[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6156-S6168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DeMINT:
  S. 1173. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure 
the right of employees to a secret-ballot election conducted by the 
National Labor Relations Board; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today I introduce the Secret Ballot 
Protection Act, a measure that would amend the National Labor Relations 
Act, NLRA, to ensure the right of employees to a secret ballot election 
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, when deciding 
whether to be represented by a labor organization.
  The legislation would prohibit a union from being recognized based on 
a ``card check'' campaign. Under a card check system, a union gathers 
authorization cards purportedly signed by workers expressing their 
desire for the union to represent them. By their very nature, card 
checks strip employees of the right to choose freely, safely, and 
anonymously, whether to unionize and leave them open to harassment, 
intimidation, and union pressure.
  The bill also addresses the increasing pressure faced by employers 
from union bosses to recognize unions based on a card check campaign 
and forego the customary secret ballot election supervised by the 
National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, which gives workers the ability 
to vote their conscience without fear of reprisal.
  Under current law, employers may voluntarily recognize unions based 
on these card checks, but are not required to do so. However, threats, 
boycotts, and other forms of public pressure are increasingly being 
used to force employers to recognize unions based on a card-check 
rather than the customary secret ballot election. The need for 
legislation to protect workers' rights could not be more clear.
  It is no secret that hostile campaigns against American businesses to 
discredit employers have become a key organizing tactic used by union 
bosses across the country. These and other pressure tactics are often 
designed to hurt employers, their workers, and the economy, unless the 
demands of union leaders are met. It is wrong that union bosses are 
using these types of tactics at the expense of secret ballot elections, 
depriving rank-and-file workers of the ability to freely vote their 
conscience without fear of retaliation.
  The Secret Ballot Protection Act will preserve the integrity of 
workers' freedom of choice and the right to a secret ballot election; 
it will protect workers from fear, threats, misinformation, and 
coercion by a union or coworkers to sign union authorization cards; and 
it will eliminate a union's ability to coercively terrorize an employer 
into recognition under duress. These fundamental protections can be 
achieved by simply requiring unions to win a majority of worker support 
in an anonymous, secret ballot election which eliminates the shroud of 
union intimidation tactics.
  Supporting the right to a private vote and outlawing the corrupt card 
check practice of allowing union thugs to bully, harass, and scare 
workers who object to union membership is absolutely critical to 
democracy and freedom of choice.
  Secret ballots are an absolutely essential ingredient for any 
functioning democratic system. The lack of secret ballot elections is 
how oppressive regimes manage to stay in power without majority 
support. Repelling such oppression hinges on the ability to walk into a 
voting booth, pull the curtain, and vote for anyone or anything we 
please with confidence the vote will be counted but never revealed to 
anyone who could use the knowledge to retaliate.
  Evidence clearly demonstrates that secret ballot elections are more 
accurate indicators than card checks of whether employees actually wish 
to be recognized by a union. Numerous court decisions echo this fact. 
For example, in the case NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., the court 
said:

       It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method 
     of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a card 
     check, unless it were an employer's request for an open show 
     of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other.

  There is no question that card checks leave employees open to 
harassment, intimidation, and union pressure. Workers' democratic 
rights should be protected, and the Secret Ballot Protection Act will 
make sure that happens by preserving the secret ballot election 
process. This important measure would guarantee workers the right to an 
anonymous, secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB and eliminate 
the use of intimidation and threats by organizers to coerce workers 
into joining a union.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S6157]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1173

       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 ``Secret Ballot Protection Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The right of employees under the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) to choose whether to be 
     represented by a labor organization by way of secret ballot 
     election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is 
     among the most important protections afforded under Federal 
     labor law.
       (2) The right of employees to choose by secret ballot is 
     the only method that ensures a choice free of coercion, 
     intimidation, irregularity, or illegality.
       (3) The recognition of a labor organization by using a 
     private agreement, rather than a secret ballot election 
     overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, threatens the 
     freedom of employees to choose whether to be represented by a 
     labor organization, and severely limits the ability of the 
     National Labor Relations Board to ensure the protection of 
     workers.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

       (a) Recognition of Representative.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(2)) is amended by inserting 
     before the colon the following: ``or to recognize or bargain 
     collectively with a labor organization that has not been 
     selected by a majority of such employees in a secret ballot 
     election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in 
     accordance with section 9''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to collective bargaining relationships in which a 
     labor organization with majority support was lawfully 
     recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Election Required.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(b) of the National Labor 
     Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to recognize 
     or bargain collectively with a representative of a labor 
     organization that has not been selected by a majority of such 
     employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the 
     National Labor Relations Board in accordance with section 
     9.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to collective bargaining relationships that were 
     recognized prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Secret Ballot Election.--Section 9(a) of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Representatives'' and inserting ``(1) 
     Representatives'';
       (2) by inserting after ``designated or selected'' the 
     following: ``by a secret ballot election conducted by the 
     National Labor Relations Board in accordance with this 
     section''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The secret ballot election requirement under 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to collective bargaining 
     relationships that were recognized before the date of the 
     enactment of the Secret Ballot Protection Act of 2005.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the National Labor Relations Board shall review and 
     revise all regulations promulgated prior to such date of 
     enactment to implement the amendments made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1176. A bill to improve the provision of health care and services 
to veterans in Hawaii, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor 
Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is 
home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA 
health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living 
on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the 
Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would 
significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii 
have so bravely earned.
  Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and 
its population continues to grow each year. As such, the number of 
veterans seeking VA health care has grown. However, the level of 
services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed to keep pace. 
Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home to Hawaii from 
the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring and Iraqi 
Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women receive adequate 
care. It is equally critical that today's veterans receive needed long-
term care and mental health care.
  My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the 
burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the 
state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for 
new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that 
desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as 
expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics 
providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be 
opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA 
facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be 
increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed 
community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also 
authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on 
the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an 
inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program.
  That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are 
entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential 
demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that 
the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the 
State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for 
the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing 
home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA 
and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements 
Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu. 
Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central 
Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in 
a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while 
receiving the care they need.
  Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and 
opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that 
VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to 
make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I 
may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date.
  This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they 
may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as 
entitled to quality health care.
  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:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1177. A bill to improve mental health services at all facilities 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce 
legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) 
ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its 
patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we 
ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care, 
whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic.
  At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked 
with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans 
who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required 
unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few 
decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized 
services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these 
areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community--
particularly with regard to mental health care.
  However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's 
specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints. 
Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past

[[Page S6158]]

few years have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not 
a new one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these 
specialized programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because 
of their smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required 
VA to retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels 
in place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually 
report as to the status of its compliance with this requirement.
  Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on 
this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to 
protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut 
back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed 
measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as 
if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has 
been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to 
ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need 
to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense 
of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs.
  This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of 
measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse 
treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout 
the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental 
health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent 
of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or 
through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive 
performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain 
mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for 
mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be 
able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification 
services.
  Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and 
the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and 
subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or 
readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to 
30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill 
would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation 
screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as 
well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of 
combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate 
servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of 
mental health more readily available to DoD providers.
  We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness 
associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in 
the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this 
bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very 
debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are 
at the heart of VA's mission.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1177

       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 ``Veterans Mental Health Care 
     Capacity Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Mental health treatment capacity at community-based 
     outpatient clinics remains inadequate and inconsistent, 
     despite the requirement under section 1706(c) of title 38, 
     United States Code, that every primary care health care 
     facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs develop and 
     carry out a plan to meet the mental health care needs of 
     veterans who require such services.
       (2) In 2001, the minority staff of the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate conducted a survey of 
     community-based outpatient clinics and found that there was 
     no established systemwide baseline of acceptable mental 
     health service levels at such clinics.
       (3) In 2004, the Department of Veterans Affairs workgroup 
     on mental health care, which developed and submitted a 
     Comprehensive Mental Health Strategic Plan to the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs, found service and funding gaps within 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, and 
     made numerous recommendations for improvements. As of May 
     2005, Congress had not received a final report on the 
     workgroup's findings.
       (4) In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office 
     reported that the Department of Veterans Affairs had not 
     fully met any of the 24 clinical care and education 
     recommendations made in 2004 by the Special Committee on 
     Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder of the Under Secretary for 
     Health, Veterans Health Administration.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRED CAPACITY FOR COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT 
                   CLINICS.

