ``a lot'' the sexual behavior of their peers.
(9) The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2003 that 64
percent of all television shows have some sexual content, and
that in prime time, 71 percent of the top 4 broadcast network
shows have some sexual content.
(10) The continued exposure of children to obscene,
indecent, sexual, or gratuitous or excessively violent
content on television is harmful to the public health and
welfare of communities across the country.
(11) Efforts to limit the exposure of children to
television programming that contains material with obscene,
indecent, violent, or sexual content, or to impose fines and
penalties for the broadcast of such content, have not been
successful in protecting children from harmful content.
(12) The number of homes in the United States that receive
television programming via cable or satellite providers is
estimated to have grown to 85 percent of American households,
and of that percentage, an estimated 95 percent of the
households subscribe to basic or expanded basic programs.
(13) The efforts to limit the exposure of children to
harmful television content have not been successful because
Federal regulatory agencies have not had the authority to
require cable and satellite providers to offer a child-
friendly tier of programming.
(14) Parents need more effective ways to limit the exposure
of children to television with harmful content through
alternative, child-friendly tiers of programs.

SEC. 3. BASIC TIER CONTENT RESTRICTIONS.

Part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 641. KID-FRIENDLY PROGRAMMING TIER.

``(a) In General.--Within 1 months after the date of
enactment of the Kid Friendly TV Programming Act of 2005,
each multichannel video programming distributor shall offer a
child-friendly tier of programming consisting of no fewer
than 15 channels.
``(b) Blocking Instructions.--Beginning 6 months after the
date of enactment of the Kid Friendly TV Programming Act of
2005, each multichannel video programming distributor shall
provide, as part of the monthly statement of charges,
instructions for how to block any channel whose content a
subscriber may wish to block.
``(c) Penalties.--In addition to any other penalty imposed
under this Act or title 18, United States Code, failure to
comply with the requirements of this section is punishable by
a civil penalty of up to $500,000 per day. Each day of such
failure shall be considered a separate offense.
``(d) Child-friendly Defined.--In this section, the term
`child-friendly tier' means a group of channels that do not
carry programming, advertisements, or public service
announcements that would be considered inappropriate for
children due to obscene, indecent, profane, sexual, or
gratuitous and excessively violent content.''.
______

By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr.
Durbin):
S. 947. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 to modify the provisions relating to citations and penalties; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Workers Memorial Day to
reintroduce the ``Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act,''
legislation that would, among other things, increase the maximum
criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws
and cause the death of an employee.
Unbelievably, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and
carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. This legislation
would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to
10 years--making it a felony. The bill also would increase the penalty
associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and
would increase the penalty for illegally giving advance warning of an
upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.
In recent years, the Senators from both sides of the aisle have
joined together to focus on a shocking succession of corporate
scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of
corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people.
But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee
pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate
abuses can cost lives.
My legislation is based on the simple premise that going to work
should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans
are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related
illnesses. Many of those deaths--deaths that leave wives without
husbands, brothers without sisters, and children without parents--are
completely preventable.
In 2003, the New York Times published an eye-opening, multi-part
series that documented the failure of the Federal government to
prosecute violators of workplace safety laws. The articles were deeply
disturbing to anyone concerned about the health and well being of
workers in America, detailing one company's pattern of recklessly
disregarding basic safety rules. The authors linked at least nine
employee deaths in five States--New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama,
and Texas--over a 7-year period with the failure of a single company,
McWane Foundry, to follow established workplace safety regulations.
Three of those deaths were judged to have been caused by deliberate and
willful violations of Federal safety rules.
As a result of that article and a subsequent criminal investigation,
McWane has begun to clean up its act.
But no one should be deluded. McWane is not the only company with a
record of putting employees at risk. Others--although still the clear
minority--continue to flout workplace safety rules and jeopardize the
health and well being of workers.
During the last Congress, the Bush administration recognized that
there was a problem and announced its ``enhanced enforcement policy,''
a small step in the right direction. But this new enforcement policy
does not do enough, and my legislation would ensure that employers are
deterred from placing their employees at risk by willfully violating
safety law. And if they do willfully violate the law, they will pay a
price.
While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that
exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an
ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes
associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but--over
time--the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has
eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence a paltry 6 months,
Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and
resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent
analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted,
only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were
incarcerated.
The logic behind this legislation is simple. The bill will increase
the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable
for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure
that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will
provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the
small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their
employees at risk.
I am proud to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Durbin
in reintroducing the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act and I
urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. 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. 947

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 ``Workplace Wrongful Death
Accountability Act''.

[[Page S4567]]

SEC. 2. OSHA CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' and
inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18,
United States Code,'';
(B) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``10 years'';
(C) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' and
inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18,
United States Code,'';
(D) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``20 years'';
and
(E) by inserting ``under this subsection or subsection
(i)'' after ``first conviction of such person'';
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ``fine of not more than
$1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and
inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18,
United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 2
years,''; and
(3) in subsection (g), by striking ``fine of not more than
$10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months,''
and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title
18, United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than
1 year,''.
______

Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 948. A bill to amend the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 to expand the National Practitioner Data Bank; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a very
important piece of legislation, the Safe Healthcare Reporting (SHARE)
Act, which Senator Lautenberg and I introduced last Congress to add
nurses and other licensed health care professionals to the National
Practitioner Databank.
In 1986, Congress passed legislation that established a national
databank, the National Practitioner Databank (NPDB), to track
licensing, disciplinary, and medical malpractice actions taken against
U.S. physicians. While the NPDB has served as an important source of
information on physicians, it fails to incorporate critical information
on millions of non-physician licensed health care professionals,
including nurses.
In late 2003, it came to light that Charles Cullen, a nurse who had
practiced for more than a decade in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, had
murdered as many as 40 of the patients he cared for during this time.
As of today, Mr. Cullen has pleaded guilty to intentionally giving
lethal doses of drugs to 24 patients.
This case has highlighted the need for a national reporting system on
nurses and other licensed health professionals. As the health care
workforce becomes increasingly mobile, such a system would be an
invaluable resource to health care employers seeking information on
potential employees.
The SHARE Act will help break the chain of silence currently plaguing
our health care system. This chain of silence prevented critical
employment history on Cullen--including five firings and at least one
suspension--from ever reaching his future employers. While Charles
Cullen kept killing people, hospitals kept hiring him. They didn't know
his history. They didn't understand the risk he posed to patients. This
is because hospitals and other employers are reluctant to share
employee information because they are afraid of being sued.
The goal of our legislation is to make sure that hospitals know--to
make sure that employers have access to critical information on health
care practitioners. It will ensure that adverse employment actions,
licensing and disciplinary actions, and criminal background information
are available to all health care employers. The SHARE Act mandates that
hospitals and other health care entities report adverse employment
actions taken against employees who violate professional standards of
conduct. This would include things like drug diversion and
falsification of documents.
Importantly, the legislation protects health care employers from suit
when they, in good faith, report information that they believe is
truthful. Any employer who reports false information in an effort to
smear a nurse's record would receive no protection under our bill. In
fact, anyone who abused the information reported to the databank would
be fined by the Federal Government.

Health care employers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, would be
required to report to the National Practitioner Databank, which
currently provides such information on physicians. They would also be
required to report to the appropriate state licensing board. In turn
the state licensing board would report the results of its
investigations and licensing or disciplinary actions to the databank.
The legislation also encourages nurses and other health care
professionals to report suspected activities to state boards by
providing whistleblower protections to those individuals.
The SHARE Act also ensures that a practitioner who is subject to
reporting is informed of the report, offered a hearing on the issue,
and allowed to comment on the report.
I believe that this legislation is a critical first step toward
improving access to important information on our health care workforce.
Since 1986, the Federal Government has required hospitals to report
employment information on physicians. It's time we include nurses and
other health care professionals that provide direct patient care. In
fact, the average nurse spends more time at a patient's bedside than
the patient's physician. We simply must ensure that the person at the
bedside is competent and professional.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to move this bill through Congress and get it to the President's
desk. We must and we can improve patient safety and the integrity of
our health care system. This bill takes an important step toward that
goal.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 948

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 ``Safe Health Care Reporting
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING OF SANCTIONS.

Section 422 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11132) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``Boards of medical
examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing boards'';
(2) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``physician's'' each place it appears and
inserting ``physician's or other health care
practitioner's''; and
(B) by striking ``physician'' each place it appears and
inserting ``physician or other health care practitioner'';
and
(3) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``Board of
Medical Examiners'' each place it appears and inserting
``State licensing board''.

SEC. 3. REPORTING OF CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTIONS.

Section 423 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11133) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Board of Medical Examiners'' each place
it appears and inserting ``State licensing board'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Mandatory reporting on other licensed health care
practitioners.--A health care entity shall report to the
appropriate State licensing boards and to the agency
designated under section 424(b), the information described in
paragraph (3) in the case of a licensed health care
practitioner who is not a physician, if the entity would be
required to report such information under paragraph (1) with
respect to the practitioner if the practitioner were a
physician.'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3)(C) as paragraph (3)(D);
and
(C) by striking paragraph (3)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) a description of any adverse action, including
dismissal and review action, taken by a hospital or other
health care entity against a health care practitioner who is
employed by, has privileges at, is under contract with, or
otherwise works at the health care entity for conduct that
may be construed to violate any Federal or State law,
including laws governing licensed health care professional
practice standards,
``(C) information on a health care practitioner who
voluntarily resigns during, or as a result of, a pending
dismissal or review action, and'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (a), the following:
``(b) Standard for Reporting of Adverse Actions.--Adverse
actions reported under subsection (a)(2) shall be made in
accordance with the rights and procedures afforded to
physicians under section 412.'';

[[Page S4568]]

(5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), in the
subsection heading, by striking ``Board of Medical
Examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing board'';
(6) in subsection (d)(1) (as so redesignated), by striking
``subsection (a)(1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2)
of subsection (a) and subsection (b)'';
(7) in subsection (d)(2) (as so redesignated), in the
paragraph heading, by striking ``Board of Medical Examiners''
and inserting ``State licensing board'';
(8) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), in the
subsection heading, by striking ``Board of Medical
Examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing board''; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the
imposition of no more than $50,000 per violation for health
care entities that fail to comply with this section.
``(2) Repeated violations.--The Secretary shall provide for
civil penalties in addition to the amount listed in paragraph
(1) for health care entities that establish patterns of
repeated violations of this section.''.

SEC. 4. CIVIL PENALTIES.

Section 425 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11135) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), and
subsections (b) and (c), by striking ``hospital'' each place
it appears and inserting ``health care entity or agency
employing a physician or other licensed health care
practitioner'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``each hospital'' and inserting ``each
health care entity and agency employing a physician or other
licensed health care practitioner''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and from the appropriate State
licensing board,'' after ``(or the agency designated under
section 424(b)),'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or employment'' after
``clinical privileges''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or employed'' after
``clinical privileges'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``hospital's'' and
inserting ``the health care entity's or agency's'' and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the
imposition of no more than $50,000 per violation for a health
care entity or agency employing a physician or other licensed
health care practitioner that fails to comply with this
section.
``(2) Repeated violations.--The Secretary shall provide for
civil penalties in addition to the amount listed in paragraph
(1) for a health care entity or agency employing a physician
or other licensed health care practitioner that establishes
patterns of repeated violations of this section.''.

SEC. 5. PROFESSIONAL REVIEW.

Section 411 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11111) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Civil Liability Immunity for Health Care Entities.--
``(1) In general.--A health care entity that discloses
information about a former or current employee pursuant to
section 423 is immune from civil liability for such
disclosure and its consequences unless it is demonstrated
that the employer--
``(A) knowingly disclosed false information; or
``(B) violated any right of the former or current employee
that is protected under Federal or State laws.
``(2) Application.--This subsection applies to any
employee, agent, or other representative of the current or
former employer who is authorized to provide and who provides
information in accordance with section 423.
``(e) Protection of Health Care Practitioners.--A health
care entity shall not penalize, discriminate, or retaliate in
any manner with respect to employment, including discharge,
promotion, compensation, or terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, against an employee who, in good faith,
reports conduct that may be construed to violate a Federal or
State law, including laws governing licensed health care
professional practice standards, to a State authority,
licensing authority, peer review organization, or
employer.''.

SEC. 6. HEALTH CARE ENTITY; SKILLED NURSING FACILITY.

Section 431 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986 (42 U.S.C. 11151) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(i), by inserting ``or skilled nursing
facility'' after ``hospital'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (13) and (14) as paragraphs
(14) and (15), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) The term `skilled nursing facility' means an entity
described in section 1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395i-3(a)).''.

SEC. 7. SANCTIONS AGAINST AND BACKGROUND CHECKS OF HEALTH
CARE PRACTITIONERS AND PROVIDERS.

Section 1921 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-2)
is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and Criminal
Background Checks of'' after ``Against''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Information concerning criminal background of
licensed health care practitioners.--The State shall have in
effect a system of reporting criminal background information
on licensed health care practitioners to the agency
designated under section 424(b) of the Health Care Quality
Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11134(b)).''.

SEC. 8. DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, through
the promulgation of appropriate regulations, implement the
provisions of this Act within 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 950. A bill to provide assistance to combat tuberculosis, malaria,
and other infectious diseases, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill with my
colleagues, the senior Senators from Louisiana and Oklahoma, called the
Eliminate Neglected Disease Act of 2005. Neglected diseases are
diseases that don't get much attention but nonetheless account for the
vast majority of all deaths in the world: malaria, tuberculosis, acute
respiratory infections, infectious diarrhea. For most of these
diseases, our bilateral foreign assistance agency, USAID, is not
funding direct interventions in communities using known, life-saving
tools. The need for our bill could not be more urgent.
Given the following, conditions have never been better for the U.S.
to apply inexpensive, relatively simple interventions to save lives: 1.
We know how to cure and/or prevent these diseases.
2. Interventions, prevention and/or treatment are relatively cheap.
Cure for malaria = $2. For TB = $11-15. One year of non-curative
treatment for AIDS: $500-1,000.
3. These diseases are responsible for the vast majority of deaths in
the developing world, particularly among children and pregnant women.
Malaria is the number one killer of kids and pregnant women in Africa,
kills between 1-2 million people each year but makes about 500 million
sick! Tuberculosis kills about 2 million people each year. Unlike with
other diseases, people can not avoid infection with these killers by
behavior change.
4. Low-hanging fruit--these diseases are so cheap to control, even
the modest budgets we have now could make a huge difference if they
were spent wisely.
Our bill focuses on the following programmatic reform: 1. Direct
interventions: requires funding of activities that have a direct impact
on sick people or people at risk of becoming sick. For some programs,
this will require a shift of priority in budgets from indirect support
and advice-giving consultants to actually funding medical treatment,
commodity procurement, and disease control activities.
2. Accountability: programs must measure performance and prove that
they are saving lives. The bill establishes mechanisms to revise or
terminate contracts that fail to save lives.
3. Transparency: Every dollar that the agency awards to combat
infectious diseases must be accounted for on a public web site, similar
to the Global Fund's web site. All signed agreements are posted online,
as well as progress reports documenting performance on required
deliverables and indicators.
4. Scientific and Clinical Integrity: The bill provides that
clinical/medical and public health programs are overseen by the
agencies of the Federal Government where the core competencies in
clinical medicine and public health reside. For programs where the lack
of clinical and scientific expertise has been particularly acute, a
group of Federal and non-government medical and academic experts will
provide scientific and medical oversight.
5. Coordination and Priority-setting: Up to five Federal agencies are
currently involved in international malaria and tuberculosis programs.
The bill would provide for clearer lines of authority and coordination
for these programs, and require a strategic planning process to ensure
that programs operate according to a outcome-focused 5-year plan.
The world community conquered smallpox. We have nearly conquered
polio and guinea worm. When we acted in concert, we stopped SARS in its
tracks a few years ago. If these diseases were killing our own citizens
at

[[Page S4569]]

the rates they are killing people in poorer countries, we would put an
end to it using the inexpensive, known methods, in short order. African
children are just as precious as American and European children. To
those who have been given much, much is expected. We will be held
responsible for how we responded to this crisis. I hope my colleagues
will join us in supporting this legislation.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
S. 955. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of
including in the National Park System certain sites in Williamson
County, Tennessee, relating to the Battle of Franklin; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 955

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 ``Franklin National
Battlefield Study Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the cities
of Brentwood, Franklin, Triune, Thompson's Station, and
Spring Hill, Tennessee.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a special
resource study of sites in the study area relating to the
Battle of Franklin to determine--
(1) the national significance of the sites; and
(2) the suitability and feasibility of including the sites
in the National Park System.
(b) Requirements.--The study conducted under subsection (a)
shall include the analysis and recommendations of the
Secretary on--
(1) the effect on the study area of including the sites in
the National Park System; and
(2) whether the sites could be included in an existing unit
of the National Park System or other federally designated
unit in the State of Tennessee.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall consult with--
(1) appropriate Federal agencies and State and local
government entities; and
(2) interested groups and organizations.
(d) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91-383
(16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.).

SEC. 4. REPORT.

Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that describes--
(1) the findings of the study; and
(2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 956. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
assured punishment for violent crimes against children, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta
Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of
2005''. This is a very important bill that will protect our children
from the vilest forms of abuse and murder.
The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing
for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde,
and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been
thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders
was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our
eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders
tougher penalties for the crimes they commit.
I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa
girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this
year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went
missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even
before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger
Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for
committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only
served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime
conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding
to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an
abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated
with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still
be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first
offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's
even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented
with adequate sentencing.
My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways.
It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties
for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus
system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in
detail.
The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for
criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some
of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in
the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light
of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case,
something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the
types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case,
the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer
mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in
sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for
violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence
results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive
the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence
is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily
injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life;
three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child
under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to
life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission
of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10
years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a
child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life.

The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual
offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be
adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the
damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the
following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children,
abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children
resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities
relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children,
activities relating to material constituting or containing child
pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to
material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually
explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child
prostitution.
The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious
Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would
do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For
example, in district court parties will be required to move for an
evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the
court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin
60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this
section will require that district-court review be completed within 15
months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be
completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this
provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present
meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime.
The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our
children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have
young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that
perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for
their acts. It is unfortunate

[[Page S4570]]

that it took the recent tragic murders of those 3 beautiful young girls
for a law of this nature to be proposed, but I strongly believe that a
vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We
have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an
obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as
parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in
doing just that by voting in favor of this 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. 956

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 ``Jetseta Gage Prevention and
Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. ASSURED PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN.

(a) Special Sentencing Rule.--Subsection (d) of section
3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Mandatory Minimum Terms of Imprisonment for Violent
Crimes Against Children.--A person who is convicted of a
Federal crime of violence against the person of an individual
who has not attained the age of 15 years shall, unless a
greater mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment is
otherwise provided by law and regardless of any maximum term
of imprisonment otherwise provided for the offense--
``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of a
person who has not attained the age of 15 years, be sentenced
to death or life in prison;
``(2) if the crime of violence is a kidnaping, sexual
assault, or maiming, (or an attempt or conspiracy to commit
one of those) or results in serious bodily injury (as defined
in section 1365) be imprisoned for life or for any term of
years not less than 30;
``(3) if the crime of violence results in bodily injury (as
defined in section 1365) to a person who has not attained the
age of 12 years, be imprisoned for life or for any term of
years not less than 15;
``(4) if a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation
to the crime of violence, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 10; and
``(5) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any
term of years not less than 2.''.

SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES AGAINST
CHILDREN.

(a) Sexual Abuse.--
(1) Aggravated sexual abuse of children.--Section 2241(c)
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``,
imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.'' and
inserting ``and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for
life.''.
(2) Abusive sexual contact with children.--Section 2244 of
chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(a) or (b)'' after
``section 2241'';
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the
sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this
title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years and not more
than 25 years;''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(other than
subsection (a)(2))'' after ``violates this section''.
(3) Sexual abuse of children resulting in death.--Section
2245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A person''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Offenses Involving Young Children.--A person who, in
the course of an offense under this chapter, engages in
conduct that results in the death of a person who has not
attained the age of 12 years, shall be punished by death or
imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life.''.
(b) Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children.--
(1) Sexual exploitation of children.--Section 2251(e) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``15 years nor more than 30 years'' and
inserting ``25 years or for life'';
(B) by striking ``not less than 25 years nor more than 50
years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions
under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117,
or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State
relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person
shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than
35 years nor more than life.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
(C) by striking ``any term of years or for life'' and
inserting ``not less than 30 years or for life.''.
(2) Activities relating to material involving the sexual
exploitation of children.--Section 2252(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' and
inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
(ii) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40
years.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned for not more than'' and
inserting ``and imprisoned for'';
(ii) by striking ``, or both''; and
(iii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years.'' and
inserting ``30 years or for life.''.
(3) Activities relating to material constituting or
containing child pornography.--Section 2252A(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' and
inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
(ii) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40
years'' and inserting ``life''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 10 years''; and
(ii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years'' and
inserting ``30 years or for life''.
(4) Using misleading domain names to direct children to
harmful material on the internet.--Section 2252B(b) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or
imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both'' and inserting
``imprisoned for 10 years''.
(5) Production of sexually explicit depictions of
children.--Section 2260(c) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting
the following:
``(1) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for 25
years; and
``(2) if the person has a prior conviction under this
chapter or chapter 109A, shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned for life.''.
(c) Conduct Relating to Child Prostitution.--Section 2423
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``5 years and not more
than 30 years'' and inserting ``30 years or for life'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or imprisoned not more
than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for
not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``or imprisoned not more
than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for
not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years''; and
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``, imprisoned not more
than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for
30 years''.

SEC. 4. ENSURING FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS FEDERAL COLLATERAL
REVIEW OF CONVICTIONS FOR KILLING A CHILD.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Christy Ann Fornoff Act''.
(b) Limits on Cases.--Section 2254 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j)(1) A court, justice, or judge shall not have
jurisdiction to consider any claim relating to the judgment
or sentence in an application described under paragraph (2),
unless the applicant shows that the claim qualifies for
consideration on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2).
Any such application that is presented to a court, justice,
or judge other than a district court shall be transferred to
the appropriate district court for consideration or dismissal
in conformity with this subsection, except that a court of
appeals panel must authorize any second or successive
application in conformity with section 2244 before any
consideration by the district court.
``(2) This subsection applies to an application for a writ
of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court for a crime that involved the
killing of a individual who has not attained the age of 18
years.
``(3) For an application described in paragraph (2), the
following requirements shall apply in the district court:
``(A) Any motion by either party for an evidentiary hearing
shall be filed and served not later than 90 days after the
State files its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the
date on which such answer is due.
``(B) Any motion for an evidentiary hearing shall be
granted or denied not later than 30 days after the date on
which the party opposing such motion files a pleading in
opposition to such motion or, if no timely pleading in
opposition is filed, the date on which such pleading in
opposition is due.
``(C) Any evidentiary hearing shall be--
``(i) convened not less than 60 days after the order
granting such hearing; and
``(ii) completed not more than 150 days after the order
granting such hearing.
``(D) A district court shall enter a final order, granting
or denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus, not
later than 15 months after the date on which the State files
its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the date on
which such answer is due, or not later than 60 days after the
case is submitted for decision, whichever is earlier.
``(E) If the district court fails to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the
court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to enforce the
requirements. The court of appeals shall grant or deny the
petition for a writ of mandamus not later than 30 days after
such petition is filed with the court.

[[Page S4571]]

``(4) For an application described in paragraph (2), the
following requirements shall apply in the court of appeals:
``(A) A timely filed notice of appeal from an order issuing
a writ of habeas corpus shall operate as a stay of that order
pending final disposition of the appeal.
``(B) The court of appeals shall decide the appeal from an
order granting or denying a writ of habeas corpus--
``(i) not later than 120 days after the date on which the
brief of the appellee is filed or, if no timely brief is
filed, the date on which such brief is due; or
``(ii) if a cross-appeal is filed, not later than 120 days
after the date on which the appellant files a brief in
response to the issues presented by the cross-appeal or, if
no timely brief is filed, the date on which such brief is
due.
``(C)(i) Following a decision by a panel of the court of
appeals under subparagraph (B), a petition for panel
rehearing is not allowed, but rehearing by the court of
appeals en banc may be requested. The court of appeals shall
decide whether to grant a petition for rehearing en banc not
later than 30 days after the date on which the petition is
filed, unless a response is required, in which case the court
shall decide whether to grant the petition not later than 30
days after the date on which the response is filed or, if no
timely response is filed, the date on which the response is
due.
``(ii) If rehearing en banc is granted, the court of
appeals shall make a final determination of the appeal not
later than 120 days after the date on which the order
granting rehearing en banc is entered.
``(D) If the court of appeals fails to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the
Supreme Court or a justice thereof for a writ of mandamus to
enforce the requirements.
``(5)(A) The time limitations under paragraphs (3) and (4)
shall apply to an initial application described in paragraph
(2), any second or successive application described in
paragraph (2), and any redetermination of an application
described in paragraph (2) or related appeal following a
remand by the court of appeals or the Supreme Court for
further proceedings.
``(B) In proceedings following remand in the district
court, time limits running from the time the State files its
answer under paragraph (3) shall run from the date the remand
is ordered if further briefing is not required in the
district court. If there is further briefing following remand
in the district court, such time limits shall run from the
date on which a responsive brief is filed or, if no timely
responsive brief is filed, the date on which such brief is
due.
``(C) In proceedings following remand in the court of
appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph (4)(B) shall
run from the date the remand is ordered if further briefing
is not required in the court of appeals. If there is further
briefing in the court of appeals, the time limit specified in
paragraph (4)(B) shall run from the date on which a
responsive brief is filed or, if no timely responsive brief
is filed, from the date on which such brief is due.
``(6) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a time
limitation under this subsection shall not be a ground for
granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence,
nor shall the time limitations under this subsection be
construed to entitle a capital applicant to a stay of
execution, to which the applicant would otherwise not be
entitled, for the purpose of litigating any application or
appeal.''.
(c) Rights Associated With Habeas Corpus Proceedings.--
Section 3771(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``The rights established
for crime victims by this section shall also be extended in a
Federal habeas corpus proceeding arising out of a State
conviction to victims of the State offense at issue.''
(d) Application to Pending Cases.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to cases pending on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Time limits.--In a case pending on the date of
enactment of this Act, if the amendments made by this section
provide that a time limit runs from an event or time that has
occurred prior to such date of enactment, the time limit
shall run instead from such date of enactment.
______

Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 957. A bill to establish a clean coal power initiative, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am introducing the Clean Coal Power
Initiative Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Landrieu is joining
me in introducing this legislation.
The United States needs to have a diverse array of energy sources. It
is crucial to our economy and our national security.
Coal is an important resource that is a solution to keeping our
economy moving forward and reducing our reliance on foreign energy.
Today, coal fuels 52 percent of the electricity used to heat our
homes and schools and run our factories. Coal can play an even greater
role in meeting future demand because it constitutes 90 percent of U.S.
energy reserves resources, enough to last more than 200 years at
current consumption rates.
The Energy Information Administration recently stated that coal is
expected to remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the
next 2 decades.
Generations of Kentuckians have made a living and raised families by
working in the coal fields. They are proud to do such vital work for
our country's energy future.
I believe that coal must be part of our energy plans. It is plentiful
and we do not have to go far to get it.
It can help meet our energy needs as the cost of natural gas
continues to rise dramatically, and is forecasted to remain at
historical highs and as electricity demands continue to increase.
In order for us to take full advantage of coal's benefits, I believe
we must balance conservation with the need for increased production.
That is where clean coal comes in.
The bill I am introducing today will help create new clean coal
technologies by authorizing the Department of Energy to establish a
research and development clean coal program. This will result in a
significant reduction of emissions and a sharp increase in efficiency
of turning coal into electricity.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 958. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate
the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia
and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr.
Levin):
S. 959. A bill to establish the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812
Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to
commemorate America's second war of independence--the War of 1812--and
aid in the efforts to preserve sites related to this important period
in our Nation's history.
Pursuant to legislation that I authored in the 106th Congress, the
National Park Service recently completed a study of the feasibility and
desirability of designating a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic
Trail commemorating the routes used by the British and Americans during
the 1814 Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812.
The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Feasibility Study
and Environmental Impact Statement, completed in March 2004, determined
that five of eight trail segments studied fully met the criteria for
National Historic Trails and recommended this designation.
The legislation I am introducing today implements the recommendations
of the National Park Service's study. The Star-Spangled Banner National
Historic Trail Act amends the National Trails System Act to designate
the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia
and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. I am pleased
that my colleague Senator Mikulski is joining with me as a cosponsor of
this bill. A similar companion bill has also been introduced in the
House by my colleagues Congressmen Cardin and Gilchrest.
The sites along the proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic
Trail would mark some of the most important events of the War of 1812.
The trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the
United States, begins with the June 1814 battles between the British
Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla in St. Leonard's Creek in
Calvert County, and ends at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, site of the
composition of our national anthem, and the ultimate defeat of the
British.
In my view, the designation of this route as a National Historic
Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of
liberty to all who experience it. The Star-Spangled Banner National
Historic Trail will also give long overdue recognition to those
patriots whose determination to stand

[[Page S4572]]

firm against enemy invasion and bombardment preserved this liberty for
future generations of Americans.
The second measure I am introducing today seeks to ensure that the
upcoming bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the poem which became our
national anthem will be appropriately observed. I am pleased to be
joined by Senators Mikulski, Landrieu and Levin in offering this
legislation.
The Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act
implements another recommendation included in the aforementioned
National Park Service study by creating a commission, made up in part
by citizens from nine states and the District of Columbia, to ensure a
suitable national observance of the War of 1812. The commission is
tasked with planning, encouraging, developing, executing and
coordinating programs commemorating the historic events that preceded
and are associated with the War of 1812. Among other things, the
commission is charged with facilitating this commemoration throughout
the United States and internationally.
As the bicentennial of the War of 1812 rapidly approaches, a plan to
mark the lasting contributions that our forebears made during this
critical period in our Nation's history is needed. In my view, both of
these measures will work to ensure that these patriots' commitment to
the principles of liberty and sovereignty will not be forgotten.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their passage.
______

By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Thomas):
S. 960. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to
prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, whenever there is a crisis the media has
always served to focus the nation's attention on the problem and who
has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to
review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we
could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's
property and their livelihood.
Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a
magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and
powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what
we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to
normalcy.
We have all seen the pictures of the devastating tornadoes or other
natural disasters that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched.
Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing
property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy
and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe
weather. Tornadoes don't last a long time, but they leave a path of
devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever
changed.
Even as we consider the devastation of tornadoes, earthquakes, or
other natural disasters, there are those in my state who have seen
their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and federal
regulation, but they haven't been so visible to us because we haven't
seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the
national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their
livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same
kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the
ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy
livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more
difficult to track.
Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am
referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods--
thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several
years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken
advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed
for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.
Right now as I speak to you on the floor of the Senate, if you are a
rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability
to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the
continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend
their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.
The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock
producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts.
It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which
brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains
and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be
traded in open, public markets.
So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our
family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business
practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a
practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.
If you haven't heard about the problem, I must point out that our
ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we haven't fully
focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a Town
Meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from
my constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in
Wyoming, and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception,
they are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue
the work that so many in their family have done for so many years.

I could bring a stack of letters to the Floor that come from people
all across my State about the problems they face. But, in the interests
of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an
idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try
to deal with captive supply.
A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of
captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was
``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He
then added, ``until the existing laws are enforced in this area of
illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very little
consequence.''
So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's
ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the
ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to
purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have
a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.
The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All
businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a
constant stream of production and control costs.
But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and
business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the
problem lies.
The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control
approximately 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive
supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully
drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This
deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers
that haven't aligned with specific packers.
We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the
Senate floor during the Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban
packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did
not survive the conference committee on the Farm Bill. However, the
problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming
producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and
emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and
have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning
packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply
problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to
control cattle and other livestock.
Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means
including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing
agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take
a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to
livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to
the delivery of cattle one week or

[[Page S4573]]

more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter.
Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.
As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the
delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the
price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is
commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula
pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price,
such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant
during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I
find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to
manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in
the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula
pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the
situation if you aren't familiar with the cattle market. Most of us
haven't signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us
have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's
explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a
market structured like the current livestock market.
It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September.
As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that
time. It turns out that other people don't really buy homes from each
other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent
of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal
with one of these companies.
One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000
over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in
your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you
have just been practically forced to sign a contract that doesn't
specify how much you will receive for your house.
That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged
panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real
estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away
from the market. All the homes selling in September that aren't
contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in
your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your
home for $2,000 below average.
As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want
to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you.
Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the
market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives
packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those
producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers
use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and
premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product.
These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.
Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and
(b):
``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . .
to: (a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or
deceptive practice or device; or (b) Make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or
locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality
to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect''
Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and
provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation
of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left
with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent
producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced
and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts
is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take
action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a
country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is
sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it like a
police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a
sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because
the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing
today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It
doesn't just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult
for them to speed.
My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that
livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also
puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.
Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must
contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This
prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of
sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven
production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after
slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control.
It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that
they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are
also exempted from the bill's requirements.
In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to
bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are
made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is
their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.
My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of
a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit
the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key
portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those
found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands
of livestock per contract.
Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends
the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue
preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also
preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide
to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for
the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even
better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for
the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have
confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the
next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to
receive for his livestock.
This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public
market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading
is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how
electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone
involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market
is automatic.
Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the
pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States.
Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue
on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is
built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All
livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a
fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the
best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to
keep our small producers in business.
My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock
producers from competing formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues
to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to
perform on a level playing field.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bunning, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Johnson, and
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 962. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit to holders of qualified bonds issued to finance certain energy
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the capital cost to install new
renewable generation capacity is three to ten

[[Page S4574]]

times more expensive than the cost to install conventional gas
generation. Given these costs, Federal production tax credits have been
available over the past decade to investor-owned utilities and private
developers for renewable generation from wind, closed loop biomass and
poultry waste. I worked in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax
incentives and expand them to additional resources, such as open loop
biomass, animal waste nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste,
solar, geothermal and small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to
extend these incentives to electric cooperatives and public power
systems, and today am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,''
that provides them with an important financing tool.
Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an
important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon
assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for
diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil
and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet
clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has
asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a
balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed
in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address
climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of
the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote
policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to
all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing
GHG-reducing technologies. . . .''
As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems
need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean
technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the
private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to
take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural
resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of
these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has
provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such
generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve.
Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit,
and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities
do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of
service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to
reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax
incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no
federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully
realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make
renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique
characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three
utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for
emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become
economic.
Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power
systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that
are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies
that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45
eligible for the bond.
Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or
municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With
a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder.
But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit
to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the
bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that
permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and
without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the
amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The
bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is
in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their
tax liability.
Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for
infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar
financial instruments for public power systems and electric
cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and
understanding to purchase these financial products because of the
longstanding success of municipal bonds.
The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a
balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that
is needed to push renewable generation options further than production
tax credits alone.
______

By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 964. A bill to provide a conservation royalty from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues to establish the Coastal Impact Assistance
Program, to provide assistance to States under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, to ensure adequate funding for
conserving and restoring wildlife, to assist local governments in
improving local park and recreation systems, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 964

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

Sec. 101. Disposition.

TITLE II--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 201. Coastal Impact Assistance Program.

TITLE III--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Sec. 301. Apportionment of amounts available for State purposes.
Sec. 302. State planning.
Sec. 303. Assistance to States for other projects.
Sec. 304. Conversion of property to other use.
Sec. 305. Water rights.

TITLE IV--CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE

Sec. 401. Purposes.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Sec. 403. Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
Sec. 404. Apportionment to Indian tribes.
Sec. 405. No effect on prior appropriations.

TITLE V--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Expansion of purpose of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 to include development of new areas and
facilities.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Eligibility.
Sec. 504. Grants.
Sec. 505. Recovery action programs.
Sec. 506. State action incentives.
Sec. 507. Conversion of recreation property.
Sec. 508. Treatment of transferred amounts.
Sec. 509. Repeal.

TITLE I--DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

SEC. 101. DISPOSITION.

Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1338) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 9. DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.

``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through
2011, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the
Treasury of the United States all qualified outer continental
shelf revenues (as defined in section 31(a)).
``(b) Transfer for Conservation Royalty Expenditures.--For
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, from amounts
deposited for the preceding fiscal year under subsection (a),
the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer--
``(1) to the Secretary to make payments under section 31,
$450,000,000;
``(2) to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to provide
financial assistance to States under section 6 of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8),
$450,000,000;
``(3) to the Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund
established under section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) for deposit in the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account, $350,000,000; and
``(4) to the Secretary to carry out the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.),
$125,000,000.''.

