Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 71 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5923-S5936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 1116. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to provide
for mental health screening and treatment services, to amend the Public
Health Service Act to provide for integration of mental health services
and mental health treatment outreach teams, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, Senator Collins and I, and in the
House of Representatives, Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ros-
Lehtinen, are reintroducing the Positive Aging Act, in an effort to
improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our
rapidly growing population of older Americans.
We are pleased to be reintroducing this important legislation during
Mental Health and Aging Week.
I want to acknowledge and thank our partners from the mental health
and aging community who have collaborated with us and have been working
diligently on these issues for many years, including the American
Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Psychological
Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American
Nurses Association.
Today, advances in medical science are helping us to live longer than
ever before. In New York State alone, there are 2\1/2\ million citizens
aged 65 or older. And this population will only continue to grow as the
firs wave of Baby Boomers turns 65 in less than 10 years.
As we look forward to this increased longevity, we must also
acknowledge the challenges that we face related to the quality of life
as we age. Chief among these are mental and behavioral health concerns.
Although most older adults enjoy good mental health it is estimated
that nearly 20 percent of Americans age 55 or older experience a mental
disorder. It is anticipated that the number of seniors with mental and
behavioral health problems will almost quadruple, from 4 million in
1970 to 15 million in 2030.
In New York State alone, there are an estimated 500,000 older adults
with mental health disorders. As the baby boomers age we expect to see
the number of seniors in need of mental health services in the State of
New York grow to over 750,000.
Among the most prevalent mental health concerns older adults
encounter are anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and substance
abuse. These disorders, if left untreated, can have severe physical and
psychological implications. In fact, older adults have the highest
rates of suicide in our country and depression is the foremost risk
factor.
The physical consequences of mental health disorders can be both
expensive and debilitating. Depression has a powerful negative impact
on ability to function, resulting in high rates of disability. The
World Health Organization projects that by the year 2020, depression
will remain a leading cause of disability, second only to
cardiovascular disease. Even mild depression lowers immunity and may
compromise a person's ability to fight infections and cancers. Research
indicates that 50-70 percent of all primary care medical visits are
related to psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and
stress.
Mental disorders do not have to be a part of the aging process
because we have effective treatments for these conditions. But in far
too many instances our seniors go undiagnosed and untreated because of
the current divide in our country between health care and mental health
care.
Too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize
the signs and symptoms of mental health problems. Even more troubling,
knowledge about treatment is simply not accessible to many primary care
practitioners. As a whole, we have

[[Page S5924]]

failed to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment into
our health service systems.
These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental health
disorders are taking a tremendous toll on seniors and increasing the
burden on their families and our health care system.
That is why I am reintroducing the Positive Aging Act with my co-
sponsors Senator Collins and Representatives Kennedy and Ros-Lehtinen.
This legislation would amend the Older Americans Act and the Public
Health Service Act to strengthen the delivery of mental health services
to older Americans.
Specifically, the Positive Aging Act would fund grants to states to
provide screening and treatment for mental health disorders in seniors.
It would also fund demonstration projects to provide these screening
and treatment services to older adults residing in rural areas and in
naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC's.
This legislation would also authorize demonstration projects to reach
out to seniors and make much needed collaborative mental health
services available in community settings where older adults reside and
already receive services such as primary care clinics, senior centers,
adult day care programs, and assisted living facilities.
Today, we are fortunate to have a variety of effective treatments to
address the mental health needs of American seniors. I believe that we
owe it to older adults in this country to do all that we can to ensure
that high quality mental health care is both available and accessible.
This legislation takes an important step in that direction and I look
forward to working with you all to enact the Positive Aging Act during
the upcoming Older Americans Act and SAMHSA reauthorizations.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1116

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 ``Positive Aging Act of
2005''.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

Section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3002) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(44) Mental health screening and treatment services.--The
term `mental health screening and treatment services' means
patient screening, diagnostic services, care planning and
oversight, therapeutic interventions, and referrals that
are--
``(A) provided pursuant to evidence-based intervention and
treatment protocols (to the extent such protocols are
available) for mental disorders prevalent in older
individuals (including, but not limited to, mood and anxiety
disorders, dementias of all kinds, psychotic disorders, and
substances and alcohol abuse), relying to the greatest extent
feasible on protocols that have been developed--
``(i) by or under the auspices of the Secretary; or
``(ii) by academicians with expertise in mental health and
aging; and
``(B) coordinated and integrated with the services of
social service, mental health, and health care providers in
an area in order to--
``(i) improve patient outcomes; and
``(ii) assure, to the maximum extent feasible, the
continuing independence of older individuals who are residing
in the area.''.

SEC. 102. OFFICE OF OLDER ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

Section 301(b) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3021(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) The Assistant Secretary shall establish within the
Administration an Office of Older Adult Mental Health
Services, which shall be responsible for the development and
implementation of initiatives to address the mental health
needs of older individuals.''.

SEC. 103. GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO OLDER
INDIVIDUALS LACKING ACCESS TO SUCH SERVICES.

Title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3021 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 303, by adding at the end the following:
``(f) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
part F (relating to grants for programs providing mental
health screening and treatment services) such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 2006 and each of the 5 succeeding
fiscal years.'';
(2) in section 304(a)(1), by inserting ``and subsection
(f)'' after ``through (d)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:

``PART F--MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR OLDER
INDIVIDUALS

``SEC. 381. GRANTS TO STATES FOR PROGRAMS PROVIDING MENTAL
HEALTH SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR
OLDER INDIVIDUALS.

``(a) Program Authorized.--The Assistant Secretary shall
carry out a program for making grants to States under State
plans approved under section 307 for the development and
operation of--
``(1) systems for the delivery of mental health screening
and treatment services for older individuals who lack access
to such services; and
``(2) programs to--
``(A) increase public awareness regarding the benefits of
prevention and treatment of mental disorders in older
individuals;
``(B) reduce the stigma associated with mental disorders in
older individuals and other barriers to the diagnosis and
treatment of the disorders; and
``(C) reduce age-related prejudice and discrimination
regarding mental disorders in older individuals.
``(b) State Allocation and Priorities.--A State agency that
receives funds through a grant made under this section shall
allocate the funds to area agencies on aging to carry out
this part in planning and service areas in the State. In
allocating the funds, the State agency shall give priority to
planning and service areas in the State--
``(1) that are medically underserved; and
``(2) in which there are a large number of older
individuals.
``(c) Area Coordination of Services With Other Providers.--
In carrying out this part, to more efficiently and
effectively deliver services to older individuals, each area
agency on aging shall--
``(1) coordinate services described in subsection (a) with
other community agencies, and voluntary organizations,
providing similar or related services; and
``(2) to the greatest extent practicable, integrate
outreach and educational activities with existing (as of the
date of the integration) health care and social service
providers serving older individuals in the planning and
service area involved.
``(d) Relationship to Other Funding Sources.--Funds made
available under this part shall supplement, and not supplant,
any Federal, State, and local funds expended by a State or
unit of general purpose local government (including an area
agency on aging) to provide the services described in
subsection (a).''.

SEC. 104. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO OLDER
INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN RURAL AREAS.

The Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by inserting before section 401 the following:

``TITLE IV--GRANTS FOR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND RESEARCH'';

and
(2) in part A of title IV, by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 422. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO OLDER
INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN RURAL AREAS.

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `rural area'
means--
``(1) any area that is outside a metropolitan statistical
area (as defined by the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget); or
``(2) such similar area as the Secretary specifies in a
regulation issued under section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).
``(b) Authority.--The Assistant Secretary shall make grants
to eligible public agencies and nonprofit private
organizations to pay part or all of the cost of developing or
operating model health care service projects involving the
provision of mental health screening and treatment services
to older individuals residing in rural areas.
``(c) Duration.--Grants made under this section shall be
made for 3-year periods.
``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a public agency or nonprofit private
organization shall submit to the Assistant Secretary an
application containing such information and assurances as the
Assistant Secretary may require, including--
``(1) information describing--
``(A) the geographic area and target population (including
the racial and ethnic composition of the target population)
to be served by the project; and
``(B) the nature and extent of the applicant's experience
in providing mental health screening and treatment services
of the type to be provided in the project;
``(2) assurances that the applicant will carry out the
project--
``(A) through a multidisciplinary team of licensed mental
health professionals;
``(B) using evidence-based intervention and treatment
protocols to the extent such protocols are available;
``(C) using telecommunications technologies as appropriate
and available; and
``(D) in coordination with other providers of health care
and social services (such as senior centers and adult day
care providers) serving the area; and
``(3) assurances that the applicant will conduct and submit
to the Assistant Secretary

[[Page S5925]]

such evaluations and reports as the Assistant Secretary may
require.
``(e) Reports.--The Assistant Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that includes summaries of the evaluations and reports
required under subsection (d)(3).
``(f) Coordination.--The Assistant Secretary shall provide
for appropriate coordination of programs and activities
receiving funds pursuant to a grant under this section with
programs and activities receiving funds pursuant to grants
under sections 381 and 423, and sections 520K and 520L of the
Public Health Service Act.''.

SEC. 105. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO OLDER
INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN NATURALLY OCCURRING
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES IN URBAN AREAS.

