[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6742-S6767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Durbin, and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1255. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income amounts paid on behalf of Federal employees and 
members of the Armed Forces on active duty under Federal student loan 
repayment programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act of 
2005, a bill that will help Federal agencies and the Armed Forces 
recruit talented individuals to serve in all areas of the Federal 
Government and the military. This legislation is a modestly expanded 
version of a bill I introduced in the 108th Congress.
  Current law authorizes Federal agencies to pay student loans up to 
$10,000 a year with a cumulative cap of $60,000, but the incentive is 
taxed. Known as GOFEDS, this bill would amend the Federal tax code and 
allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be 
offered on a tax-free basis.
  In recent years, many educational institutions have established 
programs that repay a portion of the student loan debt their graduates 
owe. These programs are designed to encourage students to seek jobs 
with government or non-profit organizations that cannot pay salaries 
commensurate with the private sector upon graduation. Under current 
law, the amounts these institutions offer their graduates as student 
loan repayment are not taxed as income, provided the recipients choose 
to work for the government or non-profit organizations.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Tax Code does not treat the Federal 
Government's loan repayment programs in the same way, considering such 
loan repayment as taxable income to the employee. As a result, the net 
benefit of any such program is reduced by the amount of tax that the 
individual has to pay on the debt repaid. This bill would amend the tax 
code so that the Government does not continue to undermine its own loan 
repayment recruitment incentive. This change will help Federal agencies 
recruit and retain well-qualified graduates.
  This Congress, I have expanded GOFEDS to our military because recent 
reports indicate that all four services missed their recruiting goals 
last year. Unfortunately, military recruiting levels are now at a 30-
year low. Under GOFEDS, military education loan programs, like the 
Active-Duty Loan Repayment Program will be offered on a tax free basis.
  With more than half of the Federal workforce eligible for retirement 
in the next 5 years and surveys showing that fewer Americans find 
government services attractive, the need for this legislation is even 
more necessary. I believe the cost of this bill is minimal, but its 
potential impact is great. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1255

       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 ``Generating Opportunity by 
     Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENTS BY THE FEDERAL 
                   GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Exclusion From Gross Income.--Section 108(f) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to student loans) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Student loan repayments by federal government.--In 
     the case of an individual, gross income does not include any 
     payments made by the Federal Government on behalf of such 
     individual under--
       ``(A)(i) section 5379 of title 5, United States Code; or
       ``(ii) any other similar Federal program for its employees; 
     or
       ``(B) section 510(e)(2), chapter 109, or chapter 1609 of 
     title 10, United States Code.''.
       (b) Exclusion From Wages.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3121(a) of such Code (defining 
     wages) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (21), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (22), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:
       ``(23) any payment excluded from gross income under section 
     108(f)(5) (relating to student loan repayments by the Federal 
     Government).''.
       (2) Social security act.--Section 209(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 409(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(20) Any payment excluded from gross income under section 
     108(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     student loan repayments by Federal Government).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

[[Page S6743]]

                                 ______
                                 
       By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 256. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
develop regulations regarding the transportation of extremely hazardous 
materials, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hazardous 
Materials Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2005. It is regretful that I 
am introducing this legislation, as the Department of Homeland Security 
has all of the legal authorities necessary to undertake the steps set 
out in this legislation. However, nearly 4 years after September 11, 
the Department of Homeland Security is still not doing its job. Quite 
frankly, officials at the Department of Homeland Security are either 
unaware, or even worse, they are purposely ignoring a grave threat to 
our cities. Hazardous materials being transported by 90-ton rail 
tankers has been described as a ``uniquely dangerous'' threat--
comparable only to a nuclear or biological attack. According to the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation, 
these materials pose special risks during transportation because their 
uncontrolled release can endanger significant numbers of people. In 
addition, there have been countless reports of lax security along the 
urban area rail routes they travel. Nevertheless, the administration 
has done nothing to reduce this threat. The legislation that I am 
introducing today will require the Department of Homeland Security to 
develop a comprehensive, risk-based strategy for reducing the threat of 
a terrorist attack on extremely hazardous materials in our Nation's 
high-threat cities. The steps set out in this legislation should have 
been taken years ago, but it is clear that the Department of Homeland 
Security will not act. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
passing this legislation to require them to act.
  Within just a few miles of where we stand right now, rail tankers 
carrying the world's most dangerous chemicals are being transported 
over tracks that are not sufficiently safeguarded or monitored. 
According to Richard A. Falkenrath, a former homeland security adviser 
to President Bush, this threat stands out ``as acutely vulnerable and 
almost uniquely dangerous.'' He is not alone in this opinion. The 
Homeland Security Council released a report in July 2004 indicating 
that an explosion, in an urban area, of a rail tanker carrying chlorine 
could kill up to 17,500 individuals and could require the 
hospitalization of nearly 100,000. An analysis by the Naval Research 
Laboratory depicted a more troubling scenario when it studied the 
potential for damage if an attack occurred while an event was being 
held on the National Mall, such as the annual Fourth of 
July celebration. According to this analysis, ``over 100,000 people 
could be seriously harmed or even killed in the first half hour.'' Let 
me say that again, according to a study by the Naval Research 
Laboratory ``over 100,000 people could be seriously harmed or killed in 
the first half hour.''