       (a) Strengthening of Performance Measures for Mental Health 
     Programs.--Section 1706(b)(6) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The Under Secretary shall include, as goals in the 
     performance contracts entered into with Network Directors to 
     prioritize mental health services--
       ``(i) establishing appropriate staff-patient ratio levels 
     for various programs (including mental health services at 
     community-based outpatient clinics);
       ``(ii) fostering collaborative environments for providers; 
     and
       ``(iii) encouraging clinicians to conduct mental health 
     consultations during primary care visits.''.
       (b) Inflationary Indexing of Capacity Requirements.--
     Section 1706(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) For the purposes of meeting and reporting on the 
     capacity requirements under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that the funding levels allocated for 
     specialized treatment and rehabilitative services for 
     disabled veterans are adjusted for inflation each fiscal 
     year.''.
       (c) Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.--Section 
     1706(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that not less than 90 
     percent of community-based outpatient clinics have the 
     capacity to provide onsite, contract-referral, or tele-mental 
     health services--
       ``(A) for at least 10 percent of all clinic visits by not 
     later than September 30, 2006; and
       ``(B) for at least 15 percent of all clinic visits by not 
     later than September 30, 2007.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that not less than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph--
       ``(A) each primary care health care facility of the 
     Department has the capacity and resources to provide not less 
     than 5 days of inpatient, residential detoxification services 
     onsite or at a nearby contracted or Department facility; and
       ``(B) a case manager is assigned to coordinate follow up 
     outpatient services at each community-based outpatient 
     clinic.''.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than January 31, 
     2008, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a report 
     to Congress that--
       (1) describes the status and availability of mental health 
     services at community-based outpatient clinics;
       (2) describes the substance of services available at such 
     clinics;
       (3) includes the ratios between mental health staff and 
     patients at such clinics; and
       (4) includes the certification of the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 4. COOPERATION ON MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS AND 
                   PREVENTION.

       (a) Agreement.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall enter into a Memorandum of 
     Understanding--
       (1) to ensure that separating servicemembers receive 
     standardized individual mental health and sexual trauma 
     assessments as part of separation exams; and
       (2) includes the development of shared guidelines on how to 
     conduct the assessments.
       (b) Establishment of Joint VA-DOD Workgroup on Mental 
     Health.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a joint 
     workgroup on mental health, which shall be comprised of not 
     less than 7 leaders in the field of mental health appointed 
     from their respective departments.
       (2) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the establishment 
     of the workgroup under paragraph (1), the workgroup shall 
     analyze the feasibility, content, and scope of initiatives 
     related to--
       (A) combating stigmas and prejudices associated with 
     servicemembers who suffer from mental health disorders or 
     readjustment issues, through the use of peer counseling 
     programs or other educational initiatives;
       (B) ways in which the Department of Veterans Affairs can 
     make their expertise in treating mental health disorders more 
     readily available to Department of Defense mental health care 
     providers;
       (C) family and spousal education to assist family members 
     of veterans and servicemembers to recognize and deal with 
     signs of potential readjustment issues or other mental health 
     disorders; and

[[Page S6159]]

       (D) seamless transition of servicemembers who have been 
     diagnosed with mental health disorders from active duty to 
     veteran status (in consultation with the Seamless Transition 
     Task Force and other entities assisting in this effort).
       (3) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2007, the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a 
     report to Congress containing the findings and 
     recommendations of the workgroup established under this 
     subsection.

     SEC. 5. PRIMARY CARE CONSULTATIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH.

       (a) Guidelines.--The Under Secretary for Health, Veterans 
     Health Administration, shall establish systemwide guidelines 
     for screening primary care patients for mental health 
     disorders and illnesses.
       (b) Training.--Based upon the guidelines established under 
     subsection (a), the Under Secretary for Health, Veterans 
     Health Administration, shall conduct appropriate training for 
     clinicians of the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out 
     mental health consultations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 1180. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize 
various programs servicing the needs of homeless veterans for fiscal 
years 2007 through 2011, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
estimates that on any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans are 
homeless. That is 200,000 men and women who have fought for this 
country who will go without the comfort of knowing that they will have 
a roof over their head and a place to call home.
  If 200,000 of our Nation's veterans will go homeless tonight, the VA 
estimates that about twice as many veterans will experience 
homelessness this year. Again, that is 400,000 men and women who 
defended this great Nation, who will be left out on the streets at some 
point this year.
  I hope my colleagues are as distressed as I am by these numbers, and 
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill I introduce 
today--the Shelter All Veterans Everywhere or ``SAVE'' Reauthorization 
Act of 2005.
  This bill reauthorizes many of the soon-to-expire homeless veterans 
programs currently serving this needy population, including the 
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program and the Homeless Veterans 
Reintegration Program. These programs work to provide much-needed 
services to homeless veterans so that they can find jobs and ultimately 
find a stable home. These programs deserve to be continued. The SAVE 
Reauthorization Act actually expands the reach of the Homeless Veterans 
Reintegration Program, which provides job placement and training 
assistance, to include those veterans at risk of homelessness as well 
as those actually homeless, so that we can work to prevent homelessness 
before it happens.
  At a time when so many of my colleagues are working to ensure that 
our Nation's veterans receive the benefits and services they have 
earned and deserve, we cannot forget the neediest of our veterans--the 
homeless veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
these worthy programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Alexander):
  S. 1181. A bill to ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress 
by providing that any future legislation to establish a new exemption 
to section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as 
the Freedom of Information Act) be stated explicitly within the text of 
the bill; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on February 16, shortly before the 
President's Day recess, the Senator from Vermont and I introduced the 
OPEN Government Act of 2005 (S. 394)--bipartisan legislation to promote 
accountability, accessibility, and openness in government, principally 
by strengthening and enhancing the Federal law commonly known as the 
Freedom of Information Act. s
  When I served as Attorney General of Texas, it was my responsibility 
to enforce Texas's open government laws. I am pleased to report that 
Texas is known for having one of the strongest sets of open government 
laws in our Nation. And since that experience, I have long believed 
that our Federal Government could use ``a little Texas sunshine.'' I am 
thus especially enthusiastic about the OPEN Government Act, because 
that legislation attempts to incorporate some of the most important 
principles and elements of Texas law into the Federal Freedom of 
Information Act. And I am gratified that Senators Alexander, Feingold, 
Isakson, and Nelson of Nebraska are cosponsors of the bipartisan 
Cornyn-Leahy bill.
  This legislation enjoys broad support across the ideological 
spectrum. Indeed, since its introduction on February 16, the 
legislation has attracted additional support. In particular, I am 
pleased to report the endorsements of three conservative public 
interest groups--one devoted to the defense of property rights, 
Defenders of Property Rights, led by Nancie G. Marzulla, one devoted to 
the issue of racial preferences in affirmative action programs, One 
Nation Indivisible, led by Linda Chavez, and one devoted to the 
protection of religious liberty, Liberty Legal Institute, led by Kelly 
Shackelford. I ask unanimous consent that their endorsement letters be 
printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. The point of 
including these letters in the Record, of course, is not that these 
groups are right or wrong in the pursuit of their respective causes, 
but that the cause of open government is neither a Republican nor a 
Democrat issue--neither a conservative nor a liberal issue--rather, it 
is an American issue.
  I would like to take a few moments to emphasize one particular 
provision of the Cornyn-Leahy bill--section 8. It is a common sense 
provision. This provision should not be at all controversial, and 
indeed, I am not aware of any opposition whatsoever to it. The 
provision would simply help to ensure an open and deliberate process in 
Congress, by providing that any future legislation to establish a new 
exemption to the Federal Freedom of Information Act must be stated 
explicitly within the text of the bill. Specifically, any future 
attempt to create a new so-called ``(b)(3) exemption'' to the Federal 
FOIA law must specifically cite section (b)(3) of FOIA if it is to take 
effect. The justification for this provision is simple: Congress should 
not establish new secrecy provisions through secret means. If Congress 
is to establish a new exemption to FOIA, it should do so in the open 
and in the light of day.
  A recent news report published by the Cox News Service amply 
demonstrates the importance of this issue, and specifically emphasizes 
the need for section 8 of the Cornyn-Leahy bill. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of this news report be printed at the close of my 
remarks.
  Senator Leahy and I firmly believe that all of the provisions of the 
OPEN Government Act are important--and that, as the recent Cox News 
Service report demonstrates, section 8 in particular is a worthy 
provision that can and should be quickly enacted into law. We note that 
July 4 is the anniversary of the 1966 enactment of the original Federal 
Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, we plan to devote our efforts 
this month to getting section 8 approved by Congress and submitted to 
the President for his signature by that anniversary date.
  Toward that end, we rise today to introduce separate legislation to 
enact section 8 of the OPEN Government Act into law. We ask our 
colleagues in this chamber to support this measure, first in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and then on the floor of the United States Senate. 
And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the House--
including Representative Lamar Smith, the lead sponsor of the OPEN 
Government Act in the House, H.R. 867, as well as Chairman Tom Davis, 
who leads the House Committee on Government Reform, and Chairman Todd 
Platts, who leads the House Government Reform subcommittee that 
recently held a hearing to review the Federal FOIA law.
  Section 8 of the Cornyn-Leahy bill is a common-sense, uncontroversial 
provision that deserves the support of every member of Congress. It 
simply provides that, when Congress enacts legislation--specifically, 
legislation to exempt certain documents from disclosure under FOIA--it 
do so in the open. After all, if documents are to be kept secret by an 
act of Congress, we should at least make sure that that very act of 
Congress itself not be undertaken in secret.