Part A of title IV of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3032 et seq.), as amended by section 104, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 423. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH
SCREENING AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO OLDER
INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN NATURALLY OCCURRING
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES IN URBAN AREAS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Naturally occurring retirement community.--The term
`naturally occurring retirement community' means a
residential area (such as an apartment building, housing
complex or development, or neighborhood) not originally built
for older individuals but in which a substantial number of
individuals have aged in place (and become older individuals)
while residing in such area.
``(2) Urban area.--The term `urban area' means--
``(A) a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget); or
``(B) such similar area as the Secretary specifies in a
regulation issued under section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(2)(D)).
``(b) Authority.--The Assistant Secretary shall make grants
to eligible public agencies and nonprofit private
organizations to pay part or all of the cost of developing or
operating model health care service projects involving the
provision of mental health screening and treatment services
to older individuals residing in naturally occurring
retirement communities located in urban areas.
``(c) Duration.--Grants made under this section shall be
made for 3-year periods.
``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a public agency or nonprofit private
organization shall submit to the Assistant Secretary an
application containing such information and assurances as the
Assistant Secretary may require, including--
``(1) information describing--
``(A) the naturally occurring retirement community and
target population (including the racial and ethnic
composition of the target population) to be served by the
project; and
``(B) the nature and extent of the applicant's experience
in providing mental health screening and treatment services
of the type to be provided in the project;
``(2) assurances that the applicant will carry out the
project--
``(A) through a multidisciplinary team of licensed mental
health professionals;
``(B) using evidence-based intervention and treatment
protocols to the extent such protocols are available; and
``(C) in coordination with other providers of health care
and social services serving the retirement community; and
``(3) assurances that the applicant will conduct and submit
to the Assistant Secretary such evaluations and reports as
the Assistant Secretary may require.
``(e) Reports.--The Assistant Secretary shall prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that includes summaries of the evaluations and reports
required under subsection (d)(3).
``(f) Coordination.--The Assistant Secretary shall provide
for appropriate coordination of programs and activities
receiving funds pursuant to grants made under this section
with programs and activities receiving funds pursuant to
grants made under sections 381 and 422, and sections 520K and
520L of the Public Health Service Act.''.

TITLE II--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT AMENDMENTS

SEC. 201. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO SUPPORT INTEGRATION OF
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN PRIMARY CARE
SETTINGS.

Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 520(b)--
(A) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (15), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(16) conduct the demonstration projects specified in
section 520K.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 520K. PROJECTS TO DEMONSTRATE INTEGRATION OF MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES IN PRIMARY CARE SETTINGS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Center for Mental Health Services, shall
award grants to public and private nonprofit entities for
projects to demonstrate ways of integrating mental health
services for older patients into primary care settings, such
as health centers receiving a grant under section 330 (or
determined by the Secretary to meet the requirements for
receiving such a grant), other Federally qualified health
centers, primary care clinics, and private practice sites.
``(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible for a grant
under this section, the project to be carried out by the
entity shall provide for collaborative care within a primary
care setting, involving psychiatrists, psychologists, and
other licensed mental health professionals (such as social
workers and advanced practice nurses) with appropriate
training and experience in the treatment of older adults, in
which screening, assessment, and intervention services are
combined into an integrated service delivery model,
including--
``(1) screening services by a mental health professional
with at least a masters degree in an appropriate field of
training;
``(2) referrals for necessary prevention, intervention,
follow-up care, consultations, and care planning oversight
for mental health and other service needs, as indicated; and
``(3) adoption and implementation of evidence-based
protocols, to the extent available, for prevalent mental
health disorders, including depression, anxiety, behavioral
and psychological symptoms of dementia, psychosis, and misuse
of, or dependence on, alcohol or medication.
``(c) Considerations in Awarding Grants.--In awarding
grants under this section, the Secretary, to the extent
feasible, shall ensure that--
``(1) projects are funded in a variety of geographic areas,
including urban and rural areas; and
``(2) a variety of populations, including racial and ethnic
minorities and low-income populations, are served by projects
funded under this section.
``(d) Duration.--A project may receive funding pursuant to
a grant under this section for a period of up to 3 years,
with an extension period of 2 additional years at the
discretion of the Secretary.
``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a public or private nonprofit entity shall--
``(1) submit an application to the Secretary (in such form,
containing such information, and at such time as the
Secretary may specify); and
``(2) agree to report to the Secretary standardized
clinical and behavioral data necessary to evaluate patient
outcomes and to facilitate evaluations across participating
projects.
``(f) Evaluation.--Not later than July 31 of each calendar
year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
evaluating the projects receiving awards under this section
for such year.
``(g) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this section shall supplement, and not supplant, other
Federal, State, or local funds available to an entity to
carry out activities described in this section.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section for fiscal year 2006 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''.

SEC. 202. GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
OUTREACH TEAMS.

Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.), as amended by section 201,
is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 520L. GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT OUTREACH TEAMS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Center for Mental Health Services, shall
award grants to public or private nonprofit entities that are
community-based providers of geriatric mental health
services, to support the establishment and maintenance by
such entities of multi-disciplinary geriatric mental health
outreach teams in community settings where older adults
reside or receive social services. Entities eligible for such
grants include--
``(1) mental health service providers of a State or local
government;
``(2) outpatient programs of private, nonprofit hospitals;
``(3) community mental health centers meeting the criteria
specified in section 1913(c); and
``(4) other community-based providers of mental health
services.
``(b) Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an entity shall--
``(1) adopt and implement, for use by its mental health
outreach team, evidence-based intervention and treatment
protocols (to the extent such protocols are available) for
mental disorders prevalent in older individuals (including,
but not limited to, mood and anxiety disorders, dementias of
all kinds, psychotic disorders, and substance and alcohol
abuse), relying to the greatest extent feasible on protocols
that have been developed--
``(A) by or under the auspices of the Secretary; or
``(B) by academicians with expertise in mental health and
aging;
``(2) provide screening for mental disorders, diagnostic
services, referrals for treatment, and case management and
coordination through such teams; and

[[Page S5926]]

``(3) coordinate and integrate the services provided by
such team with the services of social service, mental health,
and medical providers at the site or sites where the team is
based in order to--
``(A) improve patient outcomes; and
``(B) to assure, to the maximum extent feasible, the
continuing independence of older adults who are residing in
the community.
``(c) Cooperative Arrangements With Sites Serving as Bases
for Outreach.--An entity receiving a grant under this section
may enter into an agreement with a person operating a site at
which a geriatric mental health outreach team of the entity
is based, including--
``(1) senior centers;
``(2) adult day care programs;
``(3) assisted living facilities; and
``(4) recipients of grants to provide services to senior
citizens under the Older Americans Act of 1965, under which
such person provides (and is reimbursed by the entity, out of
funds received under the grant, for) any supportive services,
such as transportation and administrative support, that such
person provides to an outreach team of such entity.
``(d) Considerations in Awarding Grants.--In awarding
grants under this section, the Secretary, to the extent
feasible, shall ensure that--
``(1) projects are funded in a variety of geographic areas,
including urban and rural areas; and
``(2) a variety of populations, including racial and ethnic
minorities and low-income populations, are served by projects
funded under this section.
``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an entity shall--
``(1) submit an application to the Secretary (in such form,
containing such information, at such time as the Secretary
may specify); and
``(2) agree to report to the Secretary standardized
clinical and behavioral data necessary to evaluate patient
outcomes and to facilitate evaluations across participating
projects.
``(f) Coordination.--The Secretary shall provide for
appropriate coordination of programs and activities receiving
funds pursuant to a grant under this section with programs
and activities receiving funds pursuant to grants under
section 520K and sections 381, 422, and 423 of the Older
Americans Act of 1965.
``(g) Evaluation.--Not later than July 31 of each calendar
year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
evaluating the projects receiving awards under this section
for such year.
``(h) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this section shall supplement, and not supplant, other
Federal, State, or local funds available to an entity to
carry out activities described in this section.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section for fiscal year 2006 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''.

SEC. 203. DESIGNATION OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OLDER ADULT
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CENTER FOR MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES.

Section 520 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290bb-31) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health
Services in Center for Mental Health Services.--The Director,
after consultation with the Administrator, shall designate a
Deputy Director for Older Adult Mental Health Services, who
shall be responsible for the development and implementation
of initiatives of the Center to address the mental health
needs of older adults. Such initiatives shall include--
``(1) research on prevention and identification of mental
disorders in the geriatric population;
``(2) innovative demonstration projects for the delivery of
community-based mental health services for older Americans;
``(3) support for the development and dissemination of
evidence-based practice models, including models to address
dependence on, and misuse of, alcohol and medication in older
adults; and
``(4) development of model training programs for mental
health professionals and care givers serving older adults.''.

SEC. 204. MEMBERSHIP OF ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE CENTER FOR
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

Section 502(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 290aa-1(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) In the case of the advisory council for the Center
for Mental Health Services, the members appointed pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall include representatives of
older Americans, their families, and geriatric mental health
specialists.''.

SEC. 205. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE TARGETING
SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN OLDER ADULTS.

Section 509(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 290bb-2(b)(2)) is amended by inserting before the
period the following: ``, and to providing treatment for
older adults with alcohol or substance abuse or addiction,
including medication misuse or dependence''.

SEC. 206. CRITERIA FOR STATE PLANS UNDER COMMUNITY MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANTS.