  Terrorist groups already understand the potential impact of such an 
attack. The FBI and CIA have uncovered evidence that terrorists have 
targeted chemical shipments, and just a few months ago during testimony 
before the Senate Intelligence Committee, FBI Director Mueller 
indicated that threats to rail remain a key concern. This should not be 
a surprise. Rail systems are the most frequently attacked targets 
worldwide, and the wide open nature of their architecture makes them 
vulnerable at many points. In other words, rail systems present many 
soft targets. Incidentally, I have introduced separate legislation in 
the last three Congresses that would provide $1.2 billion to eliminate 
some of the vulnerabilities in our rail system; however, this 
legislation has not been supported by the Bush administration and it 
has not passed Congress. In fact, the administration has not asked for 
a single dime specifically for rail security. This is very troubling 
because we know that the modus operandi for many terrorist groups is to 
cause mass casualties and spectacular damage. According to the Chlorine 
Institute, an attack on a 90-ton tanker could create a toxic cloud 40 
miles long and 10 miles wide. The Environmental Protection Agency 
estimates that in an urban area this toxic cloud could extend 14 miles. 
Can you imagine the psychological impact of a toxic cloud of poisonous 
gas expanding and moving slowly over one of our major metropolitan 
areas--leaving death and chaos in its path?
  Given the potential damage and the direct threat against chemical 
rail tankers, you would think that the Bush administration has been 
busy reducing or eliminating this threat. Unfortunately, as with so 
many other areas involving our homeland security this does not appear 
to be the case. In January testimony before the Senate Homeland 
Security Committee, Mr. Falkenrath stated that ``to date, the Federal 
Government has not made a material reduction in the inherent 
vulnerability of hazardous chemical targets inside the United States.'' 
He went on to say that this should be the highest priority for the 
Department of Homeland Security. A Wall Street Journal article written 
last year--``Graffiti Artists Put Their Mark on War Against 
Terrorism''--provides a chilling example of the exposure of these 
chemical tankers. The reporter followed a graffiti artist to a railroad 
tunnel along tracks that run near I-395 not far from where we stand. As 
he was conducting the interview, a tanker carrying dangerous chemicals 
rolled by on an adjacent track. The graffiti artist noted that ``it 
wouldn't be hard at all for someone like Al Qaeda to wait right here 
for the right poison and bang! Good-bye Washington.''

  This threat and the lack of action by the Department of Homeland 
Security has led many city officials to consider local legislation to 
ban shipments of hazardous materials. Right now, a dispute between the 
District of Columbia and the transportation companies joined by the 
Bush administration is being litigated in Federal courts. Other cities, 
such as Philadelphia and Boston are considering similar action. As a 
former county executive, I am sympathetic to the plight of local 
officials, and they should certainly be allowed to exercise their 
police powers in appropriate situations. I believe, and I am sure most 
local officials would agree, that it would be better to have a 
national, comprehensive policy on this issue. This is simply too 
important to have a patchwork strategy. The Department of Homeland 
Security should have already done this. Unfortunately, they have not, 
and this legislation will require the Department to take some basic, 
fundamental steps to enhance safety for the American people.
  The legislation that I am introducing requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to issue regulations establishing a national policy 
for dealing with the transport of the world's most dangerous chemicals 
by rail through our high threat cities. It