[[Page S6160]]

  A Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the OPEN Government 
Act on March 15. I hope that at least section 8 of the legislation can 
be enacted into law quickly, and that Congress will then move to 
consider the other important provisions of the bill.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 25, 2005.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of the Defenders of Property 
     Rights, I would like to commend you on your introduction of 
     the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National 
     Government Act of 2005 (OPEN Government Act). With this 
     legislation, Americans can have confidence that their 
     government is operating honestly and efficiently.
       This proposed bill would be invaluable in aiding our quest 
     to protect the private property rights of all Americans. The 
     bill is beneficial for property rights plaintiffs--it puts 
     teeth into the requirement that the government timely respond 
     to requests while still protecting private property rights. 
     For instance, under the bill, if an agency does not respond 
     within the required 20 days, the agency may not assert any 
     exemption under subsection (b) of the bill unless disclosure 
     would endanger national security, ``disclose personal private 
     information protected by section 552a or proprietary 
     information,'' or would otherwise be prohibited by law. The 
     bill also provides for better review of agencies' responses 
     to FOIA requests and for disciplinary actions for arbitrary 
     and capricious rejections of requests. If passed, this bill 
     would surely help private property owners obtain faster 
     access to information regarding actions that have taken their 
     property--and provide better enforcement if they do not.
       Your bill has our full and enthusiastic endorsement. We 
     thank you for your steadfast commitment to liberty, open 
     government, and constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
           Yours truly,
                                               Nancie G. Marzulla,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       One Nation Indivisible,

                                                     May 19, 2005.
     Senator John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing to tell you that One 
     Nation Indivisible supports the OPEN Government Act of 2005. 
     Good luck with its passage.
       Sincerely,
     Linda Chavez.
                                  ____



                                      Liberty Legal Institute,

                                                     June 1, 2005.
Re: ``OPEN Government Act'' bill

     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: We are fully on board with your 
     efforts on Freedom of Information Act improvements. The 
     government should be open to its people. This is a core 
     requirement in any free society.
       FOIA currently has little enforcement capability and was 
     also hurt by the wrongly decided Buckhannon decision. 
     Citizens deserve the protection of FOIA and the changes you 
     are proposing.
       Please put us on your endorsement list for the ``OPEN 
     Government Act'' bill. In fact, we strongly believe the 
     Buckhannon error needs to be corrected for all Sec. 1983 
     cases.
       Last, even more abusive recently is the abuse of Rule 68 to 
     threaten and intimidate citizens already victimized once by 
     government officials. The idea that civil rights victims, who 
     win their suit (usually for just nominal damages), may have 
     to pay the government's costs is obscene and a complete 
     violation of Congressional intent. I hope we can fix this as 
     well.
       Thank you for your service to all Texans.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kelly Shackelford,
                           Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute.

  There being no objection, the news report was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the Cox News Service, June 3, 2005]

              Congress Cloaks More Information in Secrecy

                           (By Rebecca Carr)

       Washington.--Few would argue with the need for a national 
     livestock identification system to help the federal 
     government handle a disease outbreak such as mad cow.
       But pending legislation calling for the nation's first 
     electronic livestock tracking system would prohibit the 
     public from finding out anything about animals in the system, 
     including the history of a cow sick with bovine spongiform 
     encephalopathy.
       The only way the public can find out such details is if the 
     secretary of agriculture makes the information public.
       That's because the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Collin C. 
     Peterson, D-Minn., includes a provision that exempts 
     information about the system from being released under the 
     Freedom of Information Act.
       Formally called the ``third exemption,'' it is one of nine 
     exemptions the government can use to deny the release of 
     information requested under the FOI Act.
       Open government advocates say it is the most troubling of 
     the nine exemptions because it allows Congress to cloak vital 
     information in secrecy through legislation, often without a 
     public hearing or debate. They say Congress frequently 
     invokes the exemption to appease private sector businesses, 
     which argue it is necessary to protect proprietary 
     information.
       ``It is an easy way to slap a secrecy stamp on the 
     information,'' said Rick Blum, director of 
     openthegovernment.org, a coalition of more than 30 groups 
     concerned about government secrecy.
       The legislative intent of Congress is far more difficult to 
     challenge than a federal agency's denial for the release of 
     information, said Kevin M. Goldberg, general counsel to the 
     American Society of Newspaper Editors.
       ``This secrecy is often perpetuated in secret as most of 
     the (third exemption) provisions consist of one or two 
     paragraph tucked into a much larger bill with no notice that 
     the Freedom of Information Act will be affected at all,'' 
     Goldberg said.
       There are at least 140 cases where congressional lawmakers 
     have inserted such exemptions, according to a 2003 Justice 
     Department report.
       The report notes that Congress has been ``increasingly 
     active in enacting such statutory provisions.''
       The exemptions have become so popular that finding them in 
     proposed legislation is ``like playing a game of Wackamole,'' 
     one staffer to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., joked. ``As soon as 
     you handle one, another one pops up.''
       Congress used the exemption in its massive Homeland 
     Security Act three years ago, granting businesses protection 
     from information disclosure if they agreed to share 
     information about the vulnerabilities of their facilities.
       And in another twist on the exemption, Congress inserted a 
     provision into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 
     that states that ``no funds appropriated under this or any 
     other act may be used to disclose'' records about firearms 
     tracking to the public.
       Government agencies have also sought protection from 
     information disclosure.
       For example, Congress passed an amendment to the National 
     Security Act in 1984 that exempted the CIA from having to 
     comply with the search and review requirements of the FOI Act 
     for its ``operational files.''
       Most of the information in those files, which included 
     records about foreign and counterintelligence operations was 
     already protected from disclosure under the other exemptions 
     in the FOI Act.
       But before Congress granted the exemption, the agency had 
     to search and review each document to justify withholding the 
     information, which cost time and money.
       Open government advocates say many of the exemptions 
     inserted into legislation are not justified.
       ``This is back door secrecy,'' said Thomas Blanton, 
     executive director of the National Security Archive at George 
     Washington University, a nonprofit research institute based 
     in Washington.
       When an industry wants to keep information secret, it seeks 
     the so-called third exemption, he said.
       ``It all takes place behind the sausage grinder,'' Blanton 
     said. ``You don't know what gristle is going through the 
     sport, you just have to eat it.''
       But Daniel J. Metcalfe, co-director of the Justice 
     Department's Office of Information and Privacy, said the 
     exception is crucial to the FOI Act's structure.
       In the case of the animal identification bill, the 
     exemption is critical to winning support from the cattle 
     industry and on Capitol Hill.
       ``If we are going to develop an animal ID system that's 
     effective and meaningful, we have to respect participants' 
     private information,'' said Peterson, the Minnesota lawmaker 
     who proposed the identification system. ``The goal of a 
     national animal I.D. system is to protect livestock owners as 
     well as the public.''
       As the livestock industry sees it, it is providing 
     information that will help protect the public health. In 
     exchange for proprietary information about their herds, they 
     believe they should receive confidence that their business 
     records will not be shared with the public.
       ``The producers would be reluctant to support the bill 
     without the protection,'' said Bryan Dierlam, executive 
     director of government affairs at the National Cattleman's 
     Beef Association.
       The animal identification on bill provides the government 
     with the information it needs to protect the public in the 
     event of an disease out break, Dierlam said. ``But it would 
     protect the producers from John Q. Public trying to willy-
     nilly access their information.''
       Food safety experts agree there is a clear need for an 
     animal identification system to protect the public, but they 
     are not certain that the exemption to the FOI Act is 
     necessary.
       ``It's sad that Congress feels they have to give away 
     something to the cattle industry to achieve it,'' said 
     Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of the food safety program at 
     the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit 
     organization based in Washington.
       Slipping the exemption into legislation without notice is 
     another problem cited by open government advocates!.
       It has become such a problem that the Senate's strongest 
     FOI Act supporters, Sen.