(a) In General.--Section 1912(b)(4)of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-2(b)(4)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) Targeted services to older individuals, individuals
who are homeless, and individuals living in rural areas.--The
plan describes the State's outreach to and services for older
individuals, individuals who are homeless, and individuals
living in rural areas, and how community-based services will
be provided to these individuals.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to State plans submitted on or after the date
that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
S. 1117. A bill to deepen the peaceful business and cultural
engagement of the United States and the People's Republic of China, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that aims to
redefine and enhance the relationship between the People's Republic of
China and the United States of America.
At this point in our history we stand at the threshold of a new era
in American Foreign policy and indeed of world history. For the first
time ever an economic and military superpower is about to emerge
without war or catastrophe: Asia's middle kingdom: the People's
Republic of China, stands at the precipice of becoming one of the two
most influential nations on Earth.
I have always held that our foreign policy is best conducted when our
values as a Nation form the basis of our policies. With that in mind, I
stand before you today to introduce legislation that will deepen the
scope and breadth of America's relationship with China through the
reaching out of our Nation's hand in friendship.
We introduce this with a bit of humility because history constantly
shows us that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Fortunately American history is filled with good ideas to guide us.
Back in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant told Congress that trade
imbalances with China were threatening the viability of key United
States' industries and warned that federal intervention might be needed
to restore the balance of trade.
That is true today and I am both sponsoring and supporting
legislation to fairly revalue the Yuan so that U.S. industries and
workers enjoy a fair playing field in the global market.
But Grant also thought many problems with China could be solved if we
just better understood Chinese language and culture. He proposed
sending at least four American students a year to China to study the
language and culture and who would then act as effective translators
for business and government officials.
Grant's idea was never acted on and years of unfortunate history
separated China from the rest of the world anyway.
But China is back and so are the challenges.
Those versed in international affairs and trade are fully aware of
China's emerging influence. However, our present education system is
not equipped to supply the number of skilled professionals required to
constructively interact with China. According to the 2000 Census there
are about 2.2 million Americans that speak Chinese. Of that 2.2
million, approximately 85-95 percent are Americans of Chinese descent.
According to several studies there is a dearth of knowledge among
college-bound students regarding Chinese cultural pillars like Mao
Zedong in the United States. China, on the other hand, mandates English
instruction beginning in--what we would call--the third grade. For
every student we send to China to study there, they send 25 to study
here.

If you combine these findings with the fact that well over half of
the 500 largest companies are currently invested in China, with many
more drawing up plans to do so, it becomes clear to me that the talent
pool for future American-produced leaders with expertise in Chinese
affairs is woefully inadequate. If you take a look at China's top ten
trading partners, seven of those have a trade surplus with China and
most importantly, five of those seven have a significant population
with deep-seated knowledge of Chinese language and culture. America
needs more people with the expertise to transact with China in
international affairs and

[[Page S5927]]

to increase the number of professionals that will assist both nations
in growing and balancing our economic interdependency.
The future repercussions of our lack of knowledge about Chinese
culture are immense. The Chinese have just begun to compete with U.S.
firms for precious natural resources to feed the exponential growth of
their economy. China is the world's biggest consumer of steel and in
another decade will be the biggest consumer of petroleum. Currently,
China's middle class is the fastest growing anywhere in the world. Over
400 of the world's Fortune 500 companies are invested in China's
economy, which will soon be the largest consumer market in the world.
Already, our trade with Asia is double that with Europe and is expected
to exceed one trillion dollars annually before 2010. China, soon to be
the biggest economic power in Asia, will play a large role in that
growth. Consequently, the one in six U.S. jobs that are currently tied
to international trade will grow substantially. If the U.S. is to grab
a significant piece of China's burgeoning consumer market, we must
begin by engaging China as experts of their culture.
The United States-China Cultural Engagement Act of 2005 authorizes
$1.3 billion over the five years after its enactment. This is a
symbolic gesture for the recent birth of China's one billion three
hundred millionth citizen. One may argue that is too much given other
important--under-funded--national priorities. However, the dividend
from this investment in our future business and government leaders pays
for itself a hundred or even a million times over in opportunities for
economic growth and in potential foreign crises that will be averted.
In this legislation, I propose to significantly enhance our schools
and academic institutions' ability to teach Chinese language and
culture from elementary school through advanced degree studies. This
act will expand student physical exchange programs with China as well
as create a virtual exchange infrastructure for secondary school
students that study Chinese. Initiatives were included, that offer the
Department of State more flexibility in granting visas to Chinese
scientists to come here and study at American academic institutions.
For American businesses, I seek a substantial increase in Foreign
Commercial Service officers stationed in China to uncover and
facilitate more American export opportunities. For non-corporate
entrepreneurs, provisions that provide for the expansion of state
specific export centers and greater Small Business Administration
outreach were also included.
Engaging China as an ally in international affairs and as a partner
in building economic prosperity is of the utmost importance to the
United States. Only if we succeed in fostering this relationship can we
have a future that is as bright as our past. Education experts,
corporate leaders, and even some government officials have talked for
sometime about the convergence of economic, demographic, and national
security trends that require our young people to attain a greater level
of international knowledge and skills to be successful as workers and
citizens in our increasingly dynamic American economy.
The rise of China comes with a whole set of challenges. But the
ability to talk to and understand each other should not be among them.
The United States-China Cultural Engagement Act sets forth a strategy
for achieving that level of understanding and cooperation with China, I
urge my colleagues to look favorably upon this measure.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1118. A bill to amend the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to reduce
irrigation subsidies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure aimed
at curbing wasteful spending. In the face of our ever growing Federal
deficit, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer
be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost-
effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The
measure that I introduce today establishes a means test for large
agribusinesses receiving subsidized water from the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The irrigation means test provision is drawn from legislation that I
have sponsored in previous Congresses to reduce the amount of Federal
irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I
believe that reforming Federal water pricing policy by reducing
subsidies is important as a means to achieve our broader objectives of
achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to
curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer
millions of dollars every year.
In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which
came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage
development of family farms throughout the western United States. The
idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and
give small farms, those no larger than 160 acres, a chance, with a
helping hand from the Federal Government, to establish themselves.
According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage
of the Reclamation Act, the Federal Government has spent $21.8 billion
to construct 133 water projects in the west to provide water for
irrigation. Agribusinesses, and other project beneficiaries, are
required under the law to repay to the Federal Government their
allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects.
As a result of the subsidized financing provided by the Federal
Government, however, some of the beneficiaries of Federal water
projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs.
According to the 1996 GAO report, agribusinesses generally receive the
largest amount of federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of
the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with
irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in
reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9
billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of Federal investment in
water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable
costs, the largest share, $7.1 billion, is allocated to irrigation
interests. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely
shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by agribusinesses to other users of
the water projects for repayment.
There are several reasons why large agribusinesses continue to
receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive
subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly
prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally
subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law
to close loopholes through which Federal subsidies were flowing to
large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that
Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were
expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of
their 960 acre entitlement.
Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated
under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big
agricultural water users from receiving Federal subsidies. The General
Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the
Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law
are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming
trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre
limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the
reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single
management agreement often through a combination of leasing and
ownership.
The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these trusts
exist. Interior published a final rulemaking in 1998 to require farm
operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres
westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of
trusts and legal entities, to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where
such land is located. Water districts are now required to provide
specific information about farm operators to Interior annually. This
information is an important step toward enforcing the legislation that
I am reintroducing today.
A recent report by the Environmental Working Group examined water

[[Page S5928]]

subsidies in the Central Valley Project (CVP) of California and it
provides further evidence that this legislation is long overdue.
According to EWG, in 2002, the largest 10 percent of the farms in the
area got 67 percent of the water, for an average subsidy worth up to
$349,000 each at market rates for replacement water. Twenty-seven large
farms received subsidies each worth $1 million or more at market rates.
Yet, the median subsidy for a Central Valley farmer in 2002 was $7,076
a year, almost 50 times less than the largest 10 percent of farms. One
farm in Fresno County received more water by itself than 70 CVP water
user districts. Its subsidy alone was worth $4.2 million a year at
market rates.
This analysis is significant because the Bureau of Reclamation
program is supposed to help small farmers, not large agribusinesses.
The CVP analysis is also important because CVP farmers get about one-
fifth of all the water used in California, at rates that by any measure
are far below market value. In 2002, for example, the average price for
irrigation water from the CVP was less than 2 percent what Los Angeles
residents pay for drinking water, one-tenth the estimated cost of
replacement water supplies, and about one-eighth what the public pays
to buy its own water back to restore the San Francisco Bay and Delta.
Meanwhile, many citizens in living in the CVP do not have access to
clean, safe drinking water. Unfortunately, this situation is pervasive
in many other Western communities.
My legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by
other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation
and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the
amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in
excess of the 960 acre limit that claimed $500,000 or more in gross
income, as reported on its most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000
threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how
much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost
rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre
operation earned $1 million, a ratio of $500,000, the means-test value,
divided by its gross income would determine the full cost rate. Thus
the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage
and the below-cost rate on the remaining half.
This means-testing proposal was featured in the 2000 Green Scissors
report. This report is compiled annually by Friends of the Earth and
Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental,
consumer and taxpayer groups. The premise of the report is that there
are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce
the deficit and benefit the environment. The Green Scissors
recommendation on means-testing water subsidies indicates that if a
test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing
10 percent of farms, then the federal government would recover between
$440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over 5
years.
When countless Federal programs are subjected to various types of
means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it
makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip
into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive.
Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard-
earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate
interests in select regions of the country, particularly in tight
budgetary times.
I urge Congress to act swiftly to save money for the taxpayers.
______

