[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?

                          ____________________