[[Page S6161]]

     John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., proposed 
     that lawmakers be required to uniformly identify the 
     exemption in all future bills.
       ``If Congress wants to create new exemptions, it must do so 
     in the light of day,'' Cornyn said. ``And it must do so in a 
     way that provides an opportunity to argue for or against the 
     new exemption--rather than have new exemptions creep into the 
     law unnoticed.''
       Leahy agreed, saying that Congress must be diligent in 
     reviewing new exemptions to prevent possible abuses.
       ``In Washington, loopholes tend to beget more loopholes, 
     and it's the same with FOI Act exemptions,'' Leahy said. 
     ``Focusing more sunshine on this process is an antidote to 
     exemption creep.''

  Mr. LEAHY. For the third time this year, Senator Cornyn and I have 
joined to introduce common sense proposals to strengthen open 
government and the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The Senator 
from Texas has a long record of promoting open government, most 
significantly during his tenure as Attorney General of Texas. He and I 
have forged a valuable partnership in this Congress to support and 
strengthen FOIA. We introduced two bills earlier this year, and held a 
hearing on our bill, the Open Government Act, issues during Sunshine 
Week in March.
  The bill we introduce today is simple and straightforward. It simply 
requires that when Congress sees fit to provide a statutory exemption 
to FOIA, it must state its intention to do so explicitly. The language 
of this bill was previously introduced as section eight of S. 394, the 
Open Government Act.
  No one argues with the notion that some government information is 
appropriately kept from public view. FOIA contains a number of 
exemptions for national security, law enforcement, confidential 
business information, personal privacy, and other matters. One 
provision of FOIA, commonly known as the (b)(3) exemption, states that 
records that are specifically exempted by statute may be withheld from 
disclosure. Many bills that are introduced contain statutory 
exemptions, or contain language that is ambiguous and might be 
interpreted as such by the courts. In recent years, we have seen more 
and more such exemptions offered in legislation. A 2003 Justice 
Department report stated that Congress has been ``increasingly active 
in enacting such statutory provisions.'' A June 3, 2005, article by the 
Cox News Service titled, ``Congress Cloaks More Information in 
Secrecy,'' pointed to 140 instances ``where congressional lawmakers 
have inserted such exemptions'' into proposed legislation. I commend 
this article to my colleagues and understand that Senator Cornyn has 
placed a copy in the Record.
  Our shared principles of open government lead us to believe that 
individual statutory exemptions should be vigorously debated before 
lawmakers vote in favor of them. Sometimes such proposed exemptions are 
clearly delineated in proposed legislation, but other times they amount 
to a few lines within a highly complex and lengthy bill. These are 
difficult to locate and analyze in a timely manner, even for those of 
us who stand watch. As a result, such exemptions are often enacted with 
little scrutiny, and as soon as one is granted, others are requested.
  The private sector has sought many exemptions in exchange for 
agreeing to share information with the government. One example of great 
concern to me is the statutory exemption for critical infrastructure 
information that was enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, the law that created the Department of Homeland Security. In this 
case, a reasonable compromise, approved by the White House, to balance 
the protection of sensitive information with the public's right to know 
was pulled out of the bill in conference. It was then replaced with 
text providing an overly broad statutory exemption that undermines 
Federal and State sunshine laws. I have introduced legislation, called 
the Restoration of Freedom of Information Act, to revert to that 
reasonable compromise language.
  Not every statutory exemption is inappropriate, but every proposal 
deserves scrutiny. Congress must be diligent in reviewing new 
exemptions to prevent possible abuses. Focusing more sunshine on this 
process is an antidote to exemption creep.
  When we introduced the Open Government Act in February, we addressed 
this matter with a provision that would require Congress to identify 
proposed statutory exemptions in newly introduced legislation in a 
uniform manner. Today, we introduce that single section as a new bill 
that we hope can be enacted quickly.
  I want to thank the Senator from Texas for his personal dedication to 
these issues. I urge all members of the Senate to join us in supporting 
this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 1182. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 
health care for veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce 
legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's 
veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to 
this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to 
explain the provisions of this legislation.
  First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA 
care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over 
the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide 
compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year, 
Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children 
would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such 
veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's 
legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families 
are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice 
in all hospice care settings.
  Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from 
copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility. 
Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from 
other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the 
range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In 
addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA 
maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as 
it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am 
advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to 
explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it 
should be reconsidered.
  The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home 
beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted 
legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care 
services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing 
the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of 
its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided 
that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the 
institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that 
VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998.
  Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by 
nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it 
does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by 
law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA 
has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands 
of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home 
rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress 
should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined 
number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every 
dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This 
provision reflects that belief.
  The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that 
veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community 
medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the 
care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important 
issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has 
some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing 
local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA 
facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that 
VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided

[[Page S6162]]

emergency care will result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket 
costs. Clearly, that is not the kind of behavior Congress wants to 
encourage in our veterans. Nor is it good medicine. This provision 
would clarify once and for all that veterans will be treated equally 
regardless of where emergency care treatment is sought.

  Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to 
the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled 
female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed, 
care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a 
``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.'' 
Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling 
for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a 
newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is 
common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must 
address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of 
them join the service and change the face of the American military, we 
will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it.
  Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs 
for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam 
veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when 
the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called 
``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual 
patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private 
insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by 
VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial 
incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are 
not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these 
children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient 
rate.
  Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding 
for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man 
or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the 
unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without 
shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant 
programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other 
assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This 
provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the 
foreseeable future.
  The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to 
employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my 
colleagues this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family 
health care system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to 
assure any who harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or 
the purpose of this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to 
recognize that for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may 
lead to troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a 
family is more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course, 
preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this 
treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with 
the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well-
being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these 
services already to those who are returning from overseas. These 
programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and 
counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful 
ideas from the military experience to our veterans.
  Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's 
Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is 
less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I 
believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but 
a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as 
important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the 
pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within 
VA.
  Section 10 of this bill would allow VA to conduct cost-comparison 
studies within its health care system. Mr. President, such studies are 
invaluable tools for government to measure whether its current 
workforce has identified the most efficient and effective means of 
delivering services to our veterans, and value to the taxpayers. In my 
opinion, any organization that fails to measure its performance against 
others in the same field will quickly cease to be an effective 
organization. VA is--and it must continue to be--an effective and 
efficient health care provider. This small change in the law will 
provide one additional tool to ensure that is the case far into the 
future.
  Section 11 of my legislation would focus on an area of great 
importance to many members of the Senate: The treatment of mental 
health issues for those returning from service in Operations Iraqi 
Freedom and Enduring Freedom. I know many of us have read reports that 
estimate that as many as 20 percent of those serving overseas will need 
some mental health care services to cope with the stress of serving in 
a war zone. First, I want to say to my colleagues that the Department 
of Veterans Affairs already has in place numerous programs and services 
to respond to the needs of those veterans seeking care for mental 
health issues. Still, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I 
believe it is important that we assure our brave servicemen and women, 
and the American people, that we are not satisfied with merely 
maintaining VA's ability to provide mental health services. Rather, we 
must assure that VA continues to improve and expand the treatment 
options available.
  This section of the bill would authorize $95 million in both fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007 to improve and expand the mental health services 
available to our Nation's veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
would be required to devote specific resources to certain 
important areas of treatment including, but not limited to $5 million 
to expand the number of clinical teams devoted to the treatment of 
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; $50 million to expand the services 
available to diagnose and treat veterans with substance abuse problems; 
$10 million to expand tele-health capabilities in areas of the country 
where access to basic mental health services is nearly impossible; $1 
million to improve educational programs available for primary care 
providers to learn more about diagnosing and treating veterans with 
mental illness; $20 million to expand the number of community-based 
outpatient clinics with mental health services; and $5 million to 
expand VA's Mental Health Intensive Case Management Teams.