TITLE II--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 201. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S4575]]

``SEC. 31. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Coastal political subdivision.--The term `coastal
political subdivision' means a political subdivision of a
coastal State any part of which political subdivision is--
``(A) within the coastal zone (as defined in section 304 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) of
the coastal State; and
``(B) not more than 200 miles from the geographic center of
any leased tract.
``(2) Coastal population.--The term `coastal population'
means the population, as determined by the most recent
official data of the Census Bureau, of each political
subdivision any part of which lies within the designated
coastal boundary of a State (as defined in a State's coastal
zone management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)).
``(3) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' has the
meaning given the term in section 304 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453).
``(4) Coastline.--The term `coastline' has the meaning
given the term `coast line' in section 2 of the Submerged
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301).
``(5) Distance.--The term `distance' means the minimum
great circle distance, measured in statute miles.
``(6) Leased tract.--The term `leased tract' means a tract
that is subject to a lease under section 6 or 8 for the
purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil or
natural gas resources.
``(7) Leasing moratoria.--The term `leasing moratoria'
means the prohibitions on preleasing, leasing, and related
activities on any geographic area of the outer Continental
Shelf as contained in--
``(A) the moratorium statement of the President on June 12,
1998; or
``(B) section 110 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-63;
115 Stat. 438).
``(8) Political subdivision.--The term `political
subdivision' means the local political jurisdiction
immediately below the level of State government, including
counties, parishes, and boroughs.
``(9) Producing state.--
``(A) In general.--The term `producing State' means a
coastal State that has a coastal seaward boundary within 200
miles of the geographic center of a leased tract within any
area of the outer Continental Shelf.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `producing State' does not
include a producing State, a majority of the coastline of
which is subject to leasing moratoria.
``(10) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified Outer Continental
Shelf revenues' means all amounts received by the United
States from each leased tract or portion of a leased tract--
``(i) lying--

``(I) seaward of the zone covered by section 8(g); or
``(II) within that zone, but to which section 8(g) does not
apply; and

``(ii) the geographic center of which lies within a
distance of 200 miles from any part of the coastline of any
coastal State.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `qualified Outer Continental
Shelf revenues' includes bonus bids, rents, royalties
(including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net
profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from
natural gas and oil leases issued under this Act.
``(C) Exclusion.--The term `qualified Outer Continental
Shelf revenues' does not include any revenues from a leased
tract or portion of a leased tract that is located in a
geographic area subject to a leasing moratorium on January 1,
2005, unless the lease was in production on that date.
``(11) Transferred amount.--The term `transferred amount'
means the amount transferred to the Secretary under section 9
to make payments to producing States and coastal political
subdivisions under this section for a fiscal year.
``(b) Payments to Producing States and Coastal Political
Subdivisions.--
``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through
2011, the transferred amount shall be allocated by the
Secretary among producing States and coastal political
subdivisions in accordance with this section.
``(2) Disbursement.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall, without further appropriation, disburse to each
producing State for which the Secretary has approved a plan
under subsection (c), and to coastal political subdivisions
under paragraph (4), such funds as are allocated to the
producing State or coastal political subdivision,
respectively, under this section for the fiscal year.
``(3) Allocation among producing states.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C)
and subject to subparagraph (D), the transferred amount shall
be allocated to each producing State based on the ratio
that--
``(i) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated off the coastline of the producing State;
bears to
``(ii) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues generated off the coastline of all producing States.
``(B) Amount of outer continental shelf revenues.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008 shall be
determined using qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues
received for fiscal year 2005; and
``(ii) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf
revenues for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011 shall be
determined using qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues
received for fiscal year 2008.
``(C) Multiple producing states.--In a case in which more
than 1 producing State is located within 200 miles of any
portion of a leased tract, the amount allocated to each
producing State for the leased tract shall be inversely
proportional to the distance between--
``(i) the nearest point on the coastline of the producing
State; and
``(ii) the geographic center of the leased tract.
``(D) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a
producing State under subparagraph (A) shall be at least 1
percent of the transferred amount.
``(4) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 35 percent of
the amount allocated under paragraph (3) to the coastal
political subdivisions in the producing State.
``(B) Formula.--Of the amount paid by the Secretary to
coastal political subdivisions under subparagraph (A)--
``(i) 25 percent shall be allocated to each coastal
political subdivision in the proportion that--

``(I) the coastal population of the coastal political
subdivision; bears to
``(II) the coastal population of all coastal political
subdivisions in the producing State;

``(ii) 25 percent shall be allocated to each coastal
political subdivision in the proportion that--

``(I) the number of miles of coastline of the coastal
political subdivision; bears to
``(II) the number of miles of coastline of all coastal
political subdivisions in the producing State; and

``(iii) 50 percent shall be allocated in amounts that are
inversely proportional to the respective distances between
the points in each coastal political subdivision that are
closest to the geographic center of each leased tract, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(C) Exception for the state of louisiana.--For the
purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), the coastline for coastal
political subdivisions in the State of Louisiana without a
coastline shall be the average length of the coastline of all
other coastal political subdivisions in the State of
Louisiana.
``(D) Exception for the state of alaska.--For the purposes
of carrying out subparagraph (B)(iii) in the State of Alaska,
the amounts allocated shall be divided equally among the 2
coastal political subdivisions that are closest to the
geographic center of a leased tract.
``(E) Exclusion of certain leased tracts.--For purposes of
subparagraph (B)(iii), a leased tract or portion of a leased
tract shall be excluded if the tract or portion of a leased
tract is located in a geographic area subject to a leasing
moratorium on January 1, 2005, unless the lease was in
production on that date.
``(5) No approved plan.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and except
as provided in subparagraph (C), in a case in which any
amount allocated to a producing State or coastal political
subdivision under paragraph (3) or (4) is not disbursed
because the producing State does not have in effect a plan
that has been approved by the Secretary under subsection (c),
the Secretary shall allocate the undisbursed amount equally
among all other producing States.
``(B) Retention of allocation.--The Secretary shall hold in
escrow an undisbursed amount described in subparagraph (A)
until such date as the final appeal regarding the disapproval
of a plan submitted under subsection (c) is decided.
``(C) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subparagraph (A)
with respect to an allocated share of a producing State and
hold the allocable share in escrow if the Secretary
determines that the producing State is making a good faith
effort to develop and submit, or update, a plan in accordance
with subsection (c).
``(c) Coastal Impact Assistance Plan.--
``(1) Submission of state plans.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the
Governor of a producing State shall submit to the Secretary a
coastal impact assistance plan.
``(B) Public participation.--In carrying out subparagraph
(A), the Governor shall solicit local input and provide for
public participation in the development of the plan.
``(2) Approval.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall approve a plan of a
producing State submitted under paragraph (1) before
disbursing any amount to the producing State, or to a coastal
political subdivision located in the producing State, under
this section.
``(B) Components.--The Secretary shall approve a plan
submitted under paragraph (1) if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that the plan is consistent
with the uses described in subsection (d); and
``(ii) the plan contains--

``(I) the name of the State agency that will have the
authority to represent and act on behalf of the producing
State in dealing with the Secretary for purposes of this
section;

[[Page S4576]]

``(II) a program for the implementation of the plan that
describes how the amounts provided under this section to the
producing State will be used;
``(III) for each coastal political subdivision that
receives an amount under this section--

``(aa) the name of a contact person; and
``(bb) a description of how the coastal political
subdivision will use amounts provided under this section;

``(IV) a certification by the Governor that ample
opportunity has been provided for public participation in the
development and revision of the plan; and
``(V) a description of measures that will be taken to
determine the availability of assistance from other relevant
Federal resources and programs.

``(3) Amendment.--Any amendment to a plan submitted under
paragraph (1) shall be--
``(A) developed in accordance with this subsection; and
``(B) submitted to the Secretary for approval or
disapproval under paragraph (4).
``(4) Procedure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
not later than 90 days after the date on which a plan or
amendment to a plan is submitted under paragraph (1) or (3),
the Secretary shall approve or disapprove the plan or
amendment.
``(B) Exception.--For fiscal year 2006, the Secretary shall
approve or disapprove a plan submitted under paragraph (1)
not later than December 31, 2006.
``(d) Authorized Uses.--
``(1) In general.--A producing State or coastal political
subdivision shall use all amounts received under this
section, including any amount deposited in a trust fund that
is administered by the State or coastal political subdivision
and dedicated to uses consistent with this section, in
accordance with all applicable Federal and State law, only
for 1 or more of the following purposes:
``(A) Projects and activities for the conservation,
protection, or restoration of coastal areas, including
wetland.
``(B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural
resources.
``(C) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of
complying with this section.
``(D) Implementation of a federally-approved marine,
coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan.
``(E) Mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf
activities through funding of onshore infrastructure projects
and public service needs.
``(2) Compliance with authorized uses.--If the Secretary
determines that any expenditure made by a producing State or
coastal political subdivision is not consistent with this
subsection, the Secretary shall not disburse any additional
amount under this section to the producing State or the
coastal political subdivision until such time as all amounts
obligated for unauthorized uses have been repaid or
reobligated for authorized uses.''.

TITLE III--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

SEC. 301. APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR STATE
PURPOSES.

Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``(including facility rehabilitation, but excluding facility
maintenance)'' after ``(3) development''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Apportionment Among the States.--
``(1) Definition of state.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in this subsection, the term `State' means--
``(i) each of the States of the United States;
``(ii) the District of Columbia;
``(iii) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
``(iv) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
``(v) the United States Virgin Islands;
``(vi) Guam; and
``(vii) American Samoa.
``(B) Limitation.--For the purposes of paragraph (3), the
States referred to in clauses (iii) through (vii) of
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) shall be treated collectively as 1 State; and
``(ii) shall each receive an apportionment under that
paragraph based on the ratio that--

``(I) the population of the State; bears to
``(II) the population of all the States referred to in
clauses (iii) through (vii) of subparagraph (A).

``(2) Deduction for administrative expenses.--For each
fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of
administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying
out this section, not more than 1 percent of the amounts made
available for financial assistance to States for the fiscal
year under this Act.
``(3) Apportionment.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
the fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion among the
States the amounts remaining after making the deduction under
paragraph (2).
``(B) Formula.--Subject to paragraph (5), of the amounts
described in subparagraph (A) for each fiscal year--
``(i) 60 percent shall be apportioned equally among the
States; and
``(ii) 40 percent shall be apportioned among the States
based on the ratio that--

``(I) the population of each State (as reported in the most
recent decennial census); bears to
``(II) the population of all of the States (as reported in
the most recent decennial census).

``(4) Limitation.--For any fiscal year, the total
apportionment to any 1 State under paragraph (3) shall not
exceed 10 percent of the total amount apportioned to all
States for the fiscal year.
``(5) State notification.--The Secretary shall notify each
State of the amount apportioned to the State under paragraph
(3).
``(6) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Amounts apportioned to a State under
paragraph (3) may be used for planning, acquisition, or
development projects in accordance with this Act.
``(B) Limitation.--Amounts apportioned to a State under
paragraph (3) shall not be used for condemnation of land.
``(7) Reapportionment.--
``(A) In general.--Any portion of an apportionment to a
State under this subsection that has not been paid or
obligated by the Secretary by the end of the second fiscal
year that begins after the date on which notification is
provided to the State under paragraph (5) shall be
reapportioned by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph
(3).
``(B) Limitation.--A reapportionment under this paragraph
shall be made without regard to the limitation described in
paragraph (4).
``(8) Apportionment to indian tribes.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `Indian
tribe'--
``(i) in the case of the State of Alaska, means a Native
corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)); and
``(ii) in the case of any other State, has the meaning
given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
``(B) Apportionment.--For the purposes of paragraph (3),
each Indian tribe shall be eligible to receive a share of the
amount available under paragraph (3) in accordance with a
competitive grant program established by the Secretary.
``(C) Total apportionment.--The total apportionment
available to Indian tribes under subparagraph (B) shall be
equal to the amount available to a single State under
paragraph (3).
``(D) Amount of grant.--For any fiscal year, the grant to
any 1 Indian tribe under this paragraph shall not exceed 10
percent of the total amount made available to Indian tribes
under paragraph (3).
``(E) Use of funds.--Funds received by an Indian tribe
under this paragraph may be used for the purposes specified
in paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a).
``(9) Local allocation.--Unless the State demonstrates on
an annual basis to the satisfaction of the Secretary that
there is a compelling reason not to provide grants under this
paragraph, each State (other than the District of Columbia)
shall make available, as grants to political subdivisions of
the State, not less than 25 percent of the annual State
apportionment under this subsection, or an equivalent amount
made available from other sources.''.

SEC. 302. STATE PLANNING.

(a) In General.--Section 6 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) is amended
by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Selection Criteria; State Action Agenda.--
``(1) Selection criteria.--Each State may develop
priorities and criteria for selection of outdoor conservation
and recreation acquisition and development projects eligible
for grants under this Act, if--
``(A) the priorities and criteria developed by the State
are consistent with this Act;
``(B) the State provides for public participation in the
development of the priorities and criteria; and
``(C) the State develops a State action agenda (referred to
in this section as a `State action agenda') that includes the
priorities and criteria established under this paragraph.
``(2) State action agenda.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the State, in partnership
with political subdivisions of the State and Federal agencies
and in consultation with the public, shall develop a State
action agenda.
``(B) Required elements.--A State action agenda shall--
``(i) include strategies to address broad-based and long-
term needs while focusing on actions that can be funded
during the 5-year period covered by the State action agenda;
``(ii) take into account all providers of conservation and
recreation land in each State, including Federal, regional,
and local government resources;
``(iii) include the name of the State agency that will have
authority to represent and act for the State in dealing with
the Secretary for the purposes of this Act;
``(iv) describe the priorities and criteria for selection
of outdoor recreation and conservation acquisition and
development projects; and
``(v) include a certification by the Governor of the State
that ample opportunity for public participation has been
provided in the development of the State action agenda.
``(C) Update.--Each State action agenda shall be updated at
least once every 5 years.

[[Page S4577]]

``(D) Certification.--The Governor shall certify that the
public has participated in the development of the State
action agenda.
``(E) Coordination with other plans.--
``(i) In general.--The State action agenda shall be
coordinated, to the maximum extent practicable, with other
State, regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, open
space, fish and wildlife, and wetland and other habitat
conservation.
``(ii) Recovery action programs.--

``(I) In general.--The State shall use recovery action
programs developed by urban local governments under section
1007 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978
(16 U.S.C. 2506) as a guide to the conclusions, priorities,
and action schedules contained in the State action agenda.
``(II) Requirements for local planning.--To minimize the
redundancy of local outdoor conservation and recreation
efforts, each State shall provide that, to the maximum extent
practicable, the findings, priorities, and implementation
schedules of recovery action programs may be used to meet
requirements for local outdoor conservation and recreation
planning that are conditions for grants under the State
action agenda.

``(F) Comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.--A
comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan developed by
a State before the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph shall remain in effect in the
State until a State action agenda is adopted under this
paragraph, but not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of that Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6(e) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``or State action agenda'' after ``State comprehensive
plan''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or State action
agenda'' after ``comprehensive plan''.
(2) Section 32(e) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7
U.S.C. 1011(e)) is amended in the last proviso of the first
paragraph by striking ``existing comprehensive statewide
outdoor recreation plan found adequate for purposes of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897)''
and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation
plan or State action agenda required by section 6 of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(3) Section 102(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470b(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan prepared
pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide
outdoor recreation plan or State action agenda required by
section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(4) Section 6(a) of the Federal Water Project Recreation
Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-17(a)) is amended by striking ``State
comprehensive plan developed pursuant to subsection 5(d) of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat.
897)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan or State action agenda required by section 6
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16
U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(5) Section 8(a) of the National Trails System Act (16
U.S.C. 1247(a)) is amended in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or State action agendas'' after
``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans''; and
(B) by inserting ``of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)''
after ``Fund Act''.
(6) Section 11(a)(2) of the National Trails System Act (16
U.S.C. 1250(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``(relating to the
development of Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(7) Section 11 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1282) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``or State action agendas'' after
``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans''; and
(ii) by striking ``(78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``(16
U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``(relating to the
development of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation
plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(8) Section 206(d) of title 23, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``statewide
comprehensive outdoor recreation plan required by the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et
seq.)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan or State action agenda required by section 6
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16
U.S.C. 460l-8)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(D)(ii), by striking ``statewide
comprehensive outdoor recreation plan that is required by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
4 et seq.)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan or State action agenda that is required by
section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
(9) Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) is amended by
striking ``statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under
the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended'' and
inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans
or State action agendas required by section 6 of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.

SEC. 303. ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

Section 6(e) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, but not including
incidental costs relating to acquisition''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the colon the
following: ``or to enhance public safety in a designated park
or recreation area''.

SEC. 304. CONVERSION OF PROPERTY TO OTHER USE.

Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(3) No property'' and inserting the
following:
``(3) Conversion of property to other use.--
``(A) In general.--No property''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(B) Requirements for approval.--The Secretary shall
approve a conversion under subparagraph (A) if--
``(i) the State demonstrates that there is no other prudent
or feasible alternative;
``(ii) the property no longer meets the criteria in the
comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan or State
action agenda for an outdoor conservation and recreation
facility because of changes in demographics; or
``(iii) the property must be abandoned because of
environmental contamination that endangers public health or
safety.
``(C) Conditions.--A conversion under subparagraph (A)
shall satisfy any conditions that the Secretary determines to
be necessary to ensure the substitution of other conservation
or recreation property that is--
``(i) of at least equal fair market value;
``(ii) of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location;
and
``(iii) consistent with the comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan or State action agenda.''.

SEC. 305. WATER RIGHTS.

Title I of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``SEC. 14. WATER RIGHTS.

``Nothing in this title--
``(1) invalidates, preempts, or modifies any Federal or
State water law or an interstate compact relating to water,
including water quality and disposal;
``(2) alters the rights of any State to an appropriated
share of the water of any body of surface water or
groundwater, as established by interstate compacts entered
into, legislation enacted, or final judicial allocations
adjudicated before, on, or after the date of enactment of
this Act; or
``(3) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to
any ground water resource.''.

TITLE IV--CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE

SEC. 401. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are--
(1) to ensure adequate funding of the program established
under the amendments to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) enacted by title IX
of H.R. 5548 of the 106th Congress, as enacted by section
1(a)(2) of Public Law 106-553 (114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-118);
and
(2) to ensure the conservation and sustainability of fish
and wildlife to provide and promote greater hunting, angling,
and wildlife viewing opportunities.

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
(6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
(9), and (10), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(1) Account.--The term `Account' means the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account established by section
3(a)(2).'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe'--
``(A) in the case of the State of Alaska, means a Native
corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)); and
``(B) in the case of any other State, has the meaning given
the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).'';
(4) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``including fish'' and inserting ``(including, for
purposes of section 4(d), fish)''; and
(5) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``includes the wildlife conservation and
restoration program and''.

SEC. 403. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION ACCOUNT.

Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``SEC. 3. (a)(1) An'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 3. FEDERAL AID TO WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND.

``(a) In General.--

[[Page S4578]]

``(1) Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund.--An''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Federal aid to wildlife
restoration fund'' and inserting ``Federal Aid to Wildlife
Restoration Fund''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Wildlife conservation and restoration account.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the fund a
subaccount to be known as the `Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account'.
``(B) Funding.--Amounts transferred to the fund for a
fiscal year under section 9(b)(3) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act--
``(i) shall be deposited in the Account; and
``(ii) shall be available, without further appropriation,
to carry out State wildlife conservation and restoration
programs under section 4(d).''.

SEC. 404. APPORTIONMENT TO INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) In General.--Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the first subsection (c) as subsection
(e); and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Apportionment to district of columbia, puerto rico,
territories, and indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each
fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion from amounts
available in the Account for the fiscal year--
``(i) to each of the District of Columbia and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, an amount equal to not more than
\1/2\ of 1 percent of amounts available in the Account;
``(ii) to each of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin
Islands, a sum equal to not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent of
amounts available in the Account; and
``(iii) to Indian tribes, an amount equal to not more than
2\1/4\ percent of amounts available in the Account, of
which--

``(I) \1/3\ shall be apportioned based on the ratio that
the trust land area of each Indian tribe bears to the total
trust land area of all Indian tribes; and
``(II) \2/3\ shall be apportioned based on the ratio that
the population of each Indian tribe bears to the total
population of all Indian tribes.

