[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5852-S5856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Harkin, and Mr.
Nelson of Nebraska):
S. 1108. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
make improvements to payments to ambulance providers in rural areas,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. Conrad. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Access to
Emergency Services (RAES) Act, which will improve access to emergency
medical services (EMS) in rural communities. This bill will take the
critical steps to help sustain rural emergency care in the future.
EMS is a vital component of the health care system, particularly in
rural areas. Ambulance personnel are not only the first responders to
an emergency, but also play a key role in the provision of life-saving
medical care. It is said that time is one of the most important factors
relating to patient outcomes in emergency situations. Rural EMS
providers often have the enormous strain of responding to emergencies
many miles away--sometimes nearly 50 minutes. However, current
reimbursement levels are insufficient for the squads to bear the costs
of responding to calls over these long distances. As rural EMS squads
are forced
[[Page S5853]]
to close, rural residents--and others traveling through rural areas--
are left without access to emergency services. Due to the inadequacy of
Medicare reimbursement, rural ambulance providers are also finding it
difficult to maintain the heightened ``readiness requirement,''
exposing communities to the threat of being ill-prepared to respond to
a major public health emergency.
My legislation will take steps to improve the EMS system by
eliminating the 35-mile rule for ambulance services that provide care
in communities served by Critical Access Hospitals. In addition, it
will establish an ambulance-specific definition of ``urban'' and
``rural'' for Medicare reimbursement. Moreover, my legislation will
provide $15 million in funds to be used for a variety of activities
aimed at improving the rural EMS system. Finally, it will expand the
Universal Service Fund's definition of ``health care provider'' to
include ``ambulance services.''
It is important to assure that rural Americans receive the best
emergency medical services possible. This is especially important to me
because 54 percent of North Dakotans live in rural communities, served
largely by unpaid volunteer emergency personnel. In fact, only 10
percent receive compensation for their services. In recent years, rural
ambulance services have found it difficult to recruit and retain EMS
personnel. Congress must take steps to ensure that every American has
access to quality emergency care. The RAES Act would do just that by
improving reimbursement, increasing collaboration among healthcare
entities, and allowing EMS providers to collect quality data.
The EMS bill will provide improved healthcare and better access to
EMS for the 49 million Americans living in rural areas, and I urge my
colleagues to support this essential legislation.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Allard):
S. 1111. A bill to promote oil shale and tar sand development, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Shale and
Tar Sands Development Act of 2005. In doing so, I would like to thank
Senator Robert Bennett and Senator Wayne Allard for cosponsoring this
legislation.
It could not be any more apparent to Americans when we pay to fill up
our cars that this country is in need of a strong, comprehensive energy
strategy. Our citizens recognize that there is a shortage of petroleum,
and that that shortage is driving up prices.
American consumers have increased their demand for oil by 12 percent
in the last decade, but oil production has grown by less than one half
of one percent. Is it any wonder we rely on foreign countries for more
than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our oil today, and
it's projected to be 68 percent within 20 years.
On a larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an
unprecedented pace--about two and half million barrels per day in 2004
alone. However, while global oil production is increasing, the
discovery of new oil reserves is falling dramatically. Moreover, trends
indicate that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow,
especially in Asia.
Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated, ``Markets
for oil and natural gas have been subject to a degree of strain over
the past year not experienced for a generation. Increased demand and
lagging additions to productive capacity have combined to absorb a
significant amount of the slack in energy markets that was essential in
containing energy prices between 1985 and 2000.''
We are quickly heading into a global energy crunch, and our lack of
sufficient oil supply at home will give us little or no buffer against
it. Increasing our domestic oil reserve is imperative both from an
economic and a national security perspective.
I am pleased to report to my colleagues today that a solution is
available.
It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in
the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I
know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is
more recoverable oil in these three States than there is in all the
Middle East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that
recoverable oil shale in the western United States exceeds one trillion
barrels and is the richest and most geographically concentrated oil
shale and tar sands resource in the world.