By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
S. 1119. A bill to permit an alien to remain eligible for a diversity
visa beyond the fiscal year in which the alien applied for the visa,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
fix a problem that some of my colleagues have experienced in serving
their constituents. Immigration case work is one of the top issues that
my State offices handle on a regular basis. Occasionally, people who
are in our country legally and playing by the rules can slip through
the cracks as they wait on the immigration process to run its course.
With the massive caseload handled by immigration services, there are
bound to be mistakes, and this legislation allows the agency to remedy
those mistakes in the limited situation of the Diversity Visa program.
The case of an Atlanta couple, Charles Nyaga and his wife, Doin, came
to my attention about a year ago. Charles Nyaga, a native of Kenya,
came to the U.S. with his family as a student in 1996, and he is
currently pursuing a master's degree in divinity. In 1997, he applied
for the fiscal year 1998 Diversity Visa program and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) selected him. In accordance with the
Diversity Visa requirements, Nyaga and his wife submitted an
application and a fee to adjust their status to legal permanent
resident.
A cover letter on the Diversity Visa application instructed: ``While
your application is pending before the interview, please DO NOT make
inquiry as to the status of your case, since it will result in further
delay.'' During the eight months that INS had to review his
application, Nyaga accordingly never made inquiry, and he unfortunately
never heard back. His valid application simply slipped through the
cracks. At the end of the fiscal year, Nyaga's application expired,
although a sufficient number of diversity visas remained available.
Nyaga and his wife took their case all the way to the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals. In a decision last year, the Court found that the INS
lacks the authority to act on Nyaga's application after the end of the
fiscal year, regardless of how meritorious his case is. The court even
went so far as to note that a private relief bill is the remedy for
Nyaga in order to overcome the statuary barrier that prohibits the INS
from reviewing a case in a prior fiscal year. The U.S. Supreme Court
declined to take up this case.
My legislation would overcome this statutory hurdle for Charles
Nyaga, his wife, and others who are similarly situated. The legislation
would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the opportunity to
reopen cases from previous fiscal years in order to complete their
processing. It is important to understand that this process would only
be available to those individuals who have been here since the time
they filed their claim. The bill would still give DHS the discretion to
conduct background checks and weigh any security concerns before
adjusting an applicant's status.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and with Homeland
Security officials to pass this legislation this year. We must provide
relief in these cases. I believe this targeted legislation strikes the
proper balance to provide thorough processing of Diversity Visa
applications while not compromising the Department's national security
mission.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
Smith):
S. 1120. A bill to reduce hunger in the United States by half by
2010, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, nearly a decade ago, at the 1996 World
Food Summit, the United States joined 185 other countries in a
commitment to cut the number of undernourished people in the world in
half by 2015. In 2000, as part of the Healthy People 2010 initiative,
the U.S. government set another, more ambitious goal--to cut U.S. food
insecurity in half from the 1995 level by 2010.
These are laudable and achievable goals. But our actions as a Nation
have not kept pace with our words. Hunger and food insecurity have
increased in this country each year since 1999. According to Household
Food Security in the United States, 2003, the most recent report on
hunger and food insecurity in the U.S. from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 36.3 million people--including nearly 13.3 million
children--lived in households that experienced hunger or the risk of
hunger in 2003. This represents more than one in ten households in the
United States (11.2 percent) and is an increase of 1.4 million, from
34.9 million in 2002.
In his remarks to delegates at the first World Food Congress in 1963,
President John F. Kennedy said, ``We have the means, we have the
capacity

[[Page S5929]]

to eliminate hunger from the face of the earth in our lifetime. We only
need the will.''
Forty-two years later, we still need the will, especially the
political will.
In June 2004, the National Anti-Hunger Organization (NAHO), which is
comprised of the 13 national organizations that are working to end
widespread hunger in our country, released A Blueprint to End Hunger.
It is a roadmap setting forth a strategy for government, schools and
community organizations, nonprofit groups, businesses, and individuals
to solve the problem of hunger. The report recommends that Federal food
programs continue as the centerpiece of our strategy to end hunger. It
also urges us, the Federal Government, to invest in and strengthen the
national nutrition safety net and increase outreach and awareness of
the importance of preventing hunger and improving nutrition.
We know that Federal nutrition programs work. WIC, food stamps, the
school breakfast and lunch programs, and other federal nutrition
programs are reaching record numbers of Americans today, and making
their lives better. But we're not reaching enough people. There are
still too many parents in this country who skip meals because there is
not enough money in the family food budget for them and their children
to eat every night. There are still too many babies and toddlers in
America who are not getting the nutrition their minds and bodies need
to develop to their fullest potential. There are too many seniors, and
children, who go to bed hungry. In the richest Nation in the history of
the world, that's unacceptable.
Today, in an effort to stir the political will and rekindle our
commitment to achieve the goal of ending hunger, I am introducing the
Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005 with Senators Smith, Lugar, and
Lincoln. This bill builds on the recommendations made by NAHO and is
designed to put our nation back on track toward the goal of cutting
domestic food insecurity and hunger in half by 2010. It contains a
sense of the Congress reaffirming our commitment to the 2010 goal and
establishing a new goal: the elimination of hunger in the United States
by 2015. This sense of Congress also urges the preservation of the
entitlement nature of food programs and the protection of federal
nutrition programs from funding cuts that reduce benefit levels or the
number of eligible participants.
The Hunger-Free Communities Act also increases the resources
available to local groups across the country working to eliminate
hunger in their communities. Each day, thousands of community-based
groups and millions of volunteers work on the front lines of the battle
against hunger. This bill establishes an anti-hunger grant program, the
first of its kind, with an emphasis on assessing hunger in individual
communities and promoting cooperation and collaboration among local
anti-hunger groups. The grant program recognizes the vital role that
community-based organizations already play in the fight against hunger
and represents Congress' commitment to the public/private partnership
necessary to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, food insecurity and
hunger in this country.
Hunger is not a partisan issue. During the 1960s and 1970s, under
both Democratic and Republican Administrations, our country undertook
initiatives and put in place programs that substantially reduced the
number of people who struggle to feed their families in our nation.
Unfortunately, this progress has not been sustained.
We now have the opportunity to forge a new bipartisan partnership,
committed to addressing hunger in the United States. Senators Smith,
Dole, Lincoln, and I have created the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus
with that goal in mind. Progress against hunger is possible, even with
a war abroad and budget deficits at home. I thank my colleagues for
their leadership on the Hunger Caucus and look forward to working with
them, and other members of this body, as we consider the Hunger-Free
Communities Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1120

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 ``Hunger-
Free Communities Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO END HUNGER

Sec. 101. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 102. Data collection.
Sec. 103. Annual hunger report.

TITLE II--STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY EFFORTS

Sec. 201. Hunger-free communities assessment grants.
Sec. 202. Hunger-free communities infrastructure grants.
Sec. 203. Training and technical assistance grants.
Sec. 204. Report.

TITLE III--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) food insecurity and hunger are growing problems in the
United States;
(2) in 2003, more than 36,000,000 people, 13,000,000 of
whom were children, lived in households that were food
insecure, representing an increase of 5,200,000 people in
just 4 years;
(3) over 9,600,000 people lived in households in which at
least 1 person experienced hunger;
(4)(A) at the 1996 World Food Summit, the United States,
along with 185 other countries, pledged to reduce the number
of undernourished people by half by 2015;
(B) as a result of this pledge, the Department of Health
and Human Services adopted the Healthy People 2010 goal to
cut food insecurity in half by 2010, and in doing so reduce
hunger;
(5)(A) the Healthy People 2010 goal measures progress that
has been made since the 1996 World Food Summit and urges the
Federal Government to reduce food insecurity from the 1995
level of 12 percent to 6 percent;
(B) in 1999, food insecurity decreased to 10.1 percent, and
hunger decreased to 3 percent, but no progress has been made
since 1999;
(C) in 2003, food insecurity increased to 11.2 percent and
hunger increased to 3.5 percent, so that the United States
needs to reduce food insecurity by approximately 5 percentage
points in the next 5 years in order to reach the Healthy
People 2010 goal;
(6) anti-hunger organizations in the United States have
encouraged Congress to achieve the commitment of the United
States to decrease food insecurity and hunger in half by 2010
and eliminating food insecurity and hunger by 2015;
(7) anti-hunger organizations in the United States have
identified strategies to cut food insecurity and hunger in
half by 2010 and to eliminate food insecurity and hunger by
2015;
(8)(A) national nutrition programs are among the fastest,
most direct ways to efficiently and effectively prevent
hunger, reduce food insecurity, and improve nutrition among
the populations targeted by a program;
(B) the programs are responsible for the absence of
widespread hunger and malnutrition among the poorest people,
especially children, in the United States;
(9)(A) although national nutrition programs are essential
in the fight against hunger, the programs fail to reach all
of the people eligible and entitled to their services;
(B) according to the Department of Agriculture, only
approximately 56 percent of food-insecure households receive
assistance from at least 1 of the 3 largest national
nutrition programs, the food stamp program, the special
supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
children (WIC), and the school lunch program;
(C) the food stamp program reaches only about 54 percent of
the households that are eligible for benefits; and
(D) free and reduced price school breakfasts are served to
about \1/2\ of the low-income children who get free or
reduced price lunches, and during the summer months, less
than 20 percent of the children who receive free and reduced
price school lunches are served meals;
(10) in 2001, food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and
emergency shelters helped to feed more than 23,000,000 low-
income people;
(11) community-based organizations and charities can help--
(A) play an important role in preventing and reducing
hunger;
(B) measure community food security;
(C) develop and implement plans for improving food
security;
(D) educate community leaders about the problems of and
solutions to hunger;
(E) ensure that local nutrition programs are implemented
effectively; and
(F) improve the connection of food insecure people to anti-
hunger programs;
(12) according to the Department of Agriculture, in 2003,
hunger was 8 times as prevalent, and food insecurity was
nearly 6 times as prevalent, in households with incomes below
185 percent of the poverty line as in households with incomes
at or above 185 percent of the poverty line; and