``(B) Maximum apportionment to indian tribes.--For each
fiscal year, the amounts apportioned under subparagraph
(A)(iii) shall be adjusted proportionately so that no Indian
tribe is apportioned a sum that is more than 5 percent of the
amount available for apportionment under subparagraph
(A)(iii) for the fiscal year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 3(c)(2) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(c)(2)) is amended by striking
``sections 4(d) and (e) of this Act'' and inserting
``subsection (c) and (d) of section 4''.
(2) Section 4(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c(b)) is amended by striking
``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)''.
(3) Section 4(d) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c(d)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i),
(ii), and (iii) as subclauses (I), (II), and (III),
respectively, and indenting the subclauses appropriately;
(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and indenting the
clauses appropriately; and
(iii) by striking ``(1) Any State'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Any State'';
(iv) by striking ``To apply'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Plan.--To apply'';
(v) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by clause (iii))--

(I) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``may apply'';
and
(II) by striking ``develop a program'' and inserting the
following: ``develop a program for the conservation and
restoration of species of wildlife identified by the State'';

(vi) in subparagraph (B) (as designated by clause (iv))--

(I) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as redesignated by
clause (ii)), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``shall
submit''; and
(II) in clause (i) (as redesignated by clause (ii)), by
inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';

(vii) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph
(C); and
(viii) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by clause
(vii))--

(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a
State or Indian tribe shall'' before ``develop and begin'';
(II) in clause (i), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before
``deems appropriate'';
(III) in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vii), by striking
``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)'';
(IV) in clause (vi)--

(aa) by striking ``State wildlife conservation strategy''
and inserting ``wildlife conservation strategy of the State
or Indian tribe''; and
(bb) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and

(V) in clause (vii), by inserting ``by'' after
``feasible'';

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Indian tribe''
after ``State'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or Indian tribe''
after ``State'' each place it appears; and
(D) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``State's wildlife
conservation and restoration program'' each place it appears
and inserting ``wildlife conservation and restoration program
of a State or Indian tribe''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``each State'';
and
(II) by striking ``State's wildlife conservation and
restoration program'' and inserting ``wildlife conservation
and restoration program of a State or Indian tribe''.

(4) Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended by striking
``section 4(c)'' and inserting ``section 4(e)''.
(5) Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or obligated''
after ``used''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or obligated''
after ``used''; and
(B) by striking ``section 4(c)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 4(e)''.

SEC. 405. NO EFFECT ON PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS.

Nothing in this title or any amendment made by this title
applies to or otherwise affects the availability or use of
any amounts appropriated before the date of enactment of this
Act.

TITLE V--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF PURPOSE OF URBAN PARK AND RECREATION
RECOVERY ACT OF 1978 TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW AREAS AND FACILITIES.

Section 1003 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2502) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``recreation areas, facilities,'' and inserting
``recreation areas and facilities, the development of new
recreation areas and facilities (including acquisition of
land for that development),''.

SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

Section 1004 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2503) is amended--
(1) by striking ``When used in this title the term--'' and
inserting ``In this title:'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
subsection (d) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C),
respectively, and indenting appropriately;
(3) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) as paragraphs (9), (10),
(4), (1), (8), (6), (3), (12), (7), (13), and (5),
respectively, and moving the paragraphs to appear in
numerical order;
(4) in each of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7),
(8), (9), (10), (12), and (13) (as redesignated by paragraph
(3))--
(A)(i) by inserting ``_____.--The term'' before the first
quotation mark; and
(ii) by inserting in the blank the term that is in
quotations in each paragraph, respectively; and
(B) by capitalizing the first letter of the term as
inserted in the blank under subparagraph (A)(ii);
(5) in each of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8),
(9), (10), and (12) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by
striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period;
(6) in paragraph (13) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)),
by striking ``; and'' at the end and inserting a period;
(7) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as redesignated by
paragraph (3)) the following:
``(2) Development grant.--
``(A) In general.--The term `development grant' means a
matching capital grant made to a unit of local government to
cover costs of development, land acquisition, and
construction at 1 or more existing or new neighborhood
recreation sites (including indoor and outdoor recreational
areas and facilities, support facilities, and landscaping).
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `development grant' does not
include a grant made to pay the costs of routine maintenance
or upkeep activities.'';
(8) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by
inserting ``the Commonwealth of'' before ``Northern Mariana
Islands''; and
(9) by inserting after paragraph (10) (as redesignated by
paragraph (3)) the following:
``(11) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Interior.''.

SEC. 503. ELIGIBILITY.

Section 1005 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2504) is amended by striking subsection
(a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Eligibility for Assistance.--
``(1) Definition of general purpose local government.--For
the purpose of determining eligibility for assistance under
this title, the term `general purpose local government'
includes--
``(A) any political subdivision of a metropolitan, primary,
or consolidated statistical area, as determined by the most
recent decennial census;
``(B) any other city, town, or group of 1 or more cities or
towns within a metropolitan

[[Page S4579]]

statistical area described in subparagraph (A) that has a
total population of at least 50,000, as determined by the
most recent decennial census; and
``(C) any other county, parish, or township with a total
population of at least 250,000, as determined by the most
recent decennial census.
``(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall award assistance to
general purpose local governments under this title on the
basis of need, as determined by the Secretary.''.

SEC. 504. GRANTS.

Section 1006(a) of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2505(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``rehabilitation and
innovative'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rehabilitation and
innovation''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``rehabilitation or
innovative''.

SEC. 505. RECOVERY ACTION PROGRAMS.

Section 1007(a) of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2506(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``development,''
after ``commitments to ongoing planning,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``development and''
after ``adequate planning for''.

SEC. 506. STATE ACTION INCENTIVES.

Section 1008 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2507) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) IN GENERAL.--
'' before ``The Secretary is authorized''; and
(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) (as
designated by paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:
``(b) Coordination With Land and Water Conservation Fund
Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary and general purpose local
governments are encouraged to coordinate the preparation of
recovery action programs required by this title with
comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans or State
action agendas required by section 6 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) (including
by allowing flexibility in preparation of recovery action
programs so that those programs may be used to meet State and
local qualifications for local receipt of grants under that
Act or State grants for similar purposes or for other
conservation or recreation purposes).
``(2) Considerations.--The Secretary shall encourage States
to consider the findings, priorities, strategies, and
schedules included in the recovery action programs of the
urban localities of the States in preparation and updating of
comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans or State
action agendas in accordance with the public participation
and citizen consultation requirements of section 6(d) of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
8(d)).''.

SEC. 507. CONVERSION OF RECREATION PROPERTY.

Section 1010 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2509) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1010. CONVERSION OF RECREATION PROPERTY.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
property developed, acquired, improved, or rehabilitated
using funds from a grant under this title shall, without the
approval of the Secretary, be converted to any purpose other
than a public recreation purpose.
``(b) Approval.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve the
conversion of property under subsection (a) to a purpose
other than a public recreation purpose only if the grant
recipient demonstrates that no prudent or feasible
alternative exists.
``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) applies to property
that--
``(A) is no longer viable for use as a recreation facility
because of changes in demographics; or
``(B) must be abandoned because of environmental
contamination or any other condition that endangers public
health or safety.
``(c) Conditions.--Any conversion of property under this
section shall satisfy such conditions as the Secretary
considers necessary to ensure the substitution for the
property of other recreation property that is--
``(1) at a minimum, equivalent in fair market value,
usefulness, and location; and
``(2) subject to the recreation recovery action program of
the grant recipient that is in effect as of the date of the
conversion of the property.''.

SEC. 508. TREATMENT OF TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS.

Section 1013 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act
of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2512) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1013. FUNDING.

``(a) Treatment of Amounts Transferred From Get Outdoors
Act Fund.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts transferred to the Secretary
under section 9(b)(4) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1338(b)(4)) for a fiscal year shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to
carry out this title.
``(2) Unpaid and unobligated amounts.--Any amount described
in paragraph (1) that is not paid or obligated by the
Secretary before the end of the second fiscal year beginning
after the first fiscal year in which the amount is made
available under paragraph (1) shall be reapportioned by the
Secretary among grant recipients under this title.
``(b) Deduction for Administrative Expenses.--For each
fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of
administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying
out this section, not more than 4 percent of the amounts made
available to the Secretary for the fiscal year under
subsection (a).
``(c) Limitations on Annual Grants.--After making the
deduction under subsection (b), of the amounts made available
for a fiscal year under subsection (a)--
``(1) not more than 10 percent may be used for innovation
grants under section 1006;
``(2) not more than 3 percent may be used for grants for
the development of local park and recreation recovery action
programs under subsections (a) and (c) of section 1007; and
``(3) not more than 15 percent, in the aggregate, may be
provided in the form of grants for projects in any 1 State.
``(d) Limitation on Use for Grant Administration.--The
Secretary shall establish a limit on the percentage, not to
exceed 25 percent, of any grant under this title that may be
used for grant and program administration.''.

SEC. 509. REPEAL.

Sections 1014 and 1015 of the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2513, 2514) are repealed.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and
the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce
legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of
the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress.
The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to
conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds
of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the
production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS,
and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands,
preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local
and state parks for our children and grandchildren.
By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant
commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive
legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife
habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy
their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation
builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported
by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations
from throughout the country.
Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short
before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made
by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these
programs each year through the appropriation process.
However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment
has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who
initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant
programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been
left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal
resources.
The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable,
significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation
and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban
and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of
revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation--
offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into
sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and
recreation areas and wildlife?
The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four
distinct programs and honors promises made long ago to the American
people. They include:
Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing
coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as
the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy
resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This
program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States
that are providing the energy to run our country's economy.

[[Page S4580]]

Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially
opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region
has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the
OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including
Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our
Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our
domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by
2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still
to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS.
An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas
production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the
OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest
contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes.
Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral
Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent
of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that
State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States
automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to
appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564
million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received
$365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal
producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the
OCS.
For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for
sharing with the State is the same: The State serves as the platform
which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our
daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our
commuter trains.

In light of the OCS's vital contribution to our Nation's energy
needs, economy and national security, it see only fair and logical that
we should return a share of these revenues to the few States that are
providing this crucial supply of energy. The revenues should be
distributed automatically based on what is produced off a State's
coastline and a portion of each State's allocation should be shared
with coastal counties and parishes. They battle every day with the
forces of nature that are steadily undermining our energy security by
washing away the barrier islands and marshes that protect critical
infrastructure necessary to deliver it.
When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a
wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana
directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this
country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what
the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the
Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing
Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of
OCS revenues to Louisiana and other coastal producing States is crucial
to restoring and preserving these vital wetlands and the billions in
energy investments they protect.
This bill will provide $450 million for the State side of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to provide stable funding to States
for the planning and development of State and local parks and
recreation facilities. The allocation to States would be 60 percent
equally among all 50 States and 40 percent based on relative
population. This program provides greater revenue certainty for State
and local governments to help them meet their recreational needs
through recreational facility development and resource protection--all
under the discretion of State and local authorities while protecting
the rights of private property owners.
This bill would provide for Wildlife Conservation, Education and
Restoration. A total of $350 million is allocated to all 50 States
through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson for the
conservation of non-game and game species, with the principal goal of
preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the
Endangered Species Act. By taking steps now to prevent species from
becoming endangered we are able to not only conserve the significant
cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country,
but also avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for
endangered species.
Allocations to States would be based on a formula of two-thirds
relative population and one-third relative land area and the Urban
Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR--$125 million in the form
of matching grants, 70 percent, to provide direct assistance to our
cities and towns so that they can focus on the needs of their
populations within the more densely inhabited areas around the country
where there are fewer green-spaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for
our youth.
I would also like to acknowledge our interest in several programs
that are not part of this initial package but will be considered as the
bill moves through the process. For example, the Federal side of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, which focuses primarily on Federal
land acquisition. The goal of the Federal side of the LWCF was to share
a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with States
to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. It
is our intention to discuss this program with our colleagues on the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the goal of
developing a compromise that will garner broad support. In addition,
other worthy programs that are not part of the legislation we are
introducing today but ideally would be part of a larger more
comprehensive effort include Historic Preservation, Payment in Lieu of
Taxes, PILT, and the Forest Legacy program.
While we confront a time of war, budget deficits and a struggling
economy, setting aside a portion of oil and gas royalties to our States
and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation
facilities for our children to play could not be more crucial. Programs
such as the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are in
fact the economic stimulus that our States and cities need in these
times. It is time we take some of the proceeds we extract from our
earth and reinvest them into conserving our great outdoors for
generations to come. To continue to do otherwise, as we have done for
the last 50 years, is not only environmentally and fiscally
irresponsible. It ignores our American duty of stewardship to our
Nation, our planet and our children.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 965. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce
the recognition period for built-in gains for subchapter S
corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Small
Business Growth and Opportunity Act of 2004 along with my Finance
Committee colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln.
This legislation will allow S corporations to liquidate unproductive
assets freeing up capital to be used to grow the business and create
new jobs.
There are about 2.9 million of these small and family-owned
businesses in all 50 States. Over the past few years, many of these
small businesses have been forced to lay off workers and delay capital
investment. At the same time, the tax code forces them to hold on to
unproductive and inefficient assets or face the double tax period of
the corporate ``built-in gains'' tax.
Under current law, businesses that convert from a C corporation to S
corporation status are penalized by a double tax burden for a period of
10 years if they sell assets they owned as a C corporation. This tax
penalty is imposed at the corporate level on top of normal shareholder-
level taxes, making the sale and reinvestment of these assets
prohibitively expensive. In some States, this double-tax burden can
exceed 70 percent of the built-in gain.
Clearly this tax penalty is neither justifiable nor sustainable as a
reasonable business matter. The built-in gains tax 1. limits cash flow
and availability, 2. encourages excess borrowing because the S
corporation cannot access the locked-in value of its own assets, and 3.
prevents these small businesses from growing and creating jobs.
While I would like to see even more generous relaxation of these
rules, for revenue considerations this legislation will reduce the
built-in gains recognition period (the holding period) from 10

[[Page S4581]]

years to 7 years. And, this three-year reduction would be a significant
start in easing this unproductive tax burden on these small and family-
owned businesses.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance
Committee and hope the Committee will consider this proposal this year.
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. 965

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

SECTION 1. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Recognition period.--The term `recognition period'
means the 7-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st
taxable year for which the corporation was an S corporation.
For purposes of applying this section to any amount
includible in income by reason of distributions to
shareholders pursuant to section 593(e), the preceding
sentence shall be applied without regard to the duration of
the recognition period in effect on the date such
distribution.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) General rule.--The amendment made by this section shall
apply to any recognition period in effect on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Special application to existing periods exceeding 7
years.--Any recognition period in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act, the length of which is greater than 7
years, shall end on such date.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 966. A bill to designate a United States courthouse located in
Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States
Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
name the Federal courthouse building now being completed at Tulare and
``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United
States Courthouse.''
It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected
and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and
persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project.
Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse
in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervises this
project. He is often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his
chambers to the new building to meet project staff.
Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called
``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand
the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program
was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a
nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.
In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space,
the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown
revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the
community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the
groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.
Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the
bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President
Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the
Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge
Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings
College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a
Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958
with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained
until his appointment by President Reagan.
Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many
judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and
Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District
Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District
Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar
of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.
My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern
District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the
community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge
Robert E. Coyle.
______

By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 969. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
preparation for an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza
pandemic, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral
Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act.
The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat
we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens,
ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus,
the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and
is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they
come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the
consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian
influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived.
Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans.
However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern
that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from
human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next
pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any
other natural health threat.
The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish
flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong
flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe,
causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20
million deaths worldwide.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated
that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be
hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic,
including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected
Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at
between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the
impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr.
Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a
pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the
globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.''
We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have
made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have
much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not
released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of
the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health
Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no State
public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 percent
reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates.
We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already
infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the
high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the
effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other
strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already
bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a
dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic.
The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza
pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and
collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating
committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with
attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and
international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize
pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care,
workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions.
Private health providers and hospitals will

[[Page S4582]]

play a critical role in diagnosing and treating their patients for flu,
and this bill provides grants to make sure their efforts and
information networks are coordinated with those by the state. Health
and veterinary officials are encouraged to work with our international
partners on all of these initiatives.
This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and
health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with
researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a
public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH
is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines,
antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory
committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to
finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact.
Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to
study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic
influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home
from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain
medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing
millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying.
Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these
decisions will affect the rights of every American.
We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must
not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In
endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The
avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation
and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million
Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.''
The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass
the AVIAN Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 969

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 ``Attacking Viral Influenza
Across Nations Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Health and Human Services reports
that an influenza pandemic has a greater potential to cause
rapid increases in death and illness than virtually any other
natural health threat.
(2) Three pandemics occurred during the 20th century: the
Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957,
and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu
pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in
the United States and more than 20,000,000 deaths worldwide.
(3) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
estimated conservatively that up to 207,000 Americans would
die, and up to 734,000 would be hospitalized, during the next
pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the total
direct costs associated with medical care and indirect costs
of lost productivity and death, are estimated at between
$71,000,000,000 and $166,500,000,000. These costs do not
include the economic effects of pandemic on commerce and
society.
(4) Recent studies suggest that avian influenza strains,
which are endemic in wild birds and poultry populations in
some countries, are becoming increasingly capable of causing
severe disease in humans and are likely to cause the next
pandemic flu.
(5) In 2004, 8 nations--Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia,
Japan, Laos, China, Cambodia, and the Republic of Korea--
experienced outbreaks of avian flu (H5N1) among poultry
flocks. Cases of human infections were confirmed in Thailand
and Vietnam (including a possible human-to-human infection in
Thailand).
(6) As of April 15, 2005, 88 confirmed human cases of avian
influenza (H5N1) have been reported, 51 of which resulted in
death. Of these cases, 68 were in Vietnam, 17 in Thailand,
and 3 in Cambodia.
(7) On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stated that
``this is a very ominous situation for the globe. . .the most
important threat we are facing right now.''.
(8) On February 23, 2005, Dr. Shigeru Omi, Asia regional
director of the World Health Organization (WHO), stated with
respect to the avian flu, ``We at WHO believe that the world
is now in the gravest possible danger of a pandemic.''.
(9) The best defense against influenza pandemics is a
heightened global surveillance system. In many of the nations
where avian flu (H5N1) has become endemic the early detection
capabilities are severely lacking, as is the transparency in
the health systems.
(10) In addition to surveillance, pandemic preparedness
requires domestic and international coordination and
cooperation to ensure an adequate medical response, including
communication and information networks, public health
measures to prevent spread, use of vaccination and
antivirals, provision of health outpatient and inpatient
services, and maintenance of core public functions.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Subtitle 3--Pandemic Influenza Preparedness

``SEC. 2141. DEFINITION.

``For purposes of this subtitle, the term `State' shall
have the meaning given such term in section 2(f) and shall
include Indian tribes and tribal organizations (as defined in
section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act).

``SEC. 2142. PROPOSAL FOR INTERNATIONAL FUND TO SUPPORT
PANDEMIC INFLUENZA CONTROL.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary should submit to the
Director of the World Health Organization a proposal to study
the feasibility of establishing a fund, (referred to in this
section as the `Pandemic Fund') to support pandemic influenza
control and relief activities conducted in countries affected
by pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza.
``(b) Content of Proposal.--The proposal submitted under
subsection (a) shall describe, with respect to the Pandemic
Fund--
``(1) funding sources;
``(2) administration;
``(3) application process by which a country may apply to
receive assistance from such Fund;
``(4) factors used to make a determination regarding a
submitted application, which may include--
``(A) the gross domestic product of the applicant country;
``(B) the burden of need, as determined by human morbidity
and mortality and economic impact related to pandemic
influenza and the existing capacity and resources of the
applicant country to control the spread of the disease; and
``(C) the willingness of the country to cooperate with
other countries with respect to preventing and controlling
the spread of the pandemic influenza; and
``(5) any other information the Secretary determines
necessary.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds from any Pandemic Fund
established as provided for in this section shall be used to
complement and augment ongoing bilateral programs and
activities from the United States and other donor nations.