This gigantic resource of oil shale and tar sands is well known by
geologists and energy experts, but it has not been counted among our
Nation's oil reserve because it is not yet being developed
commercially. Companies have been waiting for the Federal Government to
recognize publicly the existence of this resource as a potential
reserve and to allow industry access to it.
This bill would give them that chance.
Some might ask why we have not yet developed these resources if doing
so could have such a profound economic potential?
I understand why we have been so hesitant to develop this resource in
the past. During the 1970s, we saw a very large and expensive effort
begin in western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of
oil dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust
and the region suffered an economic disaster.
We should never forget that experience.
Much has changed since the 1970s, and it would be senseless to
continue to ignore the huge potential of this resource. I think there
has been a mind set within the government and the local communities
resulting from the Colorado boom and bust experience that developing
this resource would be risky. The fact is, developing this energy
resource is no more risky than producing oil offshore or in the Arctic.
It is certainly less risky than continuing to rely on oil from the
Middle East or from other foreign competitors.
We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not
necessarily a failure of technology, but rather an inability to sustain
this technology economically because of a very large slump in gas
prices. Today's economics and advances in technology combine to provide
the right scenario to begin the development of the world's largest
untapped oil resource.
Skeptics might ask how we know that the price of oil won't plummet,
causing the problems of the 1970s all over again? The world is now
reaching peak oil production of conventional oil. With the tremendous
growth in India and Asia, and the accompanying need for oil, experts
predict there will be little economic incentive for prices to drop.
This is a new scenario for the world, and it forces us to shift our
focus to unconventional resources.
We have already seen this shift in focus by the government of
Alberta, Canada. Alberta recognized the potential of its own tar sands
deposits and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a
result, Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of
10, going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current
reserve of 176 billion barrels in only a few years. And just think we
are sitting on one trillion barrels, more than five times what Canada
has.
I think it's outrageous that Utah imports about one-fourth of its oil
from Canadian tar sands, even though we have a very large resource of
those very same tar sands in our own State sitting undeveloped. The
government of Alberta, which owns the resource, has moved forward in
leaps and bounds, while the United States has yet to take even a baby
step toward developing our untapped resource.
Our proposed legislation looks to the Alberta model to help the
United States move toward greater energy independence. The Oil Shale
and Tar Sands Development Act represents a necessary shift by our
government from an almost complete reliance on conventional sources of
oil to our vast unconventional resources, such as tar sands and oil
shale.
In drafting this legislation, we have been mindful of the environment
and of States' water rights. We live in a different world than when
these resources were first developed. Unlike 30 years ago, we now have
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act, the
[[Page S5854]]
National Environmental Policy Act, and the Mining Reclamation Act.
Also, new technologies make the effort much cleaner and require less
water than in the past. Industry understands that any water it needs
will have to be acquired according to State law and according to
existing water rights.
Let me talk, for a moment, about the specific provisions in our bill.
S. 1111 would establish an Office of Strategic Fuels tasked with, among
other things, the development of a five-year plan to determine the
safest and steadiest route to developing oil shale and tar sands. The
bill would also establish a mineral leasing program in the Department
of the Interior to provide access to this resource.
Recognizing the tremendous national interest in this resource, our
legislation provides a number of programs to encourage oil shale and
tar sands development, including Federal royalty relief, Federal cost
shares for demonstration projects, advanced procurement agreements by
the military, and tax relief through the expensing of new equipment and
technologies related to oil shale and tar sands development.
The size of our nation's energy challenge is enormous, but in Utah,
Colorado, and Wyoming we have an answer that more than meets the
challenge. This bill moves us down that path. I urge my colleagues to
join us in our effort to help the United States open the door new
frontier for domestic energy.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wyden,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lott, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1112. A bill to make permanent the enhanced educational savings
provisions for qualified tuition programs enacted as part of the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, and
our other colleagues, in introducing legislation to make the Section
529 enhancements enacted in 2001 permanent.
In 2001, it was the Senate, especially my good friend Chairman
Grassley, that insisted on including education savings in the tax bill.