[[Page S5930]]

(13) in order to achieve the goal of reducing food
insecurity and hunger by \1/2\ by 2010, the United States
needs to--
(A) ensure improved employment and income opportunities,
especially for less-skilled workers and single mothers with
children; and
(B) reduce the strain that rising housing and health care
costs place on families with limited or stagnant incomes.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Domestic hunger goal.--The term ``domestic hunger
goal'' means--
(A) the goal of reducing hunger in the United States to at
or below 2 percent by 2010; or
(B) the goal of reducing food insecurity in the United
States to at or below 6 percent by 2010.
(2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term ``emergency
feeding organization'' has the meaning given the term in
section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7
U.S.C. 7501).
(3) Food security.--The term ``food security'' means the
state in which an individual has access to enough food for an
active, healthy life.
(4) Hunger-free communities goal.--The term ``hunger-free
communities goal'' means any of the 14 goals described in the
H. Con. Res. 302 (102nd Congress).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

TITLE I--NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO END HUNGER

SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress is committed to--
(A) achieving domestic hunger goals;
(B) achieving hunger-free communities goals; and
(C) ending hunger by 2015;
(2) Federal food and nutrition programs should receive
adequate funding to meet the requirements of the programs;
and
(3) the entitlement nature of the child and adult care food
program, the food stamp program established by section 4 of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2013), the school
breakfast and lunch programs, and the summer food service
program should be preserved.

SEC. 102. DATA COLLECTION.

(a) In General.--The American Communities Survey, acting
under the authority of the Census Bureau pursuant to section
141 of title 13, United States Code, shall collect and submit
to the Secretary information relating to food security.
(b) Compilation.--Not later than October 31 of each year,
the Secretary shall compile the information submitted under
subsection (a) to produce data on food security at the
Federal, State, and local levels.

SEC. 103. ANNUAL HUNGER REPORT.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study, and
annual updates of the study, of major matters relating to the
problem of hunger in the United States, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Matters to be assessed.--The matters to be assessed by
the Secretary shall include--
(A) the information compiled under section 102(b);
(B) measures carried out during the previous year by
Federal, State, and local governments to achieve domestic
hunger goals and hunger-free communities goals; and
(C) measures that could be carried out by Federal, State,
and local governments to achieve domestic hunger goals and
hunger-free communities goals.
(b) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop
recommendations on--
(1) removing obstacles to achieving domestic hunger goals
and hunger-free communities goals; and
(2) otherwise reducing domestic hunger.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the President and Congress a report that
contains--
(1) a detailed statement of the results of the study, or
the most recent update to the study, conducted under
subsection (a); and
(2) the most recent recommendations of the Secretary under
subsection (b).

TITLE II--STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY EFFORTS

SEC. 201. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES COLLABORATIVE GRANTS.

(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a public food program service
provider or a nonprofit organization, including but not
limited to an emergency feeding organization, that
demonstrates the organization has collaborated, or will
collaborate, with 1 or more local partner organizations to
achieve at least 1 hunger-free communities goal.
(b) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 50
percent of any funds made available under title III to make
grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the
costs of an activity described in subsection (d).
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed
80 percent.
(3) Non-federal share.--
(A) Calculation.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an
activity under this section may be provided in cash or in
kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, or
services.
(B) Sources.--Any entity may provide the non-Federal share
of the cost of an activity under this section through a State
government, a local government, or a private source.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an
eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary
at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any
information the Secretary may require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) identify any activity described in subsection (d) that
the grant will be used to fund;
(B) describe the means by which an activity identified
under subparagraph (A) will reduce hunger in the community of
the eligible entity;
(C) list any partner organizations of the eligible entity
that will participate in an activity funded by the grant;
(D) describe any agreement between a partner organization
and the eligible entity necessary to carry out an activity
funded by the grant; and
(E) if an assessment described in subsection (d)(1) has
been performed, include--
(i) a summary of that assessment; and
(ii) information regarding the means by which the grant
will help reduce hunger in the community of the eligible
entity.
(3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
(A) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity
that the eligible entity makes collaborative efforts to
reduce hunger in the community of the eligible entity; and
(B)(i) serve a predominantly rural and geographically
underserved area;
(ii) serve communities in which the rates of food
insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are demonstrably
higher than national average rates;
(iii) provide evidence of long-term efforts to reduce
hunger in the community;
(iv) provide evidence of public support for the efforts of
the eligible entity; or
(v) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity a
commitment to achieving more than 1 hunger-free communities
goal.
(d) Use of Funds.--
(1) Assessment of hunger in the community.--
(A) In general.--An eligible entity in a community that has
not performed an assessment described in subparagraph (B) may
use a grant received under this section to perform the
assessment for the community.
(B) Assessment.--The assessment referred to in subparagraph
(A) shall include--
(i) an analysis of the problem of hunger in the community
served by the eligible entity;
(ii) an evaluation of any facility and any equipment used
to achieve a hunger-free communities goal in the community;
(iii) an analysis of the effectiveness and extent of
service of existing nutrition programs and emergency feeding
organizations; and
(iv) a plan to achieve any other hunger-free communities
goal in the community.
(2) Activities.--An eligible entity in a community that has
submitted an assessment to the Secretary shall use a grant
received under this section for any fiscal year for
activities of the eligible entity, including--
(A) meeting the immediate needs of people in the community
served by the eligible entity who experience hunger by--
(i) distributing food;
(ii) providing community outreach; or
(iii) improving access to food as part of a comprehensive
service;
(B) developing new resources and strategies to help reduce
hunger in the community;
(C) establishing a program to achieve a hunger-free
communities goal in the community, including--
(i) a program to prevent, monitor, and treat children in
the community experiencing hunger or poor nutrition; or
(ii) a program to provide information to people in the
community on hunger, domestic hunger goals, and hunger-free
communities goals; and
(D) establishing a program to provide food and nutrition
services as part of a coordinated community-based
comprehensive service.

SEC. 202. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS.

(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means an emergency feeding
organization (as defined in section 201A(4) of the Emergency
Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501(4))).
(b) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 40
percent of any funds made available under title III to make
grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the
costs of an activity described in subsection (d).
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed
80 percent.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an
eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary
at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any
information the Secretary may require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall--

[[Page S5931]]

(A) identify any activity described in subsection (d) that
the grant will be used to fund; and
(B) describe the means by which an activity identified
under subparagraph (A) will reduce hunger in the community of
the eligible entity.
(3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the
applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
(A) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and
geographically underserved area.
(B) The eligible entity serves a community in which the
rates of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment
are demonstrably higher than national average rates.
(C) The eligible entity serves a community that has carried
out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the community.
(D) The eligible entity serves a community that provides
public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
(E) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than
1 hunger-free communities goal.
(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section for any fiscal year to carry out
activities of the eligible entity, including--
(1) constructing, expanding, or repairing a facility or
equipment to support hunger relief agencies in the community;
(2) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the
community in obtaining locally-produced produce and protein
products; and
(3) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the
community to process and serve wild game.

SEC. 203. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES TRAINING AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a national or regional
nonprofit organization that carries out an activity described
in subsection (d).
(b) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 10
percent of any funds made available under title III to make
grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the
costs of an activity described in subsection (d).
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed
80 percent.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an
eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary
at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any
information the Secretary may require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) demonstrate that the eligible entity does not operate
for profit;
(B) describe any national or regional training program
carried out by the eligible entity, including a description
of each region served by the eligible entity;
(C) describe any national or regional technical assistance
provided by the eligible entity, including a description of
each region served by the eligible entity; and
(D) describe the means by which each organization served by
the eligible entity--
(i) works to achieve a domestic hunger goal;
(ii) works to achieve a hunger-free communities goal; or
(iii) used a grant received by the organization under
section 201 or 202.
(3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the
applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
(A) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and
geographically underserved area.
(B) The eligible entity serves a region in which the rates
of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are
demonstrably higher than national average rates.
(C) The eligible entity serves a region that has carried
out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the region.
(D) The eligible entity serves a region that provides
public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
(E) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than
1 hunger-free communities goal.
(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section for any fiscal year to carry out
national or regional training and technical assistance for
organizations that--
(1) work to achieve a domestic hunger goal;
(2) work to achieve a hunger-free communities goal; or
(3) receive a grant under section 201 or 202.

SEC. 204. REPORT.

Not later than September 30, 2011, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) each grant made under this title, including--
(A) a description of any activity funded by such a grant;
and
(B) the degree of success of each activity funded by such a
grant in achieving hunger-free communities goals; and
(2) the degree of success of all activities funded by
grants under this title in achieving domestic hunger goals.