``SEC. 2143. POLICY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON PANDEMIC
INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS.

``(a) In General.--There is established the Pandemic
Influenza Preparedness Policy Coordinating Committee
(referred to in this section as the `Committee').
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Committee shall be composed of--
``(A) the Secretary;
``(B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
``(C) the Secretary of State;
``(D) the Secretary of Defense;
``(E) the Secretary of Commerce;
``(F) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
``(G) the Secretary of Transportation;
``(H) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
``(I) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
``(J) other representatives as determined appropriate by
the Co-Chairs of the Committee.
``(2) Co-chairs.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall serve as the Co-Chairs of the Committee.
``(3) Term.--The members of the Committee shall serve for
the life of the Committee.
``(c) Meetings.--
``(1) In general.--The Committee shall meet not less often
than 2 times per year at the call of the Co-Chairs or as
determined necessary by the President.
``(2) Representation.--A member of the Committee under
subsection (b) may designate a representative to participate
in Committee meetings, but such representative shall hold the
position of at least an assistant secretary or equivalent
position.
``(d) Duties of the Committee.--
``(1) Preparedness plans.--Each member of the Committee
shall submit to the Committee a pandemic influenza
preparedness plan for the agency involved that describes--
``(A) initiatives and proposals by such member to address
pandemic influenza (including avian influenza) preparedness;
and
``(B) any activities and coordination with international
entities related to such initiatives and proposals.
``(2) Interagency plan and recommendations.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Preparedness plan.--Based on the preparedness plans
described under paragraph (1), and not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of the Pandemic Influenza
Preparedness Act of 2005, the Committee shall develop an
Interagency Preparedness

[[Page S4583]]

Plan that integrates and coordinates such preparedness plans.
``(ii) Content of plan.--The Interagency Preparedness Plan
under clause (i) shall include a description of--

``(I) departmental or agency responsibility and
accountability for each component of such plan;
``(II) funding requirements and sources;
``(III) international collaboration and coordination
efforts; and
``(IV) recommendations and a timeline for implementation of
such plan.

``(B) Report.--
``(i) In general.--The Committee shall submit to the
President and Congress, and make available to the public, a
report that includes the Interagency Preparedness Plan.
``(ii) Updated report.--The Committee shall submit to the
President and Congress, and make available to the public, on
a biannual basis, an update of the report that includes a
description of--

``(I) progress made toward plan implementation, as
described under clause (i); and
``(II) progress of the domestic preparedness programs under
section 2144 and of the international assistance programs
under section 2145.

``(C) Consultation with international entities.--In
developing the preparedness plans described under
subparagraph (A) and the report under subparagraph (B), the
Committee may consult with representatives from the World
Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal
Health, and other international bodies, as appropriate.

``SEC. 2144. DOMESTIC PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS
ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Pandemic Preparedness Activities.--The Secretary
shall strengthen, expand, and coordinate domestic pandemic
influenza preparedness activities.
``(b) State Preparedness Plan.--
``(1) In general.--As a condition of receiving funds from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Health
Resources and Services Administration related to
bioterrorism, a State shall--
``(A) designate an official or office as responsible for
pandemic influenza preparedness;
``(B) submit to the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention a Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan
described under paragraph (2); and
``(C) have such Preparedness Plan approved in accordance
with this subsection.
``(2) Preparedness plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan
required under paragraph (1) shall address--
``(i) human and animal surveillance activities, including
capacity for epidemiological analysis, isolation and
subtyping of influenza viruses year-round, including for
avian influenza among domestic poultry, and reporting of
information across human and veterinary sectors;
``(ii) methods to ensure surge capacity in hospitals,
laboratories, outpatient healthcare provider offices, medical
suppliers, and communication networks;
``(iii) assisting the recruitment and coordination of
national and State volunteer banks of healthcare
professionals;
``(iv) distribution of vaccines, antivirals, and other
treatments to priority groups, and monitor effectiveness and
adverse events;
``(v) networks that provide alerts and other information
for healthcare providers and organizations at the National,
State, and regional level;
``(vi) communication with the public with respect to
prevention and obtaining care during pandemic influenza;
``(vii) maintenance of core public functions, including
public utilities, refuse disposal, mortuary services,
transportation, police and firefighter services, and other
critical services;
``(viii) provision of security for--

``(I) first responders and other medical personnel and
volunteers;
``(II) hospitals, treatment centers, and isolation and
quarantine areas;
``(III) transport and delivery of resources, including
vaccines, medications and other supplies; and
``(IV) other persons or functions as determined appropriate
by the Secretary;

``(ix) the acquisition of necessary legal authority for
pandemic activities;
``(x) integration with existing national, State, and
regional bioterrorism preparedness activities or
infrastructure;
``(xi) coordination among public and private health sectors
with respect to healthcare delivery, including mass
vaccination and treatment systems, during pandemic influenza;
and
``(xii) coordination with Federal pandemic influenza
preparedness activities.
``(B) Underserved populations.--The Pandemic Influenza
Preparedness Plan required under paragraph (1) shall include
a specific focus on surveillance, prevention, and medical
care for traditionally underserved populations, including
low-income, racial and ethnic minority, immigrant, and
uninsured populations.
``(3) Approval of state plan.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, in collaboration with the Secretary
of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Health Resources
and Services Administration, shall develop criteria to rate
State Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plans required under
paragraph (1) and determine the minimum rating needed for
approval.
``(B) Timing of approval.--Not later than 180 days after a
State submits a State Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan as
required under paragraph (1), the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention shall make a determination
regarding approval of such Plan.
``(4) Reporting of state plan.--All Pandemic Influenza
Preparedness Plans submitted and approved under this section
shall be made available to the public.
``(5) Assistance to states.--The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services
Administration may provide assistance to States in carrying
out this subsection, or implementing an approved State
Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan, which may include the
detail of an officer to approved domestic pandemic sites or
the purchase of equipment and supplies.
``(6) Waiver.--The Secretary may grant a temporary waiver
of 1 or more of the requirements under this subsection.
``(c) Domestic Surveillance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish minimum thresholds
for States with respect to adequate surveillance for pandemic
influenza, including possible pandemic avian influenza.
``(2) Assistance to states.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall provide assistance to States
and regions to meet the minimum thresholds established under
paragraph (1).
``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance provided to States
under subparagraph (A) may include--
``(i) the establishment or expansion of State surveillance
and alert systems, including the Sentinel Physician
Surveillance System and 122 Cities Mortalities Report System;
``(ii) the provision of equipment and supplies;
``(iii) support for epidemiological analysis and
investigation of novel strains;
``(iv) the sharing of biological specimens and
epidemiological and clinical data within and across States;
and
``(v) other activities determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(3) Detail of officers.--The Secretary may detail
officers to States for technical assistance as needed to
carry out this subsection.
``(d) Private Sector Involvement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, and in coordination with private sector
entities, shall integrate and coordinate public and private
influenza surveillance activities, as appropriate.
``(2) Grant program.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out the activities under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish a grant program to
provide grants to eligible entities to coordinate pandemic
preparedness surveillance activities between States and
private health sector entities, including health plans and
other health systems.
``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subparagraph (A), an entity shall--
``(i) submit an application at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require;
and
``(ii) be a State with a collaborative relationship with a
private health system organization or institution.
``(C) Use of funds.--Funds under a grant under subparagraph
(A) may be used to--
``(i) develop and implement surveillance protocols for
patients in outpatient and hospital settings;
``(ii) establish a communication alert plan for patients
for reportable signs and symptoms that may suggest influenza;
``(iii) purchase necessary equipment and supplies;
``(iv) increase laboratory testing and networking capacity;
``(v) conduct epidemiological and other analyses; or
``(vi) report and disseminate data.
``(D) Detail of officers.--The Secretary may detail
officers to grantees under subparagraph (A) for technical
assistance.
``(E) Requirement.--As a condition of receiving a grant
under subparagraph (A), a State shall have a plan to meet
minimum thresholds for State influenza surveillance
established by the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in coordination with the Secretary of
Agriculture under subsection (b).
``(e) Temporary Facility.--The Secretary may establish a
temporary Federal facility or body to coordinate Federal
support and assistance to States and localities, activities
across Federal agencies or departments, or direct
implementation of Federal authorities and responsibilities
when appropriate under Federal law or when State and local
actions to address the pandemic or threat of pandemic are
deemed insufficient by the Secretary or Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(f) Procurement of Antivirals for the Strategic National
Stockpile.--The Secretary shall determine the minimum number
of doses of antivirals needed to prevent infection or treat
infection during pandemic influenza, including possible
pandemic avian influenza, for health professionals (including
doctors, nurses, mental health professionals,

[[Page S4584]]

pharmacists, veterinarians, laboratory personnel,
epidemiologists, virologists and public health
practitioners), core public utility employees, and those
persons expected to be at high risk for serious morbidity and
mortality from pandemic influenza, and take immediate steps
to procure this minimum number of doses for the Strategic
National Stockpile described under section 319F-2.
``(g) Procurement of Vaccines for the Strategic National
Stockpile.--Subject to development and testing of potential
vaccines for pandemic influenza, including possible pandemic
avian influenza, the Secretary shall determine the minimum
number of doses of vaccines needed to prevent infection
during at least the first wave of pandemic influenza for
health professionals (including doctors, nurses, mental
health professionals, pharmacists, veterinarians, laboratory
personnel, epidemiologists, virologists and public health
practitioners), core public utility employees, and those
persons expected to be at high risk for serious morbidity and
mortality from pandemic influenza, and take immediate steps
to procure this minimum number of doses for the Strategic
National Stockpile described under section 319F-2.

``SEC. 2145. INTERNATIONAL PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall assist other
countries in preparation for, and response to, pandemic
influenza, including possible pandemic avian influenza.
``(b) International Surveillance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the World Health Organization and the World
Organization for Animal Health, shall establish minimum
standards for surveillance capacity for all countries with
respect to pandemic influenza, including possible pandemic
avian influenza.
``(2) Assistance.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall assist other countries to meet the
standards established in paragraph (1) through--
``(A) the detail of officers to foreign countries for the
provision of technical assistance or training;
``(B) laboratory testing, including testing of specimens
for viral isolation or subtype analysis;
``(C) epidemiological analysis and investigation of novel
strains;
``(D) provision of equipment or supplies;
``(E) coordination of surveillance activities within and
among countries;
``(F) the establishment and maintenance of an Internet
database that is accessible to health officials domestically
and internationally, for the purpose of reporting new cases
or clusters of influenza and under information that may help
avert the pandemic spread of influenza; and
``(G) other activities as determined necessary by the
Secretary.
``(c) Increased International Medical Capacity During
Pandemic Influenza.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, may provide vaccines, antiviral
medications, and supplies to foreign countries from the
Strategic National Stockpile described under section 319F-2.
``(d) Assistance to Foreign Countries.--The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and
Services Administration may provide assistance to foreign
countries in carrying out this section, which may include the
detail of an officer to approved international pandemic sites
or the purchase of equipment and supplies.

``SEC. 2146. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS CAMPAIGN.

``(a) In General.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, in consultation with the United
States Agency for International Development, the World Health
Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and
foreign countries, shall develop an outreach campaign with
respect to public education and awareness of influenza and
influenza preparedness.
``(b) Details of Campaign.--The campaign established under
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be culturally and linguistically appropriate for
domestic populations;
``(2) be adaptable for use in foreign countries;
``(3) target high-risk populations (those most likely to
contract, transmit, and die from influenza);
``(4) promote personal influenza precautionary measures and
knowledge, and the need for general vaccination, as
appropriate; and
``(5) describe precautions at the State and local level
that could be implemented during pandemic influenza,
including quarantine and other measures.

``SEC. 2147. HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TRAINING.

``The Secretary, directly or through contract, and in
consultation with professional health and medical societies,
shall develop and disseminate pandemic influenza training
curricula--
``(1) to educate and train health professionals, including
physicians, nurses, public health practitioners, virologists
and epidemiologists, veterinarians, mental health providers,
allied health professionals, and paramedics and other first
responders;
``(2) to educate and train volunteer, non-medical personnel
whose assistance may be required during a pandemic influenza
outbreak; and
``(3) that address prevention, including use of quarantine
and other isolation precautions, pandemic influenza
diagnosis, medical guidelines for use of antivirals and
vaccines, and professional requirements and responsibilities,
as appropriate.

``SEC. 2148. RESEARCH AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

``The Director of the National Institutes of Health
(referred to in this section as the `Director of NIH'), in
collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and other relevant agencies, shall
expand and intensify--
``(1) human and animal research, with respect to influenza,
on--
``(A) vaccine development and manufacture, including
strategies to increase immunological response;
``(B) effectiveness of inducing heterosubtypic immunity;
``(C) antivirals, including minimal dose or course of
treatment and timing to achieve prophylactic or therapeutic
effect;
``(D) side effects and drug safety of vaccines and
antivirals in subpopulations;
``(E) alternative routes of delivery;
``(F) more efficient methods for testing and determining
virus subtype;
``(G) protective measures; and
``(H) other areas determined appropriate by the Director of
NIH; and
``(2) historical research on prior pandemics to better
understand pandemic epidemiology, transmission, protective
measures, high-risk groups, and other lessons that may be
applicable to future pandemics.

``SEC. 2149. RESEARCH AT THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND
PREVENTION.

``The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, in collaboration with other relevant agencies,
shall expand and intensify research, with respect to
influenza, on--
``(1) communication strategies for the public during
pandemic influenza, taking into consideration age, racial and
ethnic background, health literacy, and risk status;
``(2) changing and influencing human behavior as it relates
to vaccination; and
``(3) development and implementation of a public, non-
commercial and non-competitive broadcast system and person-
to-person networks.

``SEC. 2150. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY ON THE LEGAL,
ETHICAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PANDEMIC
INFLUENZA.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall contract with the
Institute of Medicine to--
``(1) study the legal, ethical, and social implications of,
with respect to pandemic influenza--
``(A) animal/human interchange;
``(B) global surveillance;
``(C) case contact investigations;
``(D) vaccination and medical treatment;
``(E) community hygiene;
``(F) travel and border controls;
``(G) decreased social mixing and increased social
distance;
``(H) civil confinement; and
``(I) other topics as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005,
submit to the Secretary a report that describes
recommendations based on the study conducted under paragraph
(1).
``(b) Implementation of Recommendations.--Not later than
180 days after the submission of the report of under
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall address the
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding the
domestic and international allocation and distribution of
pandemic influenza vaccine and antivirals.

``SEC. 2151. NATIONAL PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ECONOMICS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

``(a) In General.--There is established the National
Pandemic Influenza Economics Advisory Committee (referred to
in this section as the `Committee').
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The members of the Committee shall be
appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and
shall include domestic and international experts on pandemic
influenza, public health, veterinary science, commerce,
economics, finance, and international diplomacy.
``(2) Chair.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall select a Chair from among the members of the Committee.
``(c) Duties.--The Committee shall study and make
recommendations to Congress and the Secretary on the
financial and economic impact of pandemic influenza and
possible financial structures for domestic and international
pandemic response, relating to--
``(1) the development, storage and distribution of
vaccines;
``(2) the storage and distribution of antiviral and other
medications and supplies;
``(3) increased surveillance activities;
``(4) provision of preventive and medical care during
pandemic;
``(5) reimbursement for health providers and other core
public function employees;
``(6) reasonable compensation for farmers and other workers
that bear direct or disproportionate loss of revenue; and
``(7) other issues determined appropriate by the Chair.
``(d) Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--Each member of the Committee who is not
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall be
compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged

[[Page S4585]]

in the performance of the duties of the Committee. All
members who are officers or employees of the United States
shall serve without compensation in addition to that received
for their services as officers or employees of the United
States.
``(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Committee shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Committee.
``(e) Staff.--
``(1) In general.--The Chair of the Committee shall provide
the Committee with such professional and clerical staff, such
information, and the services of such consultants as may be
necessary to assist the Committee in carrying out the
functions under this section.
``(2) Detail of federal government employees.--
``(A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government
may be detailed to the Committee without reimbursement.
``(B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee
shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status
or privilege.
``(3) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Chair of the Committee may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.''.

SEC. 4. PANDEMIC INFLUENZA AND ANIMAL HEALTH.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall expand
and intensify efforts to prevent pandemic influenza,
including possible pandemic avian influenza.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit
to Congress a report that describes the anticipated impact of
pandemic influenza on the United States.
(c) Assistance.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for
Animal Health, shall provide domestic and international
assistance with respect to pandemic influenza preparedness
to--
(1) support the eradication of infectious animal diseases
and zoonosis;
(2) increase transparency in animal disease states;
(3) collect, analyze, and disseminate veterinary data;
(4) strengthen international coordination and cooperation
in the control of animal diseases; and
(5) promote the safety of world trade in animals and animal
products.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this Act (and the amendments made by
this Act) for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join the
Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and several of our colleagues in
sponsoring the CLEAR ACT, a package of initiatives intended
simultaneously to lessen this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to
promote a cleaner environment.
Throughout my time in the Senate, and indeed going back to my time as
Governor of West Virginia, I have believed that the United States
needed to have a comprehensive and responsible national energy policy,
and that a vital part of that policy should be promoting technologies
and domestic resources to loosen the grip foreign suppliers of energy
have on our economy. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles
(AFVs) that use them must be part of our energy policy. As a Senator, I
have been very interested in expanding the availability of alternative
fuels and have worked with a number of my colleagues and experts in
industry, academia, and in the environmental movement on several
initiatives to accelerate their use and availability.
The current high price of gasoline drives home the point that we must
diversity our fuel supply. This issue is particularly important in West
Virginia. Like many rural States, West Virginia has little public
transportation, and most people must drive, often considerable
distances, to work, to school, and to seek medical care. With every
trip to the gas station and nearly every evening news report, West
Virginians are reminded that our country is in the midst of an energy
crisis. According to the American Automobile Association, the average
price of gasoline has risen 23 percent in the past year. These
increases have a serious impact on family budgets and on the economy in
general.
Today, more than 60 percent of the petroleum we consume is imported.
This adds to our economic problems and raises additional concerns about
national security. We must work to reduce the consumption, or at least
the growth in consumption, of petroleum-based fuels in the United
States. Emissions from gasoline-powered automobiles are a major source
of air pollution and of carbon dioxide, which is the major contributor
to global climate change. While I believe our energy policy should work
in concert with a transportation policy that encourages the use of mass
transit, it is unlikely in the short-term that many West Virginians, or
a significant number of other Americans, will be able to greatly reduce
the amount they drive. The CLEAR ACT will help our Nation lessen its
dependence on foreign oil and, because the amount Americans drive is
likely to increase, contribute to an overall cleaner environment by
substituting cleaner-burning alternatives to gasoline and diesel.
In the development of alternative fuels and AFVs, our Nation has been
caught in what I've always thought of as the classic ``chicken and
egg'' problem. Both alternative fuels and AFVs must be commercially
available if the potential impact is to be achieved. Without the
fueling infrastructure, wide commercial appeal of non-gasoline vehicles
will top out before the market has reached its potential. The
popularity of gasoline-electric hybrids demonstrates the public's
hunger for alternatives to the rapidly rising price of gasoline and
increasingly hazardous automobile emission. Appropriate tax incentives
can address the equally important challenges of vehicle availability
and infrastructure deployment. If consumers routinely see alternative
fuels at reasonable prices at their local service stations, while also
seeing reasonably-priced vehicles at dealerships, we know they will
respond.
The CLEAR ACT provides the tax incentives that we need, and which I
believe must be included in the comprehensive energy policy the Senate
will soon consider. In closing, let me thank my friends Senator Hatch
and Senator Jeffords, with whom I've worked on this for many years. I
am pleased as well to see that a growing number of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle are joining us in this effort to improve our
Nation's energy, transportation, and environmental policy. I commend
this bill to the remainder of the Senate, and look forward to its
inclusion in the Energy bill we will take up later in the year.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman,
and Mr. Smith):
S. 971. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage and accelerate the nationwide production, retail sale, and
consumer use of new motor vehicles that are powered by fuel cell
technology, hybrid technology, battery electric technology, alternative
fuels, or other advanced motor vehicle technologies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT,
the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car
Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the
omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted.
Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely
Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords,
Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will
add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate
their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote
the CLEAR ACT in this Congress.
The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance:
our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two-
thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and
transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If
we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our
transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way.
I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the
need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of
hybrid