I am proud of that fact. And I am proud that the Senate is again taking
the lead to make these important provisions permanent.
Higher education is critical to our children's future and our
Nation's economy. As a parent, or grandparent, you know that providing
your children with a college education means they are likely to earn
substantially more than if they only have a high school degree. One
study estimated a million dollars more in today's dollars.
College is a good investment, but a very expensive one. The cost of
tuition is rising every year. Over the past ten years, expenses at
public universities have increased nearly 40 percent. The U.S.
Department of Education says the average cost of a four-year education
is currently $34,000 and almost $90,000 for private colleges.
In 1996, Congress created 529 plans to help families plan for this
expense. Since their inception, 529 plans have helped families' college
savings grow faster by not taxing investment income while it is
accumulating in the account. In 2001, we saw a need to do more to help
families deal with skyrocketing costs, so we allowed tax-free
distributions from the account, as long as the money goes for its
intended purpose--post-secondary education expenses. This income
exclusion will expire after 2010 if we don't do something about it.
There are a lot of provisions that will expire in 2010--so why focus
on this one provision today? Because saving for college doesn't happen
in five or six years. We want families to save today for college
expenses fifteen to twenty years from now. Without this legislation, we
are asking families to make critical investment decisions without the
promise of today's tax benefits. This is not a good way to encourage
savings. Making this tax benefit permanent will allow families to plan
and finance their children's education beyond 2010.
Thousands of young people back home have 529 plan accounts. By the
end of 2004, Montana families had over $128 million set aside through
the Montana Family Education Savings Program. Across the country there
is about $68 billion invested in over 7 million accounts. The average
account balance is just over $9,000. Not enough to finance a college
education, but an important start.
One of the great things about 529 plans is that grandparents can save
for the future of their grandchildren. That is what Arlene Hannawalt
did--she saved through a 529 plan for her granddaughter Nicole's
education. Nicole dropped out of high school, but she is getting her
GED. Later this year, with help from her 529 account, Nicole will be
going to the University of Montana--Helena College of Technology to
study accounting.
Nicole's father is in the Army National Guard, serving in Iraq. Our
prayers are with him. I'm sure Nicole's family is very pleased that she
will soon be a college student.
Tax-favored treatment for college savings is good policy, but it is
not free. I assure my colleagues that we will be looking for
appropriate offsets to cover the cost of this bill.
Education is one of my top priorities. And saving for education
should be one of a family's top priorities. I encourage my colleagues
to join in making the tax status of 529 benefits permanent to help
millions of American families plan for their children's future.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Santorum, and Mr.
Ensign):
S. 1113. A bill to provide that no Federal funds may be expended for
the payment or reimbursement of a drug that is prescribed for the
treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past three decades,
prescription medicines have assumed a central and critical role in
treating health care conditions. Every year, researchers make new
discoveries that help patients cope with illnesses and improve their
quality of life. Ensuring access to prescription drugs--to treatments
that can help people maintain their health and avoid costly
hospitalizations, for example--is a fundamental responsibility of our
Federal health programs. We would not have worked as hard as we did to
establish the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit if we did
not believe this to be true. At the same time, we have a tremendous
responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. I, for one,
take that responsibility very seriously.
In 2004, our nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care. Medicare
spending accounted for 17 percent of that amount. In 2005, Medicaid
spending is expected to reach $321 billion. The Federal government
offers me and other Federal employees health coverage through the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The Department of
Defense has TRICARE for military personnel, and the Veterans'
Administration provides an important source of health care access to
those who proudly served our country. Year after year, the costs of
these and other Federal health care programs continue to rise. Year
after year, we are forced to make difficult decisions to find ways to
save money under these programs with the goal of sustaining them well
into the future.