TITLE III--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out title
II $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, while serving as a Congressmen from
Texas in the 1980s, Mickey Leland said, ``I cannot get used to hunger
and desperate poverty in our plentiful land. There is no reason for it,
there is no excuse for it, and it is time that we as a nation put an
end to it.''
Over 15 years have passed since Mr. Leland delivered those powerful
remarks, and we have yet to achieve his goal of ending hunger in
America. In many respects, we have only slipped backwards. According to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 36.3 million Americans, including
13.3 million children, experienced hunger or food insecurity in 2003.
These figures, startling on their own, have been increasing steadily
since 1999. We need to reverse this trend.
Mr. President, I rise today to pledge my commitment to this cause.
Today, I am pleased to join Senators Durbin, Smith, and Lugar in
introducing the Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005. This bill
establishes a goal of ending hunger in America by 2015. The bill also
supports preserving the entitlement framework of the federal food
programs. Our federal food programs are vitally important to the
millions of working Americans that are trying to make ends meet and the
millions of children who need access to nutritious food.
In addition, this bill commits our fullest efforts to protecting the
discretionary food program from budget cuts that would prevent these
programs from addressing identified need. Lastly, the bill provides
needed resources to non-profit organizations that fight to reduce
hunger every day. The grant programs this bill establishes will promote
new partnerships and help build the infrastructure we believe is
necessary to root out hunger in every corner of our nation.
Almost a year ago, I joined Senators Smith, Durbin and Dole in
founding the bipartisan Senate Hunger Caucus to address the growing
problem of hunger in America and around the world. The Senate Hunger
Caucus currently has 34 members and we are working together to raise
awareness about these issues and help create solutions to the hunger
problem.
While there are many difficult problems we work to solve in Congress,
hunger is a problem that has a solution. This bill is an example of our
bipartisan effort to develop solutions to the hunger problem in
America. I am proud to work with my colleagues to support ending hunger
for the millions of Americans who find themselves without access to one
of the most basic needs--nutritious food.
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 1122. A bill to authorize and direct the exchange and conveyance
of certain National Forest land and other land in southeast Arizona; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator
McCain to introduce the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and
Conservation Act of 2005. This bill, which facilitates an important
land exchange in Arizona, is the product of months of discussion
between the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
State and local officials, community groups, recreational and
conservation groups, and other stakeholders. It will allow for the
protection of some of the most environmentally sensitive lands in
Arizona while providing a much needed economic engine for the people of
Superior, AZ and the surrounding communities. An identical companion
bill is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by
Representative Renzi.
The exchange conveys approximately 3,025 acres of land controlled by
the Forest Service to Resolution Copper Company. The acreage to be
traded to Resolution Copper will facilitate future exploration, and
possible development, of what may be one of the largest deposits of
copper ore ever discovered in North America. The 3,025 acres are
intermingled with, or lie next to, private lands already owned by
Resolution Copper, and are located south and

[[Page S5932]]

east of Resolution's existing underground Magma copper mine.
Approximately 75 percent of the 3,025 acre Federal parcel is already
blanketed by federally authorized mining claims owned by Resolution
Copper that give Resolution the right to explore and develop mineral
deposits on it. Given the intermingled ownership, the public safety
issues that may be associated with mining activities, and the
significant financial investment Resolution Copper must make to even
determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes sense,
for Resolution Copper to own the entire mining area.
However, we also recognize that there is public resource value
associated with the Federal land that would come into private ownership
and, to the extent we can, we should protect and or replace these
resources. The Apache Leap Escarpment, a spectacular cliff area
comprising approximately 562 acres on the western side of the federal
parcel, is an area deserving of protection. To protect the surface of
this area from mining and development, the bill requires that a
permanent conservation easement be placed on this area. In addition,
the bill sets up a process to determine whether additional or enhanced
public access should be provided to Apache Leap and, if so, provides
that Resolution Copper will pay up to $250,000 to provide such access.
The bill also requires replacement sites for the Oak Flat Campground
and the climbing area that are located on the Federal parcel that will
be traded to Resolution Copper. The process to locate replacement sites
is already under way, and I am told it is going well. Access to these
public areas will not immediately terminate on enactment of this
legislation: The bill allows continued public use of the Oak Flat
Campground for two years after the enactment and it allows for
continued rock climbing use for two years after, and use of the land
for the annual ``Boulder Blast'' rock climbing competition for five
years after enactment. Replacement sites will be designed and developed
largely with funding provided by Resolution Copper.
I am also working with Resolution Copper and community groups to
determine whether there may be additional climbing areas within the
Federal parcel that could continue to be accessible to the public
without compromising public safety or the mining operation. I have
included a placeholder in the bill for such additional climbing
provisions if agreed to.
In return for conveying the Federal land parcel to Resolution Copper,
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive six
parcels of private land, totaling 4,814 acres. These parcels have been
identified, and are strongly endorsed for public acquisition, by the
Forest Service, BLM, Arizona Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy,
Sonoran Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and numerous
others.
The largest of the six parcels is the Seven B Ranch located near
Mammoth. It runs for 6.8 miles along both sides of the lower San Pedro
River--one of the few remaining undammed rivers in the southwestern
United States. The parcel also has: one of the largest, and possibly
oldest, mesquite bosques in Arizona; a high volume spring that flows
year round; and potential recovery habitat for several endangered
species, including the southwestern willow flycatcher. It lies on an
internationally recognized migratory bird flyway, with roughly half the
number of known breeding bird species in North America passing through
the corridor. Public acquisition of this parcel will greatly enhance
efforts by Federal and State agencies to preserve for future
generations the San Pedro River and its wildlife and bird habitat.
A second major parcel is the Appleton Ranch, consisting of 10 private
inholdings intermingled with the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch,
adjacent to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area southeast of
Tucson. This acquisition will facilitate and protect the study of
southwestern grassland ecology and unique aquatic wildlife and habitat.
Finally, the Forest Service will acquire four inholdings in the Tonto
National Forest that possess valuable riparian and wetland habitat,
water resources, historic and cultural resources, and habitat for
numerous plant, wildlife and bird species, including the endangered
Arizona hedgehog cactus.
Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between
Resolution Copper and the United States, it also includes provisions
allowing for the conveyance of Federal lands to the Town of Superior,
if it so requests. These lands include the town cemetery, lands around
the town airport, and a Federal reversionary interest that exists at
its airport site. These lands are included in the proposed exchange to
assist the town in providing for its municipal needs and expanding its
economic development.
Though I have described the many benefits of this exchange, you may
be asking why we are legislating this land exchange. Why not use the
existing administrative land exchange process? The answer is that this
exchange can only be accomplished legislatively because the Forest
Service does not have the authority to convey away federal lands in
order to acquire other lands outside the boundaries of the National
Forest System, no matter how ecologically valuable.
Of primary importance to me is that the exchange have procedural
safeguards and conditions that ensure it is an equal value exchange
that is in the public interest.
I will highlight some of the safeguards in this legislation: First,
it requires that all appraisals of the lands must follow standard
Federal practice and be performed in accordance with appraisal
standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals
must also be formally reviewed, and approved, by the Secretary of
Agriculture. Second, to ensure the Federal Government gets full value
for the Federal parcel it is giving up, the Federal parcel will be
appraised to include the minerals and appraised as if unencumbered by
the private mining claims that detract from the fair market value of
the land. These are important provisions not required by Federal law.
They are especially significant given that over 75 percent of the
Federal parcel is covered by mining claims owned by Resolution Copper
and the bulk of the value of the Federal parcel is expected to be the
minerals. Third, it requires that the Apache Leap conservation easement
not be considered in determining the fair market value of the Federal
land parcel. I believe by following standard appraisal practices and
including these additional safeguards in the valuation process, the
United States, and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full fair
market value for both the land and the minerals it contains.
In summary, with this land exchange we can preserve lands that
advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat,
cultural resources, the watershed, and aesthetic values, while
generating economic and employment opportunities for State and local
residents. I hope we approve the legislation at the earliest possible
date. It is a winning scenario for our environment, our economy, and
our posterity.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 1125. A bill to reform liability for certain charitable
contributions and services; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the Expanding
Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act of 2005. I am proud of the
charitable work that is continuously done throughout this country.
However, individual charitable giving rates among Americans have
stagnated over the past fifty years. As legislators, we must provide
incentives for charitable giving and opportunities for low-income
families to build individual assets, and support faith-based and
secular organizations as they provide charitable social services. We
must also eliminate unnecessary road blocks that might keep businesses
and individuals from donating to the needy. I remain committed to
promoting increased opportunities for the less fortunate to obtain help
through faith-based and community organizations. There are people all
around the country waiting to give more to charity--they just need a
little push.
The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer Opportunities Act provides
such a push. This legislation builds on the Volunteer Protection Act of
1997 that immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit
organizations