[[Page S4586]]

and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful market
incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of
advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative
fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market
reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove
infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies
promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy
security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal
mandates.
Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use
of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are
the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate
infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental
cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these
obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest
social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent.
We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer
acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work
to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies.
In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and
energy independence to our citizens sooner.
I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to
purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today.
It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas.
However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives
in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in
place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can
indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of
alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that
breakthrough on a national scale.
In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight
vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to
make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start.
Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of
Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality,
it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles
driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air
pollution in Utah.
It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the
use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions.
The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that.
I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan
legislation.
It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and
effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense
Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor
Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane
Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive
Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the
untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for
this we owe them our gratitude.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking
approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 972. A bill to designate the Albuquerque Indian Health Center as a
critical access facility and to provide funds for that Center; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation
to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque
Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent,
and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living
in the Albuquerque area.
The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population
with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care
funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About
50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit
goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services.
However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant
underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less
than it did just a few years ago.
As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health
Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction
in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of
clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees
an estimated 120 patients a day.
After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available
to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize
AIHC as their primary care provider.
To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is
called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would
designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with
additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow
AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban
Indians in the region.
Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually
and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made
appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and
Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to
transfer funding to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem.
Congressman Udall and I also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson
on ways that we can work together with the State to improve the
situation at AIHC.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, December 15, 2004.
Dr. Charles Grim,
Director, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Dear Dr. Grim: I recently had the opportunity to meet with
the CEO of the Albuquerque Indian clinic and other IHS staff.
It was alarming to hear that the roughly 23,000-25,000 urban
Native Americans that currently access their health care at
the Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) are at risk of
losing this access because the AIHC is experiencing
significant budget shortfalls. Since 1998, the AIHC has had
to significantly reduce services from a 24 hour-7 day a week
operation down to Monday through Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
Access to services that concentrated on diabetic care,
behavior health and eye care has been severely restricted.
The AIHC is projecting a $5 million deficit for fiscal year
2005. The current FY 2005 operations budget (hospital and
clinic funds) is about $5.4 million, yet current FY 2005
expenses are estimated at $10 million. Moreover,
approximately $4 million of the $5.4 million is still subject
to tribal transfer through Public Law 93-638. Indian Self-
Determination Act. In an attempt to avoid a large deficit and
prepare for future transfers of funds from IHS to tribes,
AIHC officials have been forced to make a decision to
immediately reduce current services and downsize clinical
personnel.
It is my understanding that beginning on January 1, 2005
the AIHC will be closing its urgent care services unit. It is
estimated that 100-120 Native American patients are seen on a
daily basis through urgent care. With nearly 70% of the
25,000 Native American users of the AIHC uninsured, IHS
estimates that this closure will put 17,000 urban Native
Americans at risk of losing access to healthcare services.
Furthermore, I have been informed that a second phase has
been proposed which will be to downsize the number of
physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other allied personnel.
The annual 90,000 visits will be cut to 30,000, thus
decreasing third party billing by more than two thirds. The
AIHC anticipates that once the downsizing is complete, at
best, there will be two physicians onsite, Monday through
Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, who absolutely will not have the
capacity to provide services to 25,000 urban Native
Americans.
I am asking that you consider reprogramming FY 2005 funding
increases in the amount of $13 million to the AIHC. $5
million will be needed to first stabilize services and the
remaining $8 million will then be used to increase services.
The $13 million is based on ``Level of Need Funding''
criteria established by the IHS in 2002 to address 60% of the
needs of Native American population.
I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.
Should you have any questions or require further information
please feel free to contact Bruce Lesley in my Washington DC
office at 202-224-5527 or Danny Milo in my Albuquerque office
at 505-346-

[[Page S4587]]

6601. I look forward to working on a positive solution to
this with you.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 22, 2004.
Dr. Charles W. Grim, D.D.S., M.H.S.A.,
Director, Indian Health Service, Rockville, MD.
Dear Dr. Grim: We are writing in support of the request by
the Albuquerque Service Unit to shift funding within IHS to
the Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) and to seek
funding from other sources within HHS.
The AIHC provides health care services to about 25,000 of
the 47,000 urban Indians living in Albuquerque, including
primary, urgent, and dental care. Because of a projected
deficit of $5 million in Fiscal Year 2005 and substantial
deficits in years thereafter, the urgent care center is set
to close on February 1, 2005. Without additional funding,
urban Indians in the Albuquerque metro area will lose access
to the AIHC for urgent care forcing them to visit non-IHS
facilities in the community or not seek urgent care when
needed. It is estimated that at least 17,000 urban Indians in
Albuquerque utilize urgent care services at the AIHC each
year.
The current FY 2005 AIHC operations budget is about $5.4
million, yet FY 2005 expenses are estimated at $10 million
with the current level of services. About $4 million of the
$5.4 million budget is still subject to tribal share transfer
through Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination Act.
In an attempt to avoid a large deficit and to prepare for
future transfers of funds from IHS to tribes, AIHC officials
made the decision to close the urgent care center and
downsize clinical personnel beginning February 1.
Since 1998, the AIHC has had to significantly reduce
services from a 24-7 operation down to Monday through Friday
8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Access to services that concentrated on
diabetic care, behavioral health, and eye care has been
severely restricted. With the recent announcement of the
impending closure of the urgent care unit, walk in/same day
appointments wil1 no longer be accepted and patients will be
required to have an appointment to access outpatient
services. Since the positions of 40 physicians, nurses,
pharmacists, and staff will be eliminated, the availability
of appointments will be restricted due to the limited number
of physicians remaining. This will cause delays in treatment
and compromise the health of individuals. While we are asking
for a short-term influx of available dollars to keep the
urgent care center open, the gradual dwindling of services
provided at the AIHC is a systemic problem that must be
addressed.
The 2000 census showed that about 60% of all Indians live
off of tribal land. Urban Indian health, however, only
comprises about 1% of the IHS budget. The deficit of the AIHC
is indicative of a much larger problem, a general deficiency
in funding for urban Indian health. We look forward to
working with you to address this larger problem. Our long-
term goal is to secure a stable, reliable, and adequate
funding stream to the AIHC to fully meet the health care
needs of the urban Indian population in Albuquerque. Any
suggestions you have to help us meet this goal would be
appreciated.
The financial stability of the Albuquerque Indian Health
Center and affiliated health clinics are vitally important to
providing access to health care for Indians, particularly
urban Indians in Albuquerque, and for the broader health care
system in our community. We look forward to your response in
this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senator.
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator.
Heather Wilson,
Member of Congress.
Tom Udall,
Member of Congress.
Steven Pearce,
Member of Congress.
____

Department of Health and

Human Services,

Rockville, MD, January 21, 2005.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I am responding to your December 15.
2004, letter regarding the Albuquerque Indian Health Center.
The Albuquerque Service Unit is in a unique situation. It
serves a large urban population with a minimal funding base
and provides contract health care funds for approximately 30
percent of the urban population, including eligible Navajo
patients. This is compounded by the transfer of approximately
50 percent of the base appropriation to Tribes in the service
unit who are administering their own health care delivery
programs. To meet these fiscal constraints, the service unit
and the Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service (IHS) must
deliver care based on the funds available; unfortunately,
this requires the downsizing of the health services program
and a reduction-in-force.
Reprogramming IHS funds is not viable for two reasons.
First, there arc no contingent funds available in our Agency.
Second, reprogramming appropriations for Tribal health to a
largely urban population requires a mechanism to transfer
these funds to Title V of Public Law 94-437 for urban
Indians. This would necessitate extensive Tribal
consultation, which would be very time-consuming and not meet
the immediate need.
I have directed the Albuquerque Area Office and Service
Unit to: (1) downsize and implement the reduction-in-force;
(2) maximize their efforts to increase third-party revenue at
the service unit, including developing alternate billable
services; (3) work with the State of New Mexico and other
agencies and Tribes to develop alternatives to care for the
large metropolitan population in Albuquerque; and (4) discuss
fiscal support from the Navajo Area IHS. I am confident that
the Area Office and the service unit will explore all
opportunities to provide the highest quality health care to
this population.
Thank you for your concern and your continued support of
our efforts to provide quality health care to our Indian
people.
Sincerely yours,
Charles W. Grimm,
D.D.S.,
Assistant Surgeon General, Director.
____

Department of Health and

Human Services,

Rockville, MD, January 21, 2005.
Hon. Heather Wilson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Wilson: I am responding to your December 22, 2004;
letter supporting the need for funds to continue services at
the Albuquerque Service Unit. I agree that short-term support
is needed, but more importantly, a long-term solution to meet
the health needs of a rapidly growing ``urban'' population in
the Albuquerque metropolitan area is a more complex issue.
The Albuquerque Indian Hospital has undergone several
changes in the scope of services. The number of inpatient
beds was reduced. Inpatient services were suspended and
evening and weekend clinics were eliminated. We are also
planning to limit services to appointments only with a
minimal number of hours for non-appointed services (``walk
ins'') and to initiate a substantial reduction-in-force
(RlF). These changes have been the result of the transfer of
over 60 percent of the hospital's Federal funds to Tribal
programs under Public Law (P.L.) 93-638 and an increase in
the number of uninsured patients residing in the Albuquerque
metropolitan community.
The hospital needs a minimum of $5 million to maintain
services through this fiscal year. Permanently reprogramming
the IHS appropriation is not a viable option because of
limited funds throughout our system to deliver health care
services. The transfer of funds that may be available for
Tribal shares under P.L. 93-638 to support services to a
largely urban population would require extensive, time-
consuming Tribal consultation. The Albuquerque Area Office
has presented to the members of the University of New Mexico
(NM) Clinical Operations Board, the possibility of a
partnership among the University of NM Health Sciences
Center, the State of NM, the Tribes, and the IHS Area. This
concept is currently being discussed with Tribal and State
officials and leaders in the Albuquerque metropolitan Indian
community.
Mr. James L. Toya, Director, Albuquerque Area IRS, will
continue to explore all opportunities for resource
development, plan downsizing services at the Albuquerque
Hospital, and implement the RIF. In addition, local
partnership agreements are currently being developed.
Thank you for your concern and continued support to our
efforts to provide quality health care to our Indian people.
Sincerely yours,
Charles W. Grimm,
D.D.S., Assistant Surgeon General, Director.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2005.
Mr. Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Leavitt: During our recent meeting in
December, I had the opportunity to talk to you about the
crisis that the Albuquerque Indian Heath Center (AIHC) is
currently facing. The AIHC provides healthcare services to
roughly 23,000-25,000 urban Native Americans. Unfortunately,
there is a projected $5 million deficit for FY05. I have
recently been informed by Dr. Charles Grim that he has
directed the Albuquerque Area office and service unit to
downsize and implement a reduction in force. (RIF).
Since 1998, the AIHC has had to significantly reduce
services from a 24 hour 7-day a week operation to Monday
through Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm. Because of the
administration's under funding of IHS, once again, the AIHC
is being forced to ``downsize'' its operations which will
have significant effect on the urban Indian population. This
downsizing will force the AIHC to close its urgent care unit,
which sees an estimated 100-120 Native American patients a
day. With nearly 70% of the 25,000 Native American users of
the AIHC uninsured, this closure will cause 17,000 urban
Indians to lose access to their healthcare services.
Furthermore, last week the Indian Health Service took its
first steps toward their reduction in force which will result
in the elimination of 40 position at the AIHC. There are
currently 140 employees at the center of whom only 14 are
physicians. It is my understanding that 5 of these 14
physicians will be ``RIFed'' which will leave the AIHC with
only 9 physicians (4 family practice, 2 pediatricians, and 4
specialists) to treat an estimated population of 23,000-
25,000 patients.
On December 15, 2004 I sent a letter to Dr. Grim asking him
to consider reprogramming

[[Page S4588]]

FY05 funding in the amount of $13 million. Of this $5 million
would be used to stabilize services and the remaining $8
million would be used to increase services. Dr. Grim
responded to my letter saying that ``reprogramming IHS
funding is not viable'' due to the fact that ``there are no
contingent funds available to our Agency.'' I am now
requesting that you consider reprogramming Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) funds to Indian Health
Service in the same amount for the specific purpose of
treating the urban Indian population through the Albuquerque
Indian Health Center.
It is important for Department of Health and Human Services
to understand and acknowledge that urban Indians throughout
the country are falling through the cracks and that urban
Indian clinics are being grossly underfunded. For many years
there has been a quiet migration of Indians from reservations
to cities. In fact more Native Americans live in cities now,
making it important that IHS programs cater to Indian Country
which extends beyond borders of the reservations and into
urban settings. According to a study done by the Kaiser
Family Foundation ``about 46% of IHS resources are allocated
to IHS facilities, 53% to tribally operated facilities, and
only 1% to urban Indian programs''. These numbers clearly
indicate that urban IHS facilities lack the financial
resources necessary to carry out their services.
Nationwide there are an estimated 1.6 million federally-
recognized Native Americans through IHS, as well as Tribal
and urban Indian health programs. Of this number, the 2000
census data reveals that a little over half this population
identify the themselves as living in metropolitan/urban
areas, in which Albuquerque has the 7th highest urban Indian
population. A recent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR)
report estimates that the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) per capita health spending for all Americans
is at $4,065, while IHS spent about $1,914 per person and
average spending on Navajo patients is $1,187. The United
States Government has historical and legal responsibility to
provide adequate healthcare for the Native American
population and ensure that access to these services are not
lost; with these cuts and drastic under funding the
government is shirking its responsibility.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.
Should you have any questions or require further information
please feel free to contact Bruce Lesley in my Washington, DC
office at 202-224-5527 or Danny Milo in my Albuquerque office
at 505-346-6601. I look forward to working with you on
finding a solution to this matter. Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator.
____

Secretary of Health

and Human Services,

Washington, DC, March 24, 2005.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I enjoyed our discussion a few
months ago, and am pleased to respond to your letter
regarding the reduction in available funding for the
Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
I share your concerns regarding the impact of reducing
staff and services at the AIHC. The AIHC has experienced
funding decreases in recent years due to Tribes exercising
their rights under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) to operate their own health
programs. Under the ISDEAA, the IHS is required to transfer
dollars from services it provides directly to eligible
American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) to Tribes which
apply, and are approved, to compact or contract for services
they provide to their members. The Department of Health and
Human Services does not have authority to reprogram funds
from other appropriation accounts to the Indian Health
Services account where the AIHC is funded.
I assure you the IHS continues to partner with other
community providers in the Albuquerque area to maximize all
resource opportunities for AI/ANs who may still use the
center's services. Options being explored include: continued
provision of same day appointments, increased collaboration
with the University of New Mexico and the Salud managed care
organization to enroll more patients in the ``University of
New Mexico Cares'' program, maximizing third party
collections by increasing access to individuals who may be
eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, and improving
transportation options to other IHS funded facilities.
Additional options for the Albuquerque Indian community
include applying for other HHS grant programs including the
Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Sec.
330 Community Health Center Program grants, and exploring the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration's (SAMHSA)
grant opportunities. I want to assure you that HHS staff will
provide technical assistance in the grant application process
to potential grantees.
I am hopeful that these options will result in significant
assistance to AI/ANs in the Albuquerque area. Thank you for
your concern and continued support of HHS efforts to provide
quality care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please
call me if you have any further thoughts or questions.
Sincerely,
Michael O. Leavitt.
____

March 15, 2005.
Hon. Bill Richardson,
Governor of New Mexico,
State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM.
Dear Governor Richardson: As you are aware, the Albuquerque
Indian Health Center (AIHC) is facing a crisis that threatens
the health and well-being of 23,000 urban Indians in
Bernalillo County and surrounding areas. Although there have
been a number of efforts that we have supported to increase
the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget, those efforts have
been defeated in the Congress during the past few years.
Consequently, funding for the AIHC has dropped from $13
million to just $5 million in recent years.
Although New Mexico's congressional delegation is working
together to secure a solution at the federal level, we wanted
to encourage you to have your Administration help AIHC in the
interim to improve third-party collections.
For example, as an IHS facility, care delivered to Medicaid
beneficiaries at AIHC is reimbursed with 100% federal
financing. Thus, we would ask that the Human Services
Department (HSD) work closely with Maria Rickert, Chief
Executive Officer of AIHC, to determine if: (1) Medicaid
reimbursement for services delivered by AIHC could be
improved; (2) the State Medicaid program can do more with
respect to providing for eligibility workers at AIHC; and,
(3) there are other options to help AIHC address its funding
problem and protect critical health services for the urban
Indians in the Albuquerque area.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator
Tom Udall,
U.S. Representative.
____

State of New Mexico,

Office of the Governor,

April 25, 2005.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Heather Wilson,
Member of Congress, Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Steve Pearce,
Member of Congress, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tom Udall,
Member of Congress, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Domenici and Bingaman and Representatives
Wilson, Udall and Pearce: Thank you for your recent letters
expressing your concerns regarding the Albuquerque Indian
Healthcare Center (AIHC). Clearly, we all share the same
commitment to improve the delivery of health care services to
our Native American constituencies. Therefore, I hope that
you will strongly advocate for increased funding for the
Indian Health Service (IHS) during the appropriations
process.
Providing adequate healthcare services to our Native
American citizens is a federal responsibility yet the Indian
Health Service (IHS) has only received minimal increases in
funding, such as a mere 2 percent increase this year.
Properly funding the IHS ensures that the Native American
population in New Mexico as well as across the country
receives the vital healthcare services to which they are duly
entitled.
On the State level, my administration has committed
resources to address the healthcare needs of Native
Americans. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Legislature did not
pass House Bill 521 this past session, letting it sit idle
after passage in its first committee. However, I signed into
law nearly $2 million in funding for Native American
healthcare projects in New Mexico, including the construction
of healthcare facilities in Indian Country, the provision of
ambulatory services in Albuquerque, and healthcare services
at UNM Hospital for Native American patients.
In addition my administration has provided the following
support, which includes but is not limited to:
The New Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD) through
the Medical Assistance Division is providing outreach to
eligible Native American children to get them enrolled with
Medicaid.
NMHSD is providing valuable technical assistance to the
AIHC through training and billing resources in order to
maximize Medicaid reimbursement. After working with AIHC and
reviewing the Medicaid claims, it was determined that there
are no outstanding claims and AIHC is receiving reimbursement
at the maximum level possible as an outpatient facility.
The State Coverage Initiative has been funded in New Mexico
and will be implemented effective July 1, 2006. It may be
possible for AIHC to receive payments for services provided
to this population.
During the State fiscal year 2004, there were 4,549
American Indian Medicaid recipients in the fee-for-service
program who received outpatient services at AHIC for a total
reimbursement of about $2 million dollars. Sixty-five percent
of those recipients were under 21 years of age.
The Presumptive Eligibility/Medicaid On-Site Application
Assistance (PE/MOSAA)