  I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I am taking this 
approach because I am concerned about the availability of these 
services as much as anyone in the Senate. But, I am also concerned 
about recent moves to ``micro-manage'' the VA health care system by 
requiring, for example, that certain percentages of VA's budget be 
spent on one service or another, or that every VA facility have some 
certain clinical service available. These approaches, while well-
intentioned, run the risk of diverting important resources away from 
services that are extremely important to our veterans. My approach is 
to put Congress on record as expecting improvements and expansion in 
certain important programs, attaching a reasonable amount of money to 
those efforts, and then monitoring the progress closely from the 
Veterans' Committee.
  Section 12 addresses a point of legal contention that has restricted 
the sharing of medical information between the Department of Defense 
and VA. As a result, record transfers for patients who would be VA 
patients are not arriving in VA hands as quickly and as seamlessly as 
they should. This provision would make clear that DoD and VA may 
exchange health records information for the purpose of providing health 
care to beneficiaries of one system who seek to quickly move to the 
other for services.
  Section 13 of the bill would direct VA to expand the number VA 
employees dedicated to serving the Veterans Readjustment Counseling 
Service's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Outreach Program. The 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing earlier this year at 
which two GWOT counselors testified on the numerous services their 
program provides to returning service

[[Page S6163]]

members, specifically Guardsmen and Reservists coming back from Iraq 
and Afghanistan. In many cases, these GWOT counselors are the first VA 
officials to welcome home our troops at the airport, provide them with 
their first briefing on VA benefits and services, and steer those in 
need to counseling services and health care centers. This is a 
creative, vibrant program with only 50 employees that is just now 
beginning to reach its peak effect on returning combat veterans. I 
believe VA should expand its efforts in this area to ensure we are 
reaching everyone we can.
  Section 14 of this bill would require VA to expand the number of Vet 
Centers capable of providing tele-health services and counseling to 
veterans returning from combat. Currently there are 21 Vet Center 
facilities that maintain this capability. And while that is a laudable 
effort, I believe we can do better. Tele-medicine offers a tremendous 
opportunity to bring many health services, particularly mental health 
services, to veterans who reside in areas of the country where those 
services would not otherwise be available. Practitioners are showing 
great results with tele-health services for mental health treatment, 
and our veterans are getting the services they need, closer to home, in 
a more timely fashion. Expansion of such success only seems logical.
  Finally, section 15 of this bill would require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to submit a report on all of the mental health data 
maintained by VA, including the actual geographic locations of 
collection and whether all of these points of data should continue to 
be collected.
  Over the next several weeks, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will 
be taking testimony on this bill and other legislation introduced by 
Senators to improve the range of services and benefits available to our 
Nation's veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
throughout the rest of this session of Congress on these and other 
important efforts.
  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. 1182

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans 
     Health Care Act of 2005''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment or repeal to a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 2. COPAYMENT EXEMPTION FOR HOSPICE CARE.

       Section 1710 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting ``(other than 
     hospice care)'' after ``nursing home care''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(1), by inserting ``(other than 
     hospice care)'' after ``medical services''.

     SEC. 3. NURSING HOME BED LEVELS; EXEMPTION FROM EXTENDED CARE 
                   SERVICES COPAYMENTS FOR FORMER POWS.

       Section 1710B is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as 
     subsections (b) through (d), respectively; and.
       (3) in subsection (b)(2), as redesignated--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) to a veteran who is a former prisoner of war;''.

     SEC. 4. REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN VETERANS' OUTSTANDING 
                   EMERGENCY TREATMENT EXPENSES.

        (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 is amended 
     by inserting after section 1725 the following:

     ``Sec. 1725A. Reimbursement for emergency treatment expenses 
       for which certain veterans remain personally liable

       ``(a)(1) Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary may 
     reimburse a veteran described in subsection (b) for expenses 
     resulting from emergency treatment furnished to the veteran 
     in a non-Department facility for which the veteran remains 
     personally liable.
       ``(2) In any case in which reimbursement is authorized 
     under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary, in the Secretary's 
     discretion, may, in lieu of reimbursing the veteran, make 
     payment--
       ``(A) to a hospital or other health care provider that 
     furnished the treatment; or
       ``(B) to the person or organization that paid for such 
     treatment on behalf of the veteran.
       ``(b) A veteran referred to in subsection (a) is an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) is enrolled in the health care system established 
     under section 1705(a) of this title;
       ``(2) received care under this chapter during the 24-month 
     period preceding the furnishing of such emergency treatment;
       ``(3) is entitled to care or services under a health-plan 
     contract that partially reimburses the cost of the veteran's 
     emergency treatment;
       ``(4) is financially liable to the provider of emergency 
     care treatment for costs not covered by the veteran's health-
     plan contract, including copayments and deductibles; and
       ``(5) is not eligible for reimbursement for medical care or 
     services under section 1725 or 1728 of this title.
       ``(c)(1) Any amount paid by the Secretary under subsection 
     (a) shall exclude the amount of any payment the veteran would 
     have been required to make to the United States under this 
     chapter if the veteran had received the emergency treatment 
     from the Department.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not provide reimbursement under 
     this section with respect to any item or service--
       ``(A) provided or for which payment has been made, or can 
     reasonably be expected to be made, under the veteran's 
     health-plan contract; or
       ``(B) for which payment has been made or can reasonably be 
     expected to be made by a third party.
       ``(3)(A) Payment by the Secretary under this section on 
     behalf of a veteran to a provider of emergency treatment 
     shall, unless rejected and refunded by the provider within 30 
     days of receipt, extinguish any liability on the part of the 
     veteran for that treatment.
       ``(B) The absence of a contract or agreement between the 
     Secretary and the provider, any provision of a contract or 
     agreement, or an assignment to the contrary shall not operate 
     to modify, limit, or negate the requirement under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) In accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish criteria for determining the amount of 
     reimbursement (which may include a maximum amount) payable 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) delineate the circumstances under which such payment 
     may be made, including requirements for requesting 
     reimbursement.
       ``(d)(1) In accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, the United States shall have the independent right 
     to recover any amount paid under this section if, and to the 
     extent that, a third party subsequently makes a payment for 
     the same emergency treatment.
       ``(2) Any amount paid by the United States to the veteran, 
     the veteran's personal representative, successor, dependents, 
     or survivors, or to any other person or organization paying 
     for such treatment shall constitute a lien in favor of the 
     United States against any recovery the payee subsequently 
     receives from a third party for the same treatment.
       ``(3) Any amount paid by the United States to the provider 
     that furnished the veteran's emergency treatment shall 
     constitute a lien against any subsequent amount the provider 
     receives from a third party for the same emergency treatment 
     for which the United States made payment.
       ``(4) The veteran or the veteran's personal representative, 
     successor, dependents, or survivors shall--
       ``(A) ensure that the Secretary is promptly notified of any 
     payment received from any third party for emergency treatment 
     furnished to the veteran;
       ``(B) immediately forward all documents relating to a 
     payment described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) cooperate with the Secretary in an investigation of a 
     payment described in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(D) assist the Secretary in enforcing the United States 
     right to recover any payment made under subsection (c)(3).
       ``(e) The Secretary may waive recovery of a payment made to 
     a veteran under this section that is otherwise required under 
     subsection (d)(1) if the Secretary determines that such 
     waiver would be in the best interest of the United States, as 
     defined by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `health-plan contract' includes--
       ``(A) an insurance policy or contract, medical or hospital 
     service agreement, membership or subscription contract, or 
     similar arrangement, under which health services for 
     individuals are provided or the expenses of such services are 
     paid;
       ``(B) an insurance program described in section 1811 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c) or established by 
     section 1831 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j);
       ``(C) a State plan for medical assistance approved under 
     title XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); and
       ``(D) a workers' compensation law or plan described in 
     section 1729(A)(2)(B) of this title;
       ``(2) the term `third party' means--
       ``(A) a Federal entity;
       ``(B) a State or political subdivision of a State;
       ``(C) an employer or an employer's insurance carrier; and

[[Page S6164]]

       ``(D) a person or entity obligated to provide, or pay the 
     expenses of, such emergency treatment; and
       ``(3) the term `emergency treatment' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1725 of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1725 the following:

``Sec. 1725A. Reimbursement for emergency treatment expenses for which 
              certain veterans remain personally liable.''.