[[Page S5933]]

or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the
course of their volunteer work. My bill prevents a business from being
subject to civil liability when a piece of equipment has been loaned by
a business entity to a nonprofit organization unless the business has
engaged in gross negligence or intentional conduct. This provision
passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of
H.R. 7, and I am hopeful we can do the same here in the Senate in the
109th.
This bill also builds on the success of the Good Samaritan Food
Donation Act by providing similar liability protections for volunteer
firefighter companies. The basic purpose of this provision is to induce
donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of
civil liability for organizations (most commonly heavy industry) and
individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil
liability barriers to donations of surplus fire fighting equipment by
raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to
``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer
dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers'
burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire
departments.
The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is
modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and
signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in
more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies
and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be
as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment
to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and
passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The
donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can
be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South
Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the state
level.
Finally, my legislation provides commonsense medical liability
protections to physicians who volunteer their time to assist patients
at community health centers. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer
Opportunities Act would extend the medical liability protections of the
Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA) to volunteer physicians at community
health centers. These protections are necessary to ensure that the
centers can continue to lay an important role in lowering our Nation's
health care costs and meeting the needs for affordable and accessible
quality healthcare.
Community health centers offer an affordable source of quality health
care, but we need more of them. The President has proposed a $304
million increase for community health center programs to create 1,200
new or expanded sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by next
year. In order to meet that goal, the centers must double their
workforce by adding double the clinicians by 2006. Hiring this many
doctors would be costly, but encouraging more to volunteer would help
to meet this need. While many physicians are willing to volunteer their
services at these centers, they often hesitate due to the high cost of
medical liability insurance. As a result, there are too few volunteer
physicians to meet our health care needs. Expanding FTCA protection to
these physicians cannot come at a more opportune time.
The spirit of giving is part of what makes America great. But more
can be done to assist the needy. The Expanding Charitable and Volunteer
Opportunities Act provides added incentives to those who wish to donate
equipment or time. I encourage my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______

By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1126. A bill to provide that no federal funds may be expended for
the payment or reimbursement of a drug that is prescribed to a sex
offender for the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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. 1126

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

SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DRUGS PRESCRIBED TO SEX
OFFENDERS FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OR
ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION.

(a) Restriction.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal funds may be expended for the payment or
reimbursement, including payment or reimbursement under the
programs described in paragraph (2), of a drug that is
prescribed to an individual described in paragraph (3) for
the treatment of sexual or erectile dysfunction.
(2) Programs described.--The programs described in this
paragraph are the medicaid program, the medicare program, the
Federal employees health benefits program, the Defense Health
Program, the program of medical care furnished by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, health related programs
administered by the Indian Health Service, health related
programs funded under the Public Health Service Act, and any
other Federal health program.
(3) Individual described.--An individual described in this
paragraph is an individual who has a conviction for sexual
abuse, sexual assault, or any other sexual offense.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to drugs
dispensed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Thune, Ms. Collins, Mr. Sununu,
Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bingaman, and
Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1127. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress all documentation related to the Secretary's recommendations
for the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment; read the
first time.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed
to ensure the Department of Defense releases both to the Congress and
to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission all of the information
used in generating its recommendations in the current BRAC round.
First, I want to thank the bill's sponsors for their support in this
effort--Senators Thune, Collins, Sununu, Murkowski, Domenici,
Lieberman, Dodd, Gregg, Lott, Johnson, Corzine, and Bingaman. I
appreciate their recognition of the critical importance of ensuring we
are given the information it is only right we have with regard to this
base closure process.
Under the current Base Closing and Realignment statute, the Secretary
of Defense shall make:

all information used by the Secretary to prepare the
recommendations under this subsection available to Congress,
including any committee or member of Congress.

The Secretary owes this same obligation to the BRAC Commission and to
the Comptroller General of the United States.
Moreover, the Secretary of Defense is required to produce the data
justifying their base closing decisions within 7 days--7 days. The 2005
BRAC list was released on Friday, May 13. Here we are, nearly two weeks
later, and the Department of Defense continues to flout a key
requirement of the very BRAC statute that gives it base closure
authority in the first place. This amounts to a blatant refusal by the
Pentagon to back up its highly questionable decisions to close a number
of military facilities that are absolutely irreplaceable and
indispensable to our national security.
Closing bases--or effectively shuttering them through massive
realignment--of the magnitude that we are dealing with could only have
been made by ignoring or misapplying BRAC criteria. The Defense
Department's subsequent refusal to release the very data on which such
decisions were made effectively shrouds the entire process in secrecy,
depriving the bases and communities impacted, as well as the BRAC
Commission, from gaining access to the very data needed to review the
Pentagon's decisions.
What type of data am I talking about? To us a few examples from my
own office's experience, the Department of the Navy has yet to release
a detailed breakdown of cost of closure assessments, including factors
applied by the COBRA model if they did not do actual cost estimates. We
have yet to see all of the options considered by the Chief of Naval
Operations or the Vice Chief of Naval Operations to reduce excess
capacity in shipyards, including

[[Page S5934]]

closure, realignment, workload shifts and private sector capacity. We
have still not received a detailed breakdown of cost of operations
assessment, including shipyard and base costs.
These are just a few specific examples of what has not been provided.
Other general categories would include data on the economic impact on
existing communities, the degree to which the Defense Department looked
into the ability of Maine's bases to accommodate future mission
capabilities, and the impact of costs related to potential
environmental restoration, waste management, environmental compliance
restoration, readiness, future mission requirements. There are a number
of such issues that are included in the base closing statute that
requires the Defense Department to consider in making its evaluation
and making, as well, its original determination, in terms of which
bases they would recommend for closure or realignment.

The Defense Department's stall tactics are most acutely felt by those
currently preparing to make presentations before realignment or closure
of their specific bases. Here we are, on May 25, almost 2 weeks after
the release of the base-closing list, and yet this critical data is
still being sequestered behind Pentagon walls, and the communities
affected by these closures are now forced to fly blind as they make
their cases before the base-closing commission.
How hamstrung are these advocates, including many of my colleagues in
the Senate and in the House of Representatives? Allow me to elaborate.
The first base-closing hearings are expected to take place in Salt
Lake City on June 7, less than 2 weeks from now. How are the advocates
for Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho or Defense Finance and
Accounting Service stations in Kansas City and St. Louis supposed to
prepare for a case, for a hearing in less than 2 weeks with this
critical data being withheld?
The scheduled base-closing hearings to follow are no less forgiving.
In fact, between June 15 and June 30, base-closing commission hearings
will be held in the following cities: Fairbanks, AK; Portland, OR;
Rapid City, SD; Dallas, TX; Grand Forks, ND; Clovis, NM; Buffalo, NY;
Charlotte, NC; and Atlanta, GA.
In my case, in the State of Maine, in Portsmouth, NH, for Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, for Brunswick Air Force station, for the Defense
Accounting Service in Limestone, ME, those will be scheduled on July 6
in Boston.
We are all working feverishly, as many of my colleagues are, along
with State governments and all officials, to get our presentations for
these most vital and critical hearings in order. Yet given the current
blackout of backup data, that task is akin to defending one's self in a
criminal case without the prosecutor putting forth the supposedly
incriminating evidence.
This Department of Defense has taken foot dragging and obfuscation to
new state-of-the-art levels. The bill I am introducing today will make
clear that this delinquency will result in serious consequences.
So the legislation I am introducing is very straightforward and to
the point. First, it states that the Department of Defense has 7 days
from the date of the enactment of this law in which to release all of
its supporting data for its realignment and closure decisions. Second,
if this 7-day deadline is not met, the entire base-closing process of
2005 is canceled. Third, even if this deadline is met, all the base-
closing statutory deadlines are pushed back by the number of days that
the Defense Department delayed in producing this data.
This legislation is the full embodiment of fairness and due process.
It ensures that those bases in communities attempting to prevent
closures or realignment have access to the same facts the Pentagon did,
and that failure to provide that information will carry appropriate
consequences. And it is our last chance to reverse the egregious
decisions made in the closing and realignment process.
The integrity of the base-closing process and of the decisions that
are made on individual facilities depends on the accuracy of the data
used and on the validity of the calculations and comparisons made using
this data. Congress and the base-closing commission simply cannot
discharge their responsibilities under the base-closing statute without
this most vital information.
It would be bad enough if it were only the Congress and the
Commission that were being hindered in carrying out our collective
duties with regard to the base-closing process. But it is the
communities where these bases are located that are suffering the
greatest harm through their inability to find out what the basis of the
Department's decision to close these installations was.
These towns and cities that have supported these bases for decades--
or in some cases, like Kittery, ME, and Portsmouth, NH; Brunswick Air
Station in Limestone, ME, for centuries--are being harmed through DOD's
continued delay in making this data available. The community groups are
handicapped in their efforts to understand the Department's base-
closing analysis, assumptions, and conclusions therefore in their
efforts to provide accurate rebuttal arguments or information to the
Commission that the Department of Defense may not have considered.
So the communities not only have suffered the shock of potentially
losing what is in most cases the single most important economic engine
in their communities, but to add insult to injury, have not been given
the full picture of why these installations they rely upon and that
relied upon them was among those chosen to close. That cannot be
allowed to stand.
Indeed, I am certain DOD will realize it cannot continue to withhold
this information and will ultimately get to the bottom of this. We will
then be able to see the weaknesses in the Navy's arguments with respect
to the facilities in Maine. We will see that the facts indisputably
prove there is no way to reasonably conclude this Nation should forfeit
the long and distinguished history embodied in these facilities in a
critical report like Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or Brunswick
Naval Air Station that are unequal in their performance.
We will also make sure the base-closing commission has the
information with respect to the role that the Defense Accounting
Services has played in Limestone, ME, the very anchor for the
conversion of the former Loring Air Force Base closed in one of the
last rounds of 1991 that certainly devastated that area and the State
of Maine when we lost more than 10,000 that led to the outmigration of
more than 20,000 in our northern county. It really was devastating to
also learn that the Department of Defense decided to select Defense
Accounting Services not only in Limestone but across this country. It
was the very anchor for conversion to help mitigate the loss of this
most crucial base up in northern Maine.
We will see that the facts undisputedly prove that the Navy ignored
aspects of the base-closing criteria that I happen to believe can only
lead to a finding that Brunswick Naval Air Station, as the only
remaining fully operational airfield in the Northeastern United States,
plays a singular, critical role in this Nation's homeland security and
homeland defense posture and must continue to do so in the future. It
really was inconceivable to me that the Department of Defense would
also recommend closing Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the finest
shipyard of its kind in the U.S. Navy.