[[Page S4589]]

program has worked well for Indian communities. PE/MOSAA
certified workers are located at IHS and tribal health care
facilities, tribal schools, and other tribal health and
social services departments and with NMHSD's Income Support
Division offices.
As a pilot project, NMHSD recently stationed an eligibility
worker at the Gallup Indian Medical Center. As a regional
referral center, the Gallup Service Unit (including Tohatchi
Health Center, and Ft. Wingate Health Center) provides
services to about 800 patients per day.
New Mexico cannot nor should not bear sole responsibility
for funding healthcare services that fall within the ambit of
the federal trust relationship with Indian tribes and
pueblos. To this end, I appreciate your collective efforts to
garner support on the federal level to keep AIHC afloat.
I also appreciate Senator Bingaman's efforts to address
these issues in his legislation that would fulfill the
funding needs for AIHC as well as clarify the 100 percent
match in Medicaid for urban Indians. I suggest that you
direct your staff to review the Bingaman legislation and
strongly consider supporting his efforts to assist the AIHC
and urban Indians.
If I can assist the Congressional Delegation in its efforts
to advocate for increased federal funding for IHS and
specific assistance for AIHC please do not hesitate to call
upon me. Again, thank you for your letters and I look forward
to working with all of you to improve and expand health care
services to our Native American residents in New Mexico.
Sincerely,
Bill Richardson,
Governor.
____

Mr. BINGAMAN. Included in that is a statement by Governor Richardson
expressing his strong support for the legislation I am introducing
today.
Unfortunately, the options that Secretary Leavitt outlined in his
response will only provide limited help in alleviating this crisis. It
is for that reason that I introduce this emergency funding legislation
today.
Fundamentally, while AIHC does face a unique situation because the
Albuquerque metro area has experienced a significant increase in its
urban Indian population from surrounding tribes and individuals from
tribes across the Nation, the most significant underlying problem is
that the entire Indian Health Service is horribly underfunded.
In fact, funding for Native American health care is a national
travesty. Over the years, funding for IHS has not kept pace with
medical inflation and population growth As a result, IHS services are
seriously underfunded, and patients are routinely denied care. For many
critical services, patients are subjected to a literal ``life or limb''
test; their care is denied unless their life is threatened or they risk
immediate loss of a limb. Care is denied or delayed until their
condition worsens and treatment is costlier or, all too often, comes
too late to be effective. Federal per capita funding for Indian health
is only $1,914, about half the allotment of Federal per capita funding
for health care for Federal prisoners.
Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson traveled to the Navajo
Reservation last year and saw this problem first-hand and vowed to
fight for increased funding for tribal health care. Unfortunately, the
administration has proposed a rather modest increase of less than 2
percent for IHS in fiscal year 2006. Yet again, IHS funding will not
come close to keeping pace with medical inflation which is growing at
double-digit levels in the private sector.
On a per capita basis, it is even worse because HHS's own budget
documents indicate that IHS will have to serve over 29,000 new people.
Furthermore, although urban Indians represent around half of all Native
Americans in the country, urban Indian health programs receive less
than 1 percent of all IHS funding and those funds are literally frozen
at $33 million nationwide.
This is both unacceptable and unsustainable.
In addition to supporting budget and appropriations amendments time-
and-time again over the years that unfortunately have failed in Senate
votes, including an amendment by Senator Conrad to the budget
resolution this year, I successfully offered amendments last session of
Congress to the Medicare prescription drug bill to provide Indian
Health Service units to get better prices through the contract health
services program and to allow IHS to bill for the full array of
services in the Medicare program.
In the coming weeks, I will also be introducing two pieces of
legislation to both improve health services generally for urban Indians
and to also improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans in
the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.
In the short-term, however, we need passage of this critical and
urgent legislation to save the health services provided by the
Albuquerque Indian Health Center that are being threatened. I urge its
immediate passage.
I ask for unanimous consent to print a copy of the legislation in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 972

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 ``Albuquerque Indian Health
Center Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. CRITICAL ACCESS FACILITY FUNDING.

(a) Definition of Critical Access Facility.--In this
section, the term ``critical access facility'' means a
comprehensive ambulatory care center that provides services
on a regional basis to Native Americans in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and surrounding areas.
(b) Designation.--The Albuquerque Indian Health Center
(also known as the ``Albuquerque Indian Hospital'') is
designated as a critical access facility.
(c) Operations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Indian Health Service, shall
provide funds made available under subsection (d) to the
Albuquerque Indian Health Center to carry out the operations
of that Health Center.
(2) Self-determination contracts.--The funds transferred
under paragraph (1) shall not be distributed to any Indian
tribe under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450f).
(d) Funding.--
(1) In general.--On October 1, 2005, out of any funds in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to carry out this section $8,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
(2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be
entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out
this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1),
without further appropriation.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 973. A bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage
Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation along
with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, to establish the Abraham
Lincoln National Heritage Area in Illinois.
Illinois has long been known as the ``Land of Lincoln.'' Reminders of
the 16th President's legacy can be found throughout the State.
Last week, Senator Obama and I attended the dedication of the Abraham
Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, IL. This
wonderful new facility brings together the entire story of President
Lincoln's life in a rich, unified experience.
In the same spirit, our legislation would establish an Abraham
Lincoln National Heritage Area, formally tying together the many
Illinois natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources that
have been touched by the life and influence of the Nation's greatest
President. Establishing a Lincoln National Heritage Area will connect-
these scattered elements to provide a more cohesive experience of
Lincoln's legacy for Illinoisans and visitors alike.
The impact of the life and works of Illinois's favorite son extends
far beyond the prairies of the Midwest.
Not long ago, I sat in the United States House of Representatives and
listened as the new president of Ukraine, the leader of his nation's
peaceful Orange Revolution, spoke of his countrymen and women's dreams
to live under a ``government of the people, for the people.''
Just weeks before that, I was in the Green Zone in Baghdad and heard
an official of the new Iraqi Government quote President Lincoln on the
need for national unity.
In a sense, the Land of Lincoln is anywhere that people dream of
freedom and equality and opportunity for all.
So the whole world would benefit, as the people of Illinois work to
preserve Lincoln's history. And we invite the world to come to Illinois
and learn not just about the history of this great

[[Page S4590]]

man, but also about what he can teach us today.
The Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area will help spread that
message for generations to come, to Americans, and to students of
Abraham Lincoln everywhere on Earth.
This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced by
Representative Ray LaHood and endorsed by every member of the Illinois
congressional delegation in the House of Representatives, as well as
representatives from every part of the country.
Senator Obama and I ask our colleagues to join with us in recognizing
the richness of the Lincoln legacy by supporting the passage of this
legislation.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 975. A bill to provide incentives to increase research by private
sector entities to develop medical countermeasures to prevent, detect,
identify, contain, and treat illnesses, including those associated with
biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological weapons attack or an
infectious disease outbreak, and for other purposes; read the first
time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback and I
are pleased to introduce today the Project BioShield II Act of 2005.
This is the fourth bill I have introduced on this subject, and the
third with Senator Hatch as my lead cosponsor. We are delighted today
to be joined by Senator Brownback, a leading advocate for research to
cure deadly tropical diseases.
None of us on the Hill--especially those of us with offices in the
Hart Building--will forget October 15, the date of the anthrax attack
on Senator Daschle's office. This date is the bioterrorism equivalent
of September 11. We also need to remember October 5, the third
anniversary of the 2001 anthrax death of Bob Stevens, a photo editor at
American Media in Boca Raton, Florida, and November 17, the third
anniversary of the discovery of a similar anthrax laced letter mailed
to Senator Leahy. Similar anthrax attacks during these weeks were
directed at NBC, ABC, CBS and other news organizations. All told five
people died and thousands who might have been exposed were put on
Cipro, including many of us and many of our staff.
This attack on civilians with weapons grade anthrax was unprovoked.
And unlike the case with the 9/11 attacks, we still don't know who
mailed the anthrax letters. As with the 9/11 attacks, we were totally
unprepared for the anthrax-laced letters. We are responding forcefully
to the 9/11 attacks--the commission that Senator McCain and I proposed
has issued a superb report and the Government Affairs Committee, where
I serve as the Ranking Democrat, is hard at work translating its
recommendations into legislation. Unfortunately our response to the 10/
15 anthrax attack has not been as forceful.
Unlike our response to 9/11, we have not seemed to consider the 10/15
attack to be the equivalent of a declaration of war. While we have
taken a few constructive steps to strengthen our Bioterror defenses, we
remain painfully vulnerable to another Bioterror attack, or a chemical
or radiological attack.
Many of us believe that enactment of BioShield I, last July, is a
step in the right direction, but we don't believe that BioShield is
sufficient. If we listen carefully, we will hear that the biopharma
industry--which is hiding on this issue--is saying that BioShield is
not enough. So we already have strong warning signs that more needs to
be done.
There is no terror threat greater than that of Bioterror. With an
attack with a plane, a chemical attack or a radiological dispersion
device, dirty bomb, the loss of life can be catastrophic, but the
perimeter of the attack is fixed. With an infectious disease, the
perimeter of an attack might grow exponentially as the infection
spreads. It is possible to kill thousands with a bomb, chemical or
radiation, but it is possible to kill millions with a bioterror
pathogen.
In the 2001 anthrax attack, the terrorist wrote a note in the letter
to Senator Daschle that said, ``09-11-01. You can not stop us. We have
this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? Death to America. Death to
Israel. Allah is great.'' If this note had not been included in the
letter, and if the intern who opened the letter hadn't been suspicious,
it is possible that some Senators and many Capitol Hill staff from our
offices--perhaps hundreds--might have died. We would only have
discovered the attack in hospital emergency rooms, where Cipro might
have proven to be ineffective. Cipro works as a prophylaxis only when
it catches anthrax early, before the toxins are released into the
bloodstream, which can happen within 24 hours of an infection. Our
current anthrax vaccine is administered in six shots over 18 montns.
The 9/11 Commission report states that al-Qaida ``was making advances
in its ability to produce anthrax prior to Sept. 11'' and cited former
CIA Director George Tenet as warning that an anthrax attack is ``one of
the most immediate threats the U.S. is likely to face.'' Russia
developed dozens of strains of anthrax and the security at these former
bioweapons laboratories is suspect. It is estimated that a mason jar of
anthrax spores sprayed over an urban area could infect 400,000
residents, and if undetected until they started showing up in emergency
rooms, kill half of them. It is also estimated that one hundred anthrax
laced letters could cross contaminate thirty million letters and infect
10,000 people with anthrax. Imagine what would happen if our mail
system--which processed over 200 billion pieces of mail last year--were
closed for a few months. What we need, and don't yet have, is a
therapeutic that disarms the anthrax toxins at a late stage of the
disease--which is the aim of a pending RFP at the Department of Health
and Human Services.
We saw the potential for morbidity and mortality, and massive
economic disruption, with SARS. When SARS was rampant, Beijing, Hong
Kong and Shanghai closed down. Quarantines were imposed and China
authorized the death penalty on anyone who willfully spread the
disease. During the epidemic, there were reports that the SARS virus
was mutating to become more virulent. In China's countryside, fear of
SARS has led to some villages setting up roadblocks to keep away people
from Beijing and at least four riots against quarantine centers have
been reported in recent days. Thousands were quarantined in China. In
the end SARS spread to thirty countries on five continents, sickening
nearly 9,000 and killing 850. SARS is a zoonotic disease that
apparently can jump back and forth between animals and man, which makes
it much more difficult to eradicate it. We may not have seen the last
of it.
We can also remember the devastating impact of the 1918 Spanish flu
pandemic that killed more than died in the first World War, about 30-40
million people equivalent to 100 million today. In the month of
October, 1918, 200,000 Americans died of the disease, 43,000 soldiers
died, and 28 percent of our population was infected. The flu's
lethality rate was only 2.5 percent the lethality rate of the most
common form of smallpox, variola major, is 30 percent and for
hemorrhagic smallpox it approaches 100 percent. The lethality rate
for SARS was about 15 percent. If the 1918 flu pandemic killed the
equivalent of 100 million people, think of how many smallpox or SARS--
both of which could be weaponized by terrorists--could kill.

Public health authorities are concerned about the incidence of avian
influenza in humans. There is now concrete evidence that this virus can
be transmitted human-to-human. When humans contract the pathogen from
birds, the death rates are very high; a majority die. Since January
2004, a total of 23 confirmed human cases of avian influenza virus
infections have been reported in Vietnam with 19 deaths and 12 cases in
Thailand with 9 deaths. These cases were associated with widespread
H5Nl poultry outbreaks that occurred at commercial and small backyard
poultry farms. Since December 2003, nine countries have reported H5Nl
outbreaks among poultry. More than 100 million chickens have been
culled in an effort to stop the outbreak. The virus now appears to be
able to infect mammalian hosts, including pigs and cats, an unusual
prowess for an avian virus. This raises concern as pigs are also hosts
of human flu viruses and this could yield

[[Page S4591]]

a hybrid avian flu strain that can be passed human-to-human. The avian
flu virus apparently is now carried by migratory birds so it may be
very difficult to eradicate the virus. We have no vaccine for the
disease and the one therapeutic Tamiflu--is only effective if given
very early after the onset of symptoms. It is feared that the virus
might evolve resistance to Tamiflu. Public health officials believe
that in theory the avian flu could cause a ``pandemic killing millions
of people worldwide, and possibly hundreds of millions.'' Whether H5N1
could be used as a Bioterror weapon against agriculture or humans is
not known.
In 1947 there was an outbreak of smallpox in New York City.
Eventually two of the twelve who were infected died. But the smallpox
vaccination campaign was massive 500,000 New Yorkers received smallpox
vaccinations the first day and eventually 6.35 million were vaccinated
in less than a month, 85 percent of the city's population. President
Truman was vaccinated prior to a trip to New York City.
If we suffered another smallpox outbreak, it is not likely that a
vaccination campaign would go so smoothly. It is now estimated that if
the current smallpox vaccine were deployed in the United States 350 to
500 individuals might die from complications. The current vaccine is
not recommended for patients who have eczema or are immunosuppressed,
HIV-positive or are pregnant. Even worse, based on a 1971 accidental
release of smallpox from a Soviet bioweapons laboratory, some speculate
that the Soviets successfully weaponized a rare and especially lethal
form of smallpox, hemorrhagic smallpox, with near 100 percent
lethality.
Mother Nature's pathogens are dangerous--smallpox, anthrax, plague,
tularemia, glanders, typhus, Q fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis,
brucellosis, botulinum toxin, dengue fever, Lassa fever, Russian
spring-summer encephalitis, Marburg, Ebola, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever,
Argentinean hemorrhagic fever and fifty other pathogens could kill
thousands or even millions. But on the horizon are more exotic and
deadly pathogens.
We have reports that the Soviet Union developed genetically modified
pathogens such as a hybrid plague producing diphtheria toxin. This
manipulation increased virulence and made the plague microbe more
resistant to vaccine. Other possibilities include a Venezuelan equine
encephalomyelitis-plague hybrid is a combination of the virus and
bacteria; we have no idea what symptoms such a pathogen would manifest
or how we might diagnose or treat it. Other hybrid pathogens might be
developed, including a Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis-Ebola
hybrid.
We have reports that the Soviet Union developed a powdered Marburg, a
hemorrhagic fever where every cell and organ of the victim bleeds.
Symptom of Marburg include kidney failure, recurrent hepatitis,
inflammation of the spinal cord, bone marrow, eyes, testes, and parotid
gland, hemorrhaging into the skin, mucous membranes, internal organs,
stomach, and intestines, swelling of the spleen, lymph nodes, kidneys,
pancreas, and brain, convulsions, coma and amnesia.
Genetically modified pathogens are another possibility. In 2001 the
Journal of Virology reported that Australian scientists seeking to
create a contraceptive for mice used recombinant DNA technology to
introduce Interleukin 4 into mousepox and found that it created an
especially virulent virus. In the words of the scientists, ``These data
therefore suggest that virus-encoded IL-4 not only suppresses primary
antiviral cell-mediated immune responses but also can inhibit the
expression of immune memory responses.'' This public research suggests
that introducing IL-4 can create an Andromeda stain of a virus,
information of potential use to terrorist sociopaths. In addition,
published studies describe how to create a recombinant vaccina virus to
induce allergic encephalomyelitis in rabbits, and potentially--highly
lethal smallpox virus capable of causing paralyses in humans and how to
synthesize the polio virus in a biochemical laboratory .
Other possible pathogens--some of which the Soviet worked on--include
antibiotic resistant pathogens. The Soviets apparently developed a
strain of plague resistant to ten different antibiotics, and a strain
of anthrax resistant to seven different antibiotics. Some claim the
Soviets developed a strain of anthrax resistant to the current U.S.
anthrax vaccine. A part of this research in a hamster model was
published in ``Vaccine'' so this information is available to
terrorists.
Other exotic pathogens might include autoimmune peptides, antibiotic
induced toxins, and bioregulators and biomodulators. An autoimmune
peptide might stimulate an autoimmune attack against the myelin that
sheaths the target's nerve cells. Antibiotic induced toxins are hybrid
bacteria-viruses where antibiotics administered to treat the bacterial
infection stimulate the virus to release a deadly toxin; the greater
the doses of antibiotics, the more toxins are released. Bioregulators
and biomodulators are synthetic chemical that bond to and disrupt
receptors that govern critical functions of the target, including
nerve, retinal, liver, kidney, heart, or muscle cells to cause
paralysis, blindness, schizophrenia, coma, or memory loss.
Some of these might be available now from the 60 bioterror research
laboratories maintained by the Soviet Union. Eventually, terrorists
might be able to set up full-blown biotechnology laboratories. Rogue
states could do so and they might then transfer bioweapons to
terrorists or lose control of them. Over the long term, as the power of
modern biotechnology grows, the bioterror threat will grow and
increasingly virulent and exotic weapons might become threats.