In contrast to those decisions, the bill that I am introducing today
was not difficult for me at all. By eliminating all Federal payments
for certain ``lifestyle'' drugs, the legislation restores the
fundamental concept of stewardship to prescription drug coverage under
Federal programs. It is a pretty simple piece of legislation--no
payment for drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction under
any Federal program, period. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimated that Medicare and Medicaid alone will spend $2 billion on
these drugs between 2006 and 2015. In my opinion, those dollars could
be spent more wisely.
When we crafted the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, our
bipartisan agreement sought to strike the most reasonable balance for
Medicare beneficiaries and hard working taxpayers. We wanted to make
sure that beneficiaries had access to life-saving and life-improving
medicines. Now some certainly may argue that these ``lifestyle'' drugs
can improve your life. I
[[Page S5855]]
appreciate that view. However, we live in a world of limited resources,
and in that world of limited resources coverage of these ``lifestyle''
drugs under Medicare--or any other Federal program, in my opinion--is
inconsistent with that goal of balance. I am pleased to join with
Senators Lott, Santorum, and Ensign in working to rectify that
situation today and urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this
important legislation.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1114. A bill to establish minimum drug testing standards for major
professional sports leagues; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Stevens in
introducing the Clean Sports Act of 2005. The chairman of the House
Government Reform Committee, Congressman Davis, and the ranking member
of that committee, Congressman Waxman, are introducing a companion bill
today in the House.
The purpose of this bill is to protect the integrity of professional
sports and, more importantly, the health and safety of our Nation's
youth, who, for better or for worse, see professional athletes as role
models. The legislation would achieve that goal by establishing minimum
standards for the testing of steroids and other performance-enhancing
substances by major professional sports leagues. By adhering to--and
hopefully exceeding--these minimum standards, the Nation's major
professional sports leagues would send a strong signal to the public
that performance-enhancing drugs have no legitimate role in American
sports.
This bill would prohibit our country's major professional sports
leagues--the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the
National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--from
operating if they do not meet the minimum testing requirements set
forth therein. Those standards would be comprised of five key
components: the independence of the entity or entities that perform the
leagues' drug tests; testing for a comprehensive list of doping
substances and methods; a strong system of unannounced testing;
significant penalties that discourage the use of performance-enhancing
drugs; and a fair and effective adjudication process for athletes
accused of doping. These elements are crucial components of any
credible performance-enhancing drug testing policy.
More specifically, the bill would require all major professional
sports leagues to have an independent third party administer their
performance-enhancing drug tests. The legislation would further require
that samples provided by athletes be tested by laboratories approved by
the United States Anti-Doping Agency--USADA--and for substances banned
by USADA. In addition, the bill would require not fewer than three
unannounced tests during a league's season of play, and at least two
unannounced tests during the off season. Under this legislation, if a
player were to test positive for a banned performance-enhancing
substance, that player would be suspended for 2 years for the first
violation and banned for life for a second violation. Finally, if any
player were to test positive, the professional sports league would be
obligated to ensure that the player would have substantial due process
rights including the opportunity for a hearing and right to counsel.
To ensure that the major professional sports leagues meet the highest
standards of performance-enhancing drug testing, the bill would require
each professional sports league to consult with USADA in developing its
drug testing standards and procedures, its protocols for tests in the
off season, and its athlete adjudication program. For 5 years, USADA
has served as the official antidoping agency for Olympic sports in the
United States. In that role, USADA has shown a tremendous dedication to
eliminating doping in sports through research, education, testing, and
adjudication efforts. The expertise that it has developed over the past
half-decade would serve this country's professional sports leagues
well.
A violation of this legislation would be treated as a violation of
the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission would
have the ability to either obtain an injunction against the league that
is in violation of the bill or seek penalties of up to $1 million per
violation. Any enforcement mechanism that is not as strong as this
would simply not be effective to ensure that these multi-billion-dollar
businesses adhere to the minimum standards set forth in the
legislation.
Finally, the bill would give the Office of National Drug Control
Policy--ONDCP--the ability to add other professional sports leagues as
well as certain college sports if the ONDCP were to determine that such
additions would prevent the use of performance-enhancing substances by
high school, college, or professional athletes. The bill would also
require the United States Boxing Commission, upon its establishment, to
promulgate steroids testing standards consistent with those contained
in the bill.