In fact, the day before the base-closing list was announced on May
13, the Secretary of the Navy issued a Meritorious Unit Commendation to
Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for, in its words, ``superbly and
consistently performing its missions,'' establishing benchmarks above
and beyond both the public and private sector, having established, in
their words, again, ``a phenomenal track record'' when it came to cost
and quality and schedule and safety.
In fact, it had just been awarded the top safety award--the only
facility in the Department of Defense and the only facility in the
Navy, and only the second in the Department of Defense. That is a
remarkable track record.
It also saves money for the taxpayers, and it saves time and money
for the Navy. In fact, when it comes to refuelings at Kittery-
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, it saves $75 million on average compared to
the other yards that do the same work. It saves $20 million when it
comes to overhauls

[[Page S5935]]

compared to the other yards that do the same work. It saves 6 months in
time in sending the ships back to sea sooner on refuelings compared to
the other yards that do the same work. And it saves 3 months in time on
overhauls compared to other yards that do the same work.
So one would argue, and certainly would ask the question, as I did of
the Secretary of the Navy, what message does that send to the men and
women of that shipyard when they are the overachievers, doing the best
work and told they are No. 1 of its kind in its category, and we are
saying, well, we are going to transfer that work elsewhere, to those
who have not performed the equivalent result when it comes to time and
money.
They are No. 1. But we are sending a message to those who are the
best, we tell them the next day, well, you know what. You are doing
such a great job that we have decided to close.
When it comes to Brunswick Naval Air Station, it is the only
remaining active military airfield in the Northeast. The Northeast is
home to 18 percent of America's population. It was, obviously, the
region that received the most devastating attack on American soil on
September 11.
And now we hear from the Defense Department that we want to realign
this base--essentially, it is tantamount to closure--when it is a
state-of-the-art facility, well positioned strategically, with
unincumbered airspace of 63,000 miles--space of which to expand many
times over--well positioned on our coastline for conducting
surveillance in the North Atlantic sealane so important to extending
the maritime domain awareness of the Coast Guard when it comes to one
of the greatest threats facing America; that is, the shipments of
weapons of mass destruction. So it raises a number of questions as to
why these facilities were designated by the Department of Defense for
closure.
What is even more disturbing is that in order to make the case before
the base-closing commission, in an extremely limited period of time
compared to the four previous base-closing rounds--which I am
intimately familiar with, having been part of them in the past; we had
6 months--in this base-closing round, we have 4 months. It is on an
expedited timeframe; therefore, it makes it even more difficult, more
problematic, to make your case, when every day is going to count, and
the Department of Defense is withholding all of the information upon
which we have to make our case.
We are required by law to have that information because in order to
make your case, you have to prove that the Department of Defense
deviated substantially--deviated substantially--from the criteria in
the base-closing statute when it comes to military value, operational
readiness, the closing costs, the costs of operations of that
particular facility, the economic impacts, so on and so on.
Now, it certainly is a mystery to me as to how the Defense Department
could have made all these decisions--33 major base closings and another
29 realignments and many more for adjustments--and yet they cannot
ensure that the information and the data they utilized is forthcoming.
Well, then, it just raises the question, How did they make these
decisions in the first place? Why have they not readily turned over the
information that we require in order to make our case?
For the Commission to overturn a decision recommendation by the
Department of Defense, it requires us to make a case that they deviated
substantially from the criteria set forth in the base-closing statute.
So it is obvious we need the information because not to have the
information they used inhibits us and prohibits us from making the
documentations that are required under the law.
I think it is a fundamental flouting of the law. We have insisted,
day in and day out, we need this information. We deserve to have this
information. The men and women who work at these military facilities
who serve our country deserve to have this information. It is important
to our national security interests because we need to know the
information upon which this Defense Department predicated its
assumptions. And it is not enough just to get their conclusions, it is
not enough just to get their assumptions, we need all of the empirical
data that was used to make those assumptions and conclusions. How did
they arrive at those decisions?
For example, when you look at the force structure of submarines, the
new attack submarines, on which the Portsmouth Naval Yard works, those
decisions have to be predicated on 55 attack submarines, 55. That was
included in the base-closing criteria, 2004. The force structure at
that time was 55 attack submarines--still is--but the Department of
Defense is changing their force structure after they already made the
recommendations. How can they make a recommendation based on 55 attack
submarines but then decide, well, maybe a year later we can reduce that
number? We have already made the decision.
It raises a considerable number of questions about the flawed
information and the flawed process. Yet we have not had an opportunity
to evaluate it. We have lost a critical 2 weeks in this process and,
again, as I said, on a very expedited timeframe in which to make these
decisions, to evaluate the information, and to submit our case before
the base-closing commission in the scheduled hearings over this next
month.
If the Department of Defense does not provide this information in a
timely manner, then this round of base closings is fundamentally flawed
and is designed to close critical military infrastructure at a time
when our Nation faces a changing, unpredictable threat environment,
and, therefore, it should be brought to an end. If they cannot provide
this information in a timely fashion, that is exactly what should
occur.
I believe it does really underscore the integrity and the lack of the
integrity in this process because it certainly stands to reason, and
certainly it is a fair assumption to make, that the Department of
Defense should be able to turn over instantaneously all of the
information they used to make these critical decisions. After all,
they have had a considerable period of time in which to make these
decisions. So, therefore, it should not be very difficult to provide
that information. But we continue to get the consistent stonewalling
and obfuscation that is preventing us from evaluating these decisions
in order to do what is required under the law to demonstrate how these
decisions are faulty and to evaluate the information. We deserve no
less than that.

So I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort to compel the
Department of Defense to stand up and be accountable for this
decisionmaking process and to release the data that we deserve that led
to these decisions with respect to base closings so we understand
exactly how they arrived at their decisions that are so critical and
central to our national security.
I regret we are in this position in the first place. I opposed this
base-closing process. It certainly should have been deferred. We should
have considered the overseas base closings before we looked at domestic
installations. In fact, that certainly was an issue in the overseas
base-closing report that was issued recently. So we do not have an
overall structure in which to consider the macroplans. That is what
should have been done. We should be looking at all these issues in a
totality because we are in a very different environment than we were
even pre-September 11, 2001, and our threat environment has to be
looked through an entirely different prism.
In fact, as I mentioned on the floor just about a year ago, in
attempting to defer this process until we had a chance to evaluate
overseas bases, one of the issues I looked at was the track record of
the Department of Defense in terms of ascertaining the future threat
environments. What could they anticipate were future threats? I have to
say that I was somewhat shocked by the findings because I evaluated the
force structure reports and military threat assessments that were
required to be accompanied with the base-closing rounds in previous
years.
It was interesting. I decided to discern, exactly when did they
anticipate a threat of terrorism, asymmetric threats, or threats to our
homeland security? And it was a startling and abysmal picture because
they had a significantly flawed track record. The first time that a
threat to our homeland security was even mentioned was

[[Page S5936]]

in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997. Mr. President, 1997--that
was 4 years before September 11. At that time, with the previous base-
closing rounds, these base-closing commissions were required to make a
6-year outlook for the potential threats and anticipated threats--6
years. Now, with this base-closing round, it requires 20 years. But
even with 6 years out, they could not even discern a threat to our
homeland security. They mentioned it in the Quadrennial Defense Review
of 1997, but it was a fourth-tier concern. And that was 4 years out
from September 11--4 years out from September 11.
Nineteen days after September 11, we had another quadrennial defense
review issued by the Department of Defense. Al-Qaida wasn't even
mentioned in that quadrennial defense review. It wasn't even mentioned
19 days after September 11.
So I think that gives you a measure of the understanding that the
Department of Defense has not had an accurate or reliable determination
of potential threats this country could face--not even 4 years out, not
even 19 days after September 11--to the degree that al-Qaida was a
threat to this country. That is the problem, Mr. President. We do not
have an accurate picture.
This base-closing round is required to ascertain the threat
environment and projecting 20 years out. Mind you, over the last more
than 10 years, all throughout the nineties, when we had the World Trade
Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya, and Tanzania, all throughout that
decade--and we had the USS Cole in 2000--there was only one time in
that decade there was a mention of homeland security in any fashion. I
think that is pretty telling.
So the fact that the Department of Defense cannot bring forward the
information that validates or invalidates their assumptions and
conclusions is particularly troubling in this threat environment. I
regret we are in the situation today of having to beg, plead, and
persuade to try to get some glimmer into the insights, into the
documentation evaluation they made in reaching these final conclusions.
More than anything else, the statute requires those to be making the
case before the Base Closing Commission to determine how the Department
of Defense deviated substantially from the criteria. How are we to
know, if they don't depend upon the very department who makes the
decision, has the information, and has yet to transmit them forthwith
to all of the respective delegations and officials who are given the
opportunity to make the case before the Base Closing Commission?

____________________