     SEC. 5. CARE FOR NEWBORN CHILDREN OF WOMEN VETERANS RECEIVING 
                   MATERNITY CARE .

       (a) In General.--Subchapter VIII of chapter 17 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1786. Care for newborn children of women veterans 
       receiving maternity care

       ``The Secretary may furnish care to a newborn child of a 
     woman veteran, who is receiving maternity care furnished by 
     the Department, for not more than 14 days after the birth of 
     the child if the veteran delivered the child in a Department 
     facility or in another facility pursuant to a Department 
     contract for the delivery services.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1785 the following:

``Sec. 1786. Care for newborn children of women veterans receiving 
              maternity care.''.

     SEC. 6. ENHANCEMENT OF PAYER PROVISIONS FOR HEALTH CARE 
                   FURNISHED TO CERTAIN CHILDREN OF VIETNAM 
                   VETERANS.

       (a) Health Care for Spina Bifida and Associated 
     Disabilities.--Section 1803 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) If a payment made by the Secretary for health care 
     under this section is less than the amount billed for such 
     health care, the health care provider or agent of the health 
     care provider may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) through 
     (4), seek payment for the difference between the amount 
     billed and the amount paid by the Secretary from a 
     responsible third party to the extent that the provider or 
     agent would be eligible to receive payment for such health 
     care from such third party.
       ``(2) The health care provider or agent may not impose any 
     additional charge on the beneficiary who received the health 
     care, or the family of such beneficiary, for any service or 
     item for which the Secretary has made payment under this 
     section;
       ``(3) The total amount of payment a health care provider or 
     agent may receive for health care furnished under this 
     section may not exceed the amount billed to the Secretary.
       ``(4) The Secretary, upon request, shall disclose to such 
     third party information received for the purposes of carrying 
     out this section.''.
       (b) Health Care for Birth Defects and Associated 
     Disabilities.--Section 1813 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) If payment made by the Secretary for health care 
     under this section is less than the amount billed for such 
     health care, the health care provider or agent of the health 
     care provider may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) through 
     (4), seek payment for the difference between the amount 
     billed and the amount paid by the Secretary from a 
     responsible third party to the extent that the provider or 
     agent would be eligible to receive payment for such health 
     care from such third party.
       ``(2) The health care provider or agent may not impose any 
     additional charge on the beneficiary who received health 
     care, or the family of such beneficiary, for any service or 
     item for which the Secretary has made payment under this 
     section;
       ``(3) The total amount of payment a health care provider or 
     agent may receive for health care furnished under this 
     section may not exceed the amount billed to the Secretary; 
     and
       ``(4) The Secretary, upon request, shall disclose to such 
     third party information received for the purposes of carrying 
     out this section.''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVEMENTS TO HOMELESS PROVIDERS GRANT AND PER DIEM 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Permanent Authority.--Section 2011 (a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1)''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2013 is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2013. Authorization of appropriations

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $130,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal year to carry out 
     this subchapter.''.

     SEC. 8. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS.

       (a) Qualifications.--Section 7402(b) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) Marriage and family therapist.--To be eligible to be 
     appointed to a marriage and family therapist position, a 
     person must--
       ``(A) hold a master's degree in marriage and family 
     therapy, or a comparable degree in mental health, from a 
     college or university approved by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) be licensed or certified to independently practice 
     marriage and family therapy in a State, except that the 
     Secretary may waive the requirement of licensure or 
     certification for an individual marriage and family therapist 
     for a reasonable period of time recommended by the Under 
     Secretary for Health.''.
       (b) Report on Marriage and Family Therapy Workload.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Health, 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, shall submit to the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the provisions of post-traumatic stress disorder treatment by 
     marriage and family therapists.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) the actual and projected workloads in facilities of the 
     Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service and the Veterans 
     Health Administration for the provision of marriage and 
     family counseling for veterans diagnosed with, or otherwise 
     in need of treatment for, post-traumatic stress disorder;
       (B) the resources available and needed to support the 
     workload projections described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) an assessment by the Under Secretary for Health of the 
     effectiveness of treatment by marriage and family therapists; 
     and
       (D) recommendations, if any, for improvements in the 
     provision of such counseling treatment.

     SEC. 9. PAY COMPARABILITY FOR CHIEF NURSING OFFICER, OFFICE 
                   OF NURSING SERVICES.

       Section 7404 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``subchapter III'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (e), subchapter III,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) The position of Chief Nursing Officer, Office of 
     Nursing Services, shall be exempt from the provisions of 
     section 7451 of this title and shall be paid at a rate not to 
     exceed the maximum rate established for the Senior Executive 
     Service under section 5382 of title 5 United States Code, as 
     determined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 10. REPEAL OF COST COMPARISON STUDIES PROHIBITION.

       Section 8110(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).

     SEC. 11. IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION OF MENTAL HEALTH 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans affairs shall--
       (1) expand the number of clinical treatment teams 
     principally dedicated to the treatment of post-traumatic 
     stress disorder in medical facilities of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs;
       (2) expand and improve the services available to diagnose 
     and treat substance abuse;
       (3) expand and improve tele-health initiatives to provide 
     better access to mental health services in areas of the 
     country in which the Secretary determines that a need for 
     such services exist due to the distance of such locations 
     from an appropriate facility of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs;
       (4) improve education programs available to primary care 
     delivery professionals and dedicate such programs to 
     recognize, treat, and clinically manage veterans with mental 
     health care needs;
       (5) expand the delivery of mental health services in 
     community-based outpatient clinics of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in which such services are not available as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (6) expand and improve the Mental Health Intensive Case 
     Management Teams for the treatment and clinical case 
     management of veterans with serious or chronic mental 
     illness.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated in each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, 
     $95,000,000 to improve and expand the treatment services and 
     options available to veterans in need of mental health 
     treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, of which--
       (1) $5,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(1);
       (2) $50,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(2);
       (3) $10,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(3);
       (4) $1,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(4);
       (5) $20,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(5); and
       (6) $5,000,000 shall be allocated to carry out subsection 
     (a)(6).

     SEC. 12. DATA SHARING IMPROVEMENTS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense may 
     exchange protected health information for--
       (1) patients receiving treatment from the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; or
       (2) individuals who may receive treatment from the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs in the future, including all 
     current and former members of the Armed Services.

     SEC. 13. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL GUARD OUTREACH PROGRAM.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     expand the total number

[[Page S6165]]

     of personal employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs as 
     part of the Readjustment Counseling Service's Global War on 
     Terrorism Outreach Program (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Program'').
       (b) Coordination.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate participation in the Program by 
     appropriate employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration 
     and the Veterans Health Administration.
       (c) Information and Assessments.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that--
       (1) all appropriate health, education, and benefits 
     information is available to returning members of the National 
     Guard; and
       (2) proper assessments of the needs in each of these areas 
     is made by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (d) Collaboration.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     collaborate with appropriate State National Guard officials 
     and provide such officials with any assets or services of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs that the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary to carry out the Global War on Terrorism 
     Outreach Program.