The need for reforming the drug testing policies of professional
sports is clear. However, I introduce this legislation reluctantly.
Over a year ago, I stated publicly that the failure of professional
sports--and in particular Major League Baseball--to commit to
addressing the issue of doping straight on and immediately would
motivate Congress to search for legislative remedies. Despite my clear
warning and the significant attention that Congress has given to this
stain on professional sports, baseball, and other professional leagues
have refused to do the right thing.
By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore
up the integrity of professional sports. I am asking the leagues to
realize that what is at stake here is not the sanctity of collective
bargaining agreements, but rather the health and safety of America's
children. Like it or not, our Nation's kids look to professional
athletes as role models and take cues from their actions, both good and
bad.
I remain hopeful that professional sports will reform their drug
testing policies on their own--a modest proposal in the eyes of
reasonable people. However, the introduction of this bill demonstrates
the continued seriousness with which Congress views this issue. It
should be seen as a renewed incentive for the leagues to clean up their
sports on their own without Government interference.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1115. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
Indian tribes to receive charitable contributions of inventory; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will
help increase the amount of food donations going to American Indians
and Alaska Natives nationwide. I am pleased to have Mr. Johnson join me
in introducing this important legislation.
Despite reports from the Census Bureau that show stable income levels
for many Americans, the poverty rate for the 4.4 million American
Indians and Alaska Natives living throughout the United States remains
nearly three times that of non-Hispanic whites. Not only do Natives
face greater challenges in securing basic household necessities, but in
securing food as well.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in late
2004, nearly 36 million Americans face challenges in getting enough
food to eat. This includes nearly 13 million children. Of these
statistics, Natives constitute a disproportionate number due to the
higher poverty rate among this group.
And yet, charitable organizations that provide hunger relief are
unable to meet the basic needs of Natives due to an oversight in the
Federal tax code. Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows
corporations to take an enhanced tax deduction for donations of food
inventory; however, the food must be distributed to 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organizations, such as food banks. Nonprofit organizations cannot then
transfer such donations to tribes. Although many donations to tribes
are tax deductible under section 7871 of the Internal Revenue Code,
tribes are not among the organizations listed under section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code. To clarify, section 170(e)(3) does not
allow tribes to be eligible recipients of corporate food donations to
nonprofit organizations since they are not listed under section
501(c)(3) as an eligible entity.
[[Page S5856]]
With this legislation, we intend to make a simple correction to the
tax code that clearly indicates that tribes are eligible recipients of
food donated under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This
correction is long overdue and would remedy an egregious inequity in
the Federal tax code that affects Natives nationwide.
Please allow me to provide a few examples of how this legislation
could foster positive change. In Alaska, approximately half of the food
donated to the Food Bank of Alaska from corporations could go to tribes
throughout Alaska. Much of this food would go to villages that are only
accessible by air or water. In South Dakota, roughly 30 percent of the
food the Community Food Banks of South Dakota distributes would go to
reservations. In North Dakota, the amount of food donated to the Great
Plains Food Bank could double if this legislation were enacted. The
Montana Food Bank Network projects that food donations could increase
by 16 percent. A food bank based in Albuquerque, NM estimates that
their food donations could triple in the first year alone.
It is imperative that we address this important issue expeditiously.
The health and well-being of low income American Indians and Alaska
Natives across the Nation is at stake.
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. 1115
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INVENTORY TO INDIAN
TRIBES .
(a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for contributions of
inventory and other property) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for indian tribes.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, an
Indian tribe (as defined in section 7871(c)(3)(E)(ii)) shall
be treated as an organization eligible to be a donee under
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Use of property.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), if the use of the property donated is related to the
exercise of an essential governmental function of the Indian
tribal government (within the meaning of section 7871), such
use shall be treated as related to the purpose or function
constituting the basis for the organization's exemption.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
____________________