In November 2003 the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues published
``Our Darker Bioweapons Future,'' which stated that the effect of
bioengineered weapons ``could be worse than any disease known to man.''
The rapid evolution of biotechnology makes monitoring development
ofbioweapons extremely difficult. Some ofthese weapons might enable the
development of ``a class of new, more virulent biological agents
engineered to attack distinct biochemical pathways and elicit specific
effects, claimed panel members. The same science that may cure some of
our worst diseases could be used to create the world's most frightening
weapons.'' It specifically mentioned the possibility of ``binary BW
agents that only become effective when two components are combined (a
particularly insidious example would be a mild pathogen that when
combined with its antidote becomes virulent)''; ``designer'' BW agents
created to be antibiotic resistant or to evade an immune response;
weaponized gene therapy vectors that effect permanent change in the
victim's genetic makeup; or a ``stealth'' virus, which could lie
dormant inside the victim for an extended period before being
triggered.
Illustrating the speed with which biotechnology is advancing to
create new bioterrorism threats is a recent announcement by Craig
Venter and his Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives that in
fourteen days they had synthetically created working copies of the
known existing bacteriophage virus Phi X174. Other researchers had
previously synthesised the poliovirus, which is slightly bigger,
employing enzymes usually found in cells. But this effort took years to
achieve and produced viruses with defects in their code. So the
timescale has shifted from years to weeks to make a virus. There are
other bigger viruses that would require more time to assemble. Venter
asserts that his team could make a bacteria with about 60 times larger
genome from scratch within about a year of starting. Does this mean
that the debate about whether to destroy smallpox virus stocks is
pointless because any virus or bacteria whose DNA sequence is published
is eventually going to be easily creatable by labs all around the
world?
These pathogens might be deployed by terrorists, sociopaths or rogue
states that have no compunctions about killing massive numbers of
``infidels'' or enemies in the west. They would experience great joy in
sowing widespread panic, injury and death in America. Osama Bin Laden's
spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, bragged that al Qaeda has ``the right
to kill 4 million Americans'' in response to deaths he claims the west
has inflicted on Muslims. We are facing sociopaths with no compunction
about using

[[Page S4592]]

whatever weapons of mass destruction they can develop or secure. They
would see the potential to unleash a weapon in North America and trust
that our borders would be closed so that it would only rage here and
not spread to the Muslim world.
The Brookings Institution estimated that a bioterror attack would
cause one million casualties and inflict $750 billion in economic
damage. An earlier Office of Technology Assessment found that there
might be three million casualties. If there are this many casualties,
what can we expect in the way of public panic and flight? A 2004 poll
finds that ``most Americans would not cooperate as officials would
expect them to during a terrorism incident.'' Only 2/5 said that they'd
``follow instructions to go to a public vaccination site in a smallpox
outbreak'' and only 3/5 would ``stay in a building other than their own
home . . .'' A vivid vision of what an attack might look like is found
in Albert Camus' The Plague, with its incinerators and quarantine
camps. We can review the history of the Black Death, which killed up to
one half of Europe's population between 1348 and 1349.
Imagine what would happen if the attack involves a pathogen for which
we have no diagnostic, vaccine or therapeutic. If we resorted to
quarantines, what would the rules of engagement be for the police and
military forces we deploy to enforce it? Would it be possible to
establish an effective quarantine if there is mass panic and flight?
Would our hospitals be overwhelmed by the ``worried well'' ? Would
public health workers continue to serve or also flee? If our hospitals
are contaminated, where would Americans receive medical care for non-
terror related emergencies?
What would happen if a bioterror, chemical or radiological attack
closed Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport--which handled nearly
eighty million passengers last year? Or what would happen if we put a
hold on the one hundred and twenty million international airline
arrivals and departures we see each year? What would happen if we were
forced to close our borders with Mexico and Canada--with 500 million
crossings last year? What would happen if we restrained the 2.79
trillion automobile passenger miles driven in the U.S., one billion of
which exceeded 100 miles?
What would happen if a terror attack rendered certain types of
business activity uninsurable? What will happen if large swaths of
residential real estate--none of which is currently insured for acts of
terror--were contaminated and rendered worthless with anthrax spores?
We are vulnerable to a bioterror attack in many ways, but one of the
most troubling is that we have essentially none of the diagnostics,
therapeutics and vaccines we need to treat those who might be exposed
or infected. If we don't have these medicines, we are likely to see
quarantines and panic, which will amplify the damage and disruption. My
office is on the 7th floor of the Hart Building, immediately above
Senator Daschle's office. We were told if we immediately started a
course of treatment with Cipro we would not die, so there was no panic.
Think what would have happened if the government had said, ``We don't
know what this is, it's deadly, we have no way to tell who has been
exposed, and we have no medicines to give you.''
In the summer of 2000 the Defense Science Board found that we had
only one of the fifty-seven diagnostics, drugs and vaccines we most
need to respond to a bioterror attack, we had a therapeutic for
chlamydia psittaci, a bacteria. It projected that we'd have twenty of
the fifty-seven within 5 years and thirty-four within 20 years. But
today we have only two of the fifty-seven countermeasures, we now have
a diagnostic for anthrax.
At this rate of developing these medical countermeasures, we won't
have twenty of them available until 2076 and we won't have thirty-four
until 2132. This list does not include antibiotic resistant pathogens,
hybrid pathogens, genetically modified pathogens, and a host of other
exotic bioterror pathogens.
The Congress administration have not responded to the anthrax attack
with an appropriate sense of urgency, especially with regard to the
development of medicines. We have not responded with a crash industrial
development program as we did when we developed radar during the Second
World War or as we are now undoubtedly undertaking to detect roadside
bombs. Reluctantly, I would characterize our national response as
lackadaisical.
December 4 is the third anniversary of my introduction of legislation
to provide incentives for the development of medical countermeasures--
including diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines--for bioterror
pathogens, S. 1764. Chairman Hatch, October 17 is the second
anniversary of our introducing our first bill together on this subject,
S. 3l4, and we introduced our current bill on March 19 of last year (S.
666). Twenty months ago President Bush proposed Project BioShield, a
bill based on one of the twelve titles in our bills, and it was finally
enacted into law on July 21. If we enact one of the titles of our bill
every two years, it'll take 22 more years to complete our legislative
work.
The critical issue for this hearing is whether Project BioShield,
Public Law 108-276, is sufficient or whether we need to supplement it
with BioShield II, a bill that you and I intend to introduce this Fall.
BioShield is only one title of our proposal--the title that provides
that the government will define the size and terms of the market for a
Bioterror countermeasure in advance before a biopharma company puts its
own capital at risk. This is a necessary first step; companies won't
risk their capital to develop a product unless they can assess the
possible rate of return, product sale on their investment.
Enacting BioShield is a step in the right direction. If we were to
enact only one idea first, this is the right first step. We will now
see how the Department of Health and Human Services implements this
law. We will see what R&D priorities it sets, whether it projects a
market for these products sufficiently large to engage the better
biopharma companies in this research, and whether it sets contract
terms that company Chief Financial Officers find acceptable.
Unfortunately, we all heard a deafening silence from biopharma
industry--the target of this legislation--as BioShield was being
considered. The industry did essentially nothing to fix the
Administration's draft--which the industry privately stated was laced
with dysfunctional provisions. The industry did essentially nothing to
pass BioShield. And the industry has said essentially nothing since
BioShield was enacted.
It is clear to me that BioShield is not sufficient to secure
development of the medical countermeasures we need, indeed, I believe
it is woefully insufficient.
The industry is skeptical that the government will be a reliable
partner during the development bioterror countermeasures. The basis of
its skepticism runs deep.
The industry points to the Cipro procurement as a case in point. In
1999, before the anthrax attack, Bayer, the developer of Cipro, was
asked by FDA and CDC to secure a label indication for Cipro for
anthrax. The government wanted to have one antibiotic available that
was explicitly labeled for anthrax--it understands that patients might
be reluctant to take a medicine for anthrax where it is not labeled for
this indication. Bayer incurred the expenses to do this with no
expectation of ever utilizing the product in this manner, and when the
attack occurred, Cipro was the only therapeutic with a label indication
for anthrax. Bayer handled this emergency with honor. It immediately
donated huge stocks of Cipro, 2 million tablets to the Postal Service
and 2 million tablets to the Federal government to be used to protect
those who might have been exposed or infected. The government then
sought to procure additional stocks of Cipro and demanded that Bayer
sell it as one-fourth the market price. Threats were made by Members of
Congress that if Bayer would not agree to this price the government
might step in to challenge the patent for Cipro. Bayer readily agreed
to the deep discount. We can assume that every other purchaser of Cipro
then demanded this same price and that this cut Bayer's market return
for Cipro. To add insult to injury, Bayer has had to defend itself from
lawsuits by those who took Cipro in response to the attack even though
it did what was asked, provided more than enough free product to treat

[[Page S4593]]

all patients and greatly reduced it's stockpile pricing. Bayer also was
deeply concerned with employee and plant security risks when it was
publicly identified as the sole source of this counter-bioterrorism
agent.
The industry view this incident as proving that with regard to
bioterrorism research, no good deed will go unpunished. If a large
pharmaceutical company can be manhandled this way, what would happen to
a small biotechnology company? The industry expects that if there is an
attack, and the company has the indispensable medicine we need to
respond to it, the government is likely to steal the product. The
industry is deeply skeptical of the government already. It has very
complex and often contentious relationships with other HHS agencies,
including the Center for Medicare Services, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the National Institute of Health. It has constant
battles with state Medicaid agencies. This is not an industry that
trusts government.
Some in Congress have proposed legislation that feed industry fears.
In 1994 and 1995 legislation was introduced in the House, H.R. 4370,
introduced on May 10, 1994, and H.R. 761, introduced on January 31,
1995, that provided the government with eminent domain power with
regard to AIDS to confiscate ``all potential curatives and all data . .
. regarding their development,'' including the patents for such
compounds. Similarly, in 1999 and 2001 legislation was introduced in
the House, H.R. 2927, introduced on September 23, 1999, and H.R. 1708,
introduced on May 3, 2001, that provided for the compulsory licensing
of ``any subject invention related to health'' where the government
finds it ``necessary to alleviate health or safety needs'' or the
patented material is ``priced higher than may be reasonably expected
based on criteria developed by the Secretary of Commerce.'' Legislation
has been introduced that would deny the benefits of the R&D tax credit
for research by pharmaceutical companies where the products that arise
from that research are sold at higher prices abroad than in the United
States. See H.R. 3665 introduced on February 15, 2000.
The industry response to these threats to its patents must be seen in
light of the events of March 14, 2000. On that day a White House
spokesman apparently indicated that the government might move to
challenge some biopharma industry patents for genes. The industry lost
$40 billion in market capitalization in the panic that ensued on Wall
Street. That was not only the beginning of a deep drought in biotech
company financing, it was the beginning of the collapse of the entire
NASDAQ market. A similar collapse and drought had occurred in 1993-1994
the Clinton Administration proposed that the prices of ``breakthrough
drugs would be reviewed by a special government panel.''
The issue of price controls and patents was recently considered and
rejected by NIH in response to a petition for the government to march-
in on the patent of Abbott Laboratories for ritonavir, sold under the
name of Norvir, an AIDS therapeutic. The petitioner, Essential
Inventions, asked that the government cancel the license of this patent
to Abbott, which it alleged was charging too much for Norvir. The
petitioner had also been involved in the 1994-1995 NIH proceeding,
where NIH reviewed the impact of its 1989 protocol to review whether
``reasonable'' prices were being charged by companies that had licenses
with NIH. NIH found that this price review process was destroying the
NIH technology transfer program--companies simply would not enter into
agreements with NIH. As a result, NIH repealed the price review
process. The new march-in petition raised essentially the same issues
and if the petition had been granted, we could have expected that the
NIH tech transfer process will be crippled--again, as it was from 1989-
1995. In rejecting the petition, NIH did not state, however, that is
has no right to march-in based on the price of a product, implying that
it could or might assert such power in the future. This can only have a
chilling impact on companies considering entering into biodefense
procurement and research agreements.
Aside from fears about government actions, we could not have picked a
worse time to ask the industry to undertake a whole new portfolio of
research. The biotech NASDAQ index stood at 1380 and it now stands at
about 725. The Amex biotech index peaked at 801 and it now stands at
about 525. The Dow Jones pharmaceutical index peaked at 420 and it now
stands at about 275. The biotech industry raised $32 billion in capital
in 2000 and only $16 billion last year. In June of this year, 36
percent of the public biotech companies had stock trading at less than
$5 per share. There were 67 biotech IPOs in 2000 and only 7 last year.
The industry losses each year continue run to $4 billion. The National
Venture Capital Association reports that only 2 percent venture money
went into biodefense following the October anthrax attack.
Of the 506 drugs publicly disclosed to be under development by the 22
largest pharmaceutical companies, only 32 are for infectious disease
and half of these are aimed at HIV/AIDS. In 1967 we had 67 vaccine
companies and in 2002 we had 12. World wide sales vaccines is about $6
billion, but the world wide sales of Lipitor are $10 billion.
In addition, it is not clear whether the government is able or
willing to provide the industry with the operating margins--profits--it
sees for its other products. The operating margin for successful
biopharma companies is 2.76 to 3.74 times as great as the operating
margins for major defense contractors. This means that the defense
contractor model will not work to engage biopharma companies in
developing medical countermeasures for bioterror agents. Whether the
successful bipharma companies are ``too profitable'' is a separate
issue. The issue addressed here is the operating margin that successful
biopharma companies seek and expect as they assess lines of research to
undertake. If the operating margin for biodefense research is less, or
substantially less than the operating margin for non-biodefense
research, it is not likely that these companies will choose to
undertake biodefense research. This research is a voluntary undertaking
putting their capital at risk; there is no requirement that they do
this when the prospects for profits are not competitive with that from
other lines of research.
Mostly we are seeing the industry hiding, not commenting on the
pending legislation, not participating in the legislative process, and
making every effort not to seem to be unpatriotic or greedy. Companies
do not say in public that they are disinterested. They will not say
what package of incentives would be sufficient to persuade them to take
up biodefense work. They fear a debate on patents. They feel besieged
by the current drug import debate, pressure from CMS over drug prices,
and the debate over generic biologics. While I understand these fears,
we simply have to know what it would take in the way of incentives to
establish a biodefense industry. If the incentives in BioShield or
BioShield II are not sufficient, we need to know what incentives are
sufficient. We need to know what reassurances would persuade the
industry that what happened to Bayer will never happen again. And only
the industry can give us a clear answer to these questions. We cannot
have a dialogue on these urgent national questions without the
government listening and the industry speaking.
The goal of BioShield II is to shift the risk of countermeasure
research and development to the industry. Given the skepticism of the
industry about the reliability of the government as a partner, shifting
the risk to the industry--with it risking its own capital to fund the
R&D--will be difficult. But engaging the industry as entrepreneurs,
rather than as defense contractors, is likely to be less expensive for
the government and it's much more likely to secure the development of
the medicines that we need.

If the Government funds the research, the industry can expect to
receive the operating margins that are typically paid to defense
contractors--8.5-9 percent. If the industry risks its own capital and
funds the failures and cost overruns, the industry believes it would be
justified demanding the operating margins that are typically paid in
the commercial sector--28-32 percent.
If the Government funds the research, the industry expects that the
government will control or own the patents associated with the
medicines. If the industry funds the research, it

[[Page S4594]]

believes it has claims on all the patents.
The only companies that are likely to accept a defense contractor
model are companies with no approved products, no revenue from product
sales, and no other source of capital to keep the lights on. For them
Government funding is ``non-dilution'' capital, meaning it's a form of
capital that does not dilute the ownership shares of its current
shareholders. Many biotech companies have stock trading in the low
single digits, so they cannot issue another round of stock that would
enrage the current shareholders. For them this Government funding might
validate the scientific platform of the company, generate some revenue,
and hype the stock.
Biotech industry executives state in private that if their capital
markets strengthen they will be even less likely to consider bioterror
countermeasure research. One CEO whose company has received an NIH
grant for bioterror countermeasure research stated in private that his
company would never have considered this entanglement with the
Government if it had any other options to fund its research.
Our goal with BioShield IT should be to engage the successful
biopharma companies in this research--companies that have brought
products to the market--and persuade them that the Government will be a
reliable partner. Then the risk of failure and cost overruns is shifted
to the industry and we've engaged the companies with a track record of
bringing products to the market. The Government will need to provide
substantial rewards if--and only if--the companies do succeed in
developing the medicines we need, but then the Government is only
paying for results. When the Government funds the research, it funds a
process with no guarantees of any success. Providing the industry with
substantial rewards for success is a model that engages the industry as
entrepreneurs, drawing on the greatest strength our Nation has in the
war on terror.
Our bill addresses a critical question: who is in charge for
Government if there's a mass casualty event and how do they lead the
multifaceted response. The legislation sets up an interagency board to
map out and develop the response to such an event and places a new
Assistant Secretary Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Homeland
Security as its chair. In addition, the new Assistant Secretary would
lead the DHS assets and resources as part of this effort. While this
proposal is the result of discussions with some of the experts in this
area, we recognize there may be different points of view about the
optimal structure for the medical response capabilities within DHS and
the proposed structure in this bill is open to further discussion. I
look forward to working with the chairman of the Senate Homeland
Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, and others
in exploring these complex issues. On these issues, this bill is a
discussion draft.
We should not need a 9/11 Commission report to galvanize the
administration and the Congress to respond to the unprovoked and deadly
bioterror attacks of 3 years ago. The threat could not be more obvious
and what we need to do is also obvious. If we don't develop the
diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to protect those who might be
exposed or infected, we risk public panic and quarantines. We have the
world's preeminent biopharma industry and we need to put it to work in
the national defense.
BioShield I is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step
that does not take us where we need to go. We need to follow the
implementation of BioShield very carefully and set clear metrics for
determining its effectiveness. We should not wait to begin to review
the policy options available to supplement BioShield. Senator Hatch and
I will be proposing BioShield II and we will press for its
consideration. We should press the biopharma industry to present its
views on what it will take to engage it in this research and what it
will take to establish a biodefense, research tool, and an infectious
disease industry.
The American philosopher, George Santana said, ``Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' It's only been 3 years
since the anthrax attack but I fear our memory of it already has faded.
Let this hearing stand as a clear statement that some of us in the
Congress remember what happened and are determined not to permit it to
happen again. War has been declared on us and we need to act as if we
noticed.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered
the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of
September 11, 2001 to a new reality.
A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing
threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was
contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months.
Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001.
As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our
borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health
infrastructure.
Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect
our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still
being carefully reviewed and revised.
And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even
yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on
our country through chemical plants within the next five years.
While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act
of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still
needs to be done.
That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague,
Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud
to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation
over the past several years.
Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our
earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the
administration and our colleagues in Congress.
In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint
hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee
to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on
legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else
needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we
do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to
push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law
by the President.
It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using
biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before
its collapse.
Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop
smallpox strains that were universally lethal.
Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is
resistant to 10 different antibiotics.
Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are
working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror
agents are still in the former Soviet Union.
As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of
another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why
Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on
the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately.
Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform
a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness
against a bioterror threat.
In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally
occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically
unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available
to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the
infected individuals.
I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more
realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is
available.
To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario.
There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists,
where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that
they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to
care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons
to our enemies.
Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public
health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those
who

[[Page S4595]]

are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose
quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we
will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did.
Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people
would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage.
Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens
must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful
scenarios.
Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We
must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic
agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat
bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons
to cause death or injury to human beings.
Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these
discussions because they will play an integral role.
Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process
to ensure bioterror readiness.
We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage
our enemies to move forward.
We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect
our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from
future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further
attacks on the United States.
BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our
Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement,
research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a
robust biodefense industry.
Direct government funding can only go so far.
To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential
investors will want to fund the research associated with building a
strong and flexible defense against potential attacks.
But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of
the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions.
Bioshield II will encourage biopharma companies to take the lead in
the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to combat
bioterrorism. These efforts will also help protect our Nation against
naturally occurring diseases. In fact, a major improvement in this bill
is that we allow the array of incentives to be employed against
infectious diseases and as well as disease prevalent in the developing
world.
All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV,
malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our
public health system must be able to take on all comers; it is not just
deliberately engineered agents that threaten us.
Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our
hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight
illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of
covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for
diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations.
The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared
America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with
the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships
with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never
work and the American public will remain at great risk.
The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not
developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure.
Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have
their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives--
also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is
bare.
This is simply not acceptable.
As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of
another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason,
Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act
of 2005''.
We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress,
including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking
Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley
and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance
Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic
member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush
administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all
interested parties in the House.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important
legislation.

____________________