     SEC. 14. EXPANSION OF TELE-HEALTH SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall increase the number of 
     Veterans Readjustment Counseling Service facilities capable 
     of providing health services and counseling through tele-
     health linkages with facilities of the Veterans Health 
     Administration.
       (b) Plan.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a plan to 
     implement the requirement under subsection (a), which shall 
     describe the facilities that will have such capabilities at 
     the end of each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

     SEC. 15. MENTAL HEALTH DATA SOURCES REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not less than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall submit a report to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives describing the mental health data 
     maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) a comprehensive list of the sources of all such data, 
     including the geographic locations of facilities of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs maintaining such data;
       (2) an assessment of the limitations or advantages to 
     maintaining the current data configuration and locations; and
       (3) any recommendations, if any, for improving the 
     collection, use, and location of mental health data 
     maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Roberts, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Allen):
  S. 1183. A bill to provide additional assistance to recipients of 
Federal Pell Grants who are pursuing programs of study in engineering, 
mathematics, science, or foreign languages; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic 
security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with 
Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful 
to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this 
legislation.
  Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and 
technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's 
national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of 
global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces 
a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.
  The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years 
ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the 
first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked 
America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the 
scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America 
enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our 
nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had 
fallen behind.
  In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive 
investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress 
passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in 
science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed 
into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President 
Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the 
decade.
  These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik 
launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap 
with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to 
science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the 
moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure 
that our modern military has always had the best equipment and 
technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the 
foundation for the creation of some of the most significant 
technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the 
Internet.
  Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying 
goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.
  The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is 
coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we 
now need and will continue to need far into the future.
  The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the 
math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students 
in the United States were below average when compared to their 
international counterparts in industrialized countries.
  While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 
2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it 
is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade 
students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other 
participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.
  Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning 
achievement in math and science education. The National Science 
Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and 
engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In 
fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, 
science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in 
Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.
  In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its 
shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent 
by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, 
with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. 
More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their 
native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American 
high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.
  The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in 
various important ways. For example: according to the National Science 
Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 
percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be 
working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the 
proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one 
of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all 
time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. 
production of patents, probably the most direct link between research 
and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the 
world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.
  Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and 
running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion 
a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the 
course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current 
law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the 
same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while 
the other majors in engineering or science.
  While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component 
to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the 
unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for 
us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage 
individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to 
meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.
  That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation 
is simple. It provides that at least every two

[[Page S6166]]

years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary 
of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should 
provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown 
talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. 
Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be 
rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the 
costs associated with obtaining their education.
  We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, 
to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation 
desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an 
indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have 
approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this 
demand.
  In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the 
Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common-
sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America 
meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this 
endeavor.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1183

       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 ``21st Century Federal Pell 
     Grant Plus Act''.

     SEC. 2. RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANTS WHO ARE PURSUING 
                   PROGRAMS OF STUDY IN ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS, 
                   SCIENCE, OR FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

       Section 401(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1070a(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) and subject to 
     clause (iii), in the case of a student who is eligible under 
     this part and who is pursuing a degree with a major in, or a 
     certificate or program of study relating to, engineering, 
     mathematics, science (such as physics, chemistry, or computer 
     science), or a foreign language, described in a list 
     developed or updated under clause (ii), the amount of the 
     Federal Pell Grant shall be the amount calculated for the 
     student under subparagraph (A) for the academic year 
     involved, multiplied by 2.
       ``(ii)(I) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, shall develop, update not less often than once 
     every 2 years, and publish in the Federal Register, a list of 
     engineering, mathematics, and science degrees, majors, 
     certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may 
     enable the student to receive the increased Federal Pell 
     Grant amount under clause (i). In developing and updating the 
     list the Secretaries and Director shall consider the 
     following:
       ``(aa) The current engineering, mathematics, and science 
     needs of the United States with respect to national security, 
     homeland security, and economic security.
       ``(bb) Whether institutions of higher education in the 
     United States are currently producing enough graduates with 
     degrees to meet the national security, homeland security, and 
     economic security needs of the United States.
       ``(cc) The future expected workforce needs of the United 
     States required to help ensure the Nation's national 
     security, homeland security, and economic security.
       ``(dd) Whether institutions of higher education in the 
     United States are expected to produce enough graduates with 
     degrees to meet the future national security, homeland 
     security, and economic security needs of the United States.
       ``(II) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and the Secretary of State, shall develop, update 
     not less often than once every 2 years, and publish in the 
     Federal Register, a list of foreign language degrees, majors, 
     certificates, or programs that if pursued by a student, may 
     enable the student to receive the increased Federal Pell 
     Grant amount under clause (i). In developing and updating the 
     list the Secretaries shall consider the following:
       ``(aa) The foreign language needs of the United States with 
     respect to national security, homeland security, and economic 
     security.
       ``(bb) Whether institutions of higher education in the 
     United States are currently producing enough graduates with 
     degrees to meet the national security, homeland security, and 
     economic security needs of the United States.
       ``(cc) The future expected workforce needs of the United 
     States required to help ensure the Nation's national 
     security, homeland security, and economic security.
       ``(dd) Whether institutions of higher education in the 
     United States are expected to produce enough graduates with 
     degrees to meet the future national security, homeland 
     security, and economic security needs of the United States.
       ``(iii) Each student who received an increased Federal Pell 
     Grant amount under clause (i) to pursue a degree, major, 
     certificate, or program described in a list published under 
     subclause (I) or (II) of clause (ii) shall continue to be 
     eligible for the increased Federal Pell Grant amount in 
     subsequent academic years if the degree, major, certificate, 
     or program, respectively, is subsequently removed from the 
     list.
       ``(iv)(I) If a student who received an increased Federal 
     Pell Grant amount under clause (i) changes the student's 
     course of study to a degree, major, certificate, or program 
     that is not included in a list described in clause (ii), then 
     the Secretary shall reduce the amount of Federal Pell Grant 
     assistance the student is eligible to receive under this 
     section for subsequent academic years by an amount equal to 
     the difference between the total amount the student received 
     under this subparagraph and the total amount the student 
     would have received under this section if this subparagraph 
     had not been applied.
       ``(II) The Secretary shall reduce the amount of Federal 
     Pell Grant assistance the student is eligible to receive in 
     subsequent academic years by dividing the total amount to be 
     reduced under subclause (I) for the student by the number of 
     years the student received an increased Federal Pell Grant 
     amount under clause (i), and deducting the result from the 
     amount of Federal Pell Grant assistance the student is 
     eligible to receive under this section for a number of 
     subsequent academic years equal to the number of academic 
     years the student received an increased Federal Pell Grant 
     amount under clause (i).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1184. A bill to waive the passport fees for a relative of a 
deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to visit the 
grave of such member or to attend a funeral or memorial service for 
such member; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to remedy a small 
gap in our passport laws. The change that I propose could be important 
to family members of servicemembers who lose their lives in service of 
their country.
  Under current law, the State Department may not charge a fee to issue 
a passport to relatives of a deceased member of the Armed Forces who 
are proceeding abroad to visit the grave of such a member. But the law 
as applied requires that the family be visiting an official gravesite 
overseas.
  The law does not, however, allow the waiver of passport fees if the 
family is attending a funeral or memorial service for a servicemember 
killed in action, but who is buried or memorialized overseas. The need 
for such a waiver probably does not occur often, but it happens. Last 
year, a servicemember from my home State of Delaware was killed in 
action in Iraq. The servicemember was stationed in Germany and his wife 
was German. She wished for him to be buried in Germany. So all of his 
relatives in the United States needed to travel quickly, and many of 
them did not have passports. At a time of such grieving for a lost 
servicemember, the family of the fallen hero should not have to worry 
about paying passport fees, which can add up quickly for a family, 
Waiving the fee in such cases is the least that we can do.
  I hope we can approve such a minor change in the law quickly. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed at this 
point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1184

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

     SECTION 1. PASSPORT FEES.

       Section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 750, chapter 
     223; 22 U.S.C. 214) is amended in the third sentence by 
     striking ``or from a widow, child, parent, brother, or sister 
     of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding abroad to 
     visit the grave of such member'' and inserting ``or from a 
     widow, widower, child, parent, grandparent, brother, or 
     sister of a deceased member of the Armed Forces proceeding 
     abroad to visit the grave of such member or to attend a 
     funeral or memorial service for such member''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Allard, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 1186. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
the same capital gains treatment for art and collectibles as for other 
investment property and to provide that a

[[Page S6167]]

deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable 
contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions 
created by the donor; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again 
legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the 
Internal Revenue Code.
  The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is designed to 
restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art 
and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though 
it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar 
taxpayers similarly.
  The bill I am introducing today would address two areas where 
similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same.
  Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital 
gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. If a person 
invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is 
long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. 
However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate 
is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher 
tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the 
pocketbook of the beholder.
  Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an 
investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one 
investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may 
lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those 
who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.
  Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have 
a diverse colony of artists, collectors and gallery owners. We have 
fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative 
giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. L. Blumenshein, Allan 
Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as 
their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, 
Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce 
Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are 
additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.
  Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual 
industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and 
collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.
  Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. 
Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but 
little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, 
Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of 
painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it 
difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.
  When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta 
ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has 
challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the 
definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic 
calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized 
by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from 
every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; 
and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of 
public good.
  Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, 
they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be 
sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a 
source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, 
Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates 
of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending 
September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in 
terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates 
of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, 
collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long-
term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia 
Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that 
painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.
  I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no 
guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.
  In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there 
an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered 
``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so 
interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial 
markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.
  Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles 
are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't 
appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond 
prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may 
be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are 
investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the 
same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.
  Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will 
benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what 
winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes 
from collectors.
  Collecting isn't just for the hoity toity. It seems that everyone 
collects something. Some collections are better investments than 
others. Some collections are just bizarre. The Internet makes 
collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. 
In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia 
pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, and 
guns are a few such ``collectibles.''
  For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, 
but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has 
created a tax predicament to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles 
are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on 
any appreciation over your purchase price.
  The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top 
capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.
  Internal inconsistency number two deals with the charitable deduction 
for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. 
When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or 
to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is 
an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big 
difference. As the law stands now, an artist/creator can only take a 
deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. The bill I am 
introducing will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.
  It's important to note that this bill includes certain safeguards to 
keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill 
applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if 
the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, 
has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the 
charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other 
charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross 
income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of 
AGI limit. I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code 
and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.
  I hope my colleagues will help me put this internal consistency into 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  I ask unanimous consent that and 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. 1186

       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 ``Art and Collectibles Capital 
     Gains Tax Treatment Parity Act''.

     SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT FOR ART AND COLLECTIBLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended 
     by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:

[[Page S6168]]

       ``(4) 28-percent rate gain.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `28-percent rate gain' means the excess 
     (if any) of--
       ``(A) section 1202 gain, over
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the net short-term capital loss, and
       ``(ii) the amount of long-term capital loss carried under 
     section 1212(b)(1)(B) to the taxable year.
       ``(5) Reserved.--.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.

     SEC. 3. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN ITEMS CREATED BY 
                   THE TAXPAYER.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain 
     contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule for certain contributions of literary, 
     musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution--
       ``(i) the amount of such contribution taken into account 
     under this section shall be the fair market value of the 
     property contributed (determined at the time of such 
     contribution), and
       ``(ii) no reduction in the amount of such contribution 
     shall be made under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Qualified artistic charitable contribution.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution' means a charitable contribution of 
     any literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly composition, or 
     similar property, or the copyright thereon (or both), but 
     only if--
       ``(i) such property was created by the personal efforts of 
     the taxpayer making such contribution no less than 18 months 
     prior to such contribution,
       ``(ii) the taxpayer--

       ``(I) has received a qualified appraisal of the fair market 
     value of such property in accordance with the regulations 
     under this section, and
       ``(II) attaches to the taxpayer's income tax return for the 
     taxable year in which such contribution was made a copy of 
     such appraisal,

       ``(iii) the donee is an organization described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A),
       ``(iv) the use of such property by the donee is related to 
     the purpose or function constituting the basis for the 
     donee's exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a 
     governmental unit, to any purpose or function described under 
     section 501(c)),
       ``(v) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written 
     statement representing that the donee's use of the property 
     will be in accordance with the provisions of clause (iv), and
       ``(vi) the written appraisal referred to in clause (ii) 
     includes evidence of the extent (if any) to which property 
     created by the personal efforts of the taxpayer and of the 
     same type as the donated property is or has been--

       ``(I) owned, maintained, and displayed by organizations 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A), and
       ``(II) sold to or exchanged by persons other than the 
     taxpayer, donee, or any related person (as defined in section 
     465(b)(3)(C)).

       ``(C) Maximum dollar limitation; no carryover of increased 
     deduction.--The increase in the deduction under this section 
     by reason of this paragraph for any taxable year--
       ``(i) shall not exceed the artistic adjusted gross income 
     of the taxpayer for such taxable year, and
       ``(ii) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount which may be carried from such taxable year under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Artistic adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `artistic adjusted gross income' means 
     that portion of the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for 
     the taxable year attributable to--
       ``(i) income from the sale or use of property created by 
     the personal efforts of the taxpayer which is of the same 
     type as the donated property, and
       ``(ii) income from teaching, lecturing, performing, or 
     similar activity with respect to property described in clause 
     (i).
       ``(E) Paragraph not to apply to certain contributions.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any charitable 
     contribution of any letter, memorandum, or similar property 
     which was written, prepared, or produced by or for an 
     individual while the individual is an officer or employee of 
     any person (including any government agency or 
     instrumentality) unless such letter, memorandum, or similar 
     property is entirely personal.
       ``(F) Copyright treated as separate property for partial 
     interest rule.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution, the tangible literary, musical, 
     artistic, or scholarly composition, or similar property and 
     the copyright on such work shall be treated as separate 
     properties for purposes of this paragraph and subsection 
     (f)(3).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1193. A bill to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
Security for the Transportation Security Administration to issue 
regulations requiring turbojet aircraft of air carriers to be equipped 
with missile defense systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Commercial 
Airline Missile Defense Act. This legislation is designed to ensure 
that our commercial aircraft are protected against the threat posed by 
shoulder-fired missiles.
  I first introduced this legislation in February 2003 in response to 
two separate attacks attributed to al Qaeda terrorists. The first 
attack was the attempted shoot down of a U.S. military aircraft in 
Saudi Arabia. The second attack was against an Israeli passenger jet in 
Kenya. Fortunately, there were no casualties in either case.
  But make no mistake, the threat posed by these weapons--also known as 
man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS)--is very real. In May 2002, 
the FBI said, ``. . . Given al Qaeda's demonstrated objective to target 
the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian-made MANPAD 
systems, and recent apparent targeting of U.S.-led military forces in 
Saudi Arabia, law enforcement agencies in the United States should 
remain alert to the potential use of MANPADS against U. S. aircraft.''
  In February 2004, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
Admiral Lowell Jacoby, testified before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee on current and projected national security threats. He stated 
the following: ``A MANPAD attack against civilian aircraft would 
produce large number of casualties, international publicity and a 
significant economic impact on aviation. These systems are highly 
portable, easy to conceal, inexpensive, available in the global weapons 
market and instruction manuals are on the internet. Commercial aircraft 
are not equipped with countermeasures and commercial pilots are not 
trained in evasive measures. An attack could occur with little or no 
warning. Terrorists may attempt to capitalize on these 
vulnerabilities.''
  It is estimated that there are between 300,000 and one million 
shoulder-fired missiles in the world today--thousands are thought to be 
in the hands of terrorist and other non-state entities.
  Since I first introduced my legislation in 2003, progress has been 
made in adapting countermeasures now being used by the military for use 
on commercial aircraft. A special program office has been created 
within the Department of Homeland Security that is working to 
demonstrate and test two prototype countermeasure systems. Flight 
testing is scheduled to begin in a matter of weeks.
  This legislation, which I am again introducing with my primary 
cosponsor, Senator Schumer, states that the installation of 
countermeasure systems on commercial aircraft will begin no later than 
6 months after the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the 
countermeasure system has successfully completed a program of 
operational test and evaluation.
  We need to continue to move forward to ensure that commercial 
aircraft are protected from the threat posed by shoulder-fired 
missiles. I appreciate the hard work of my colleague in the House, 
Congressman Steve Israel, who is a real leader on this issue.
  I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

                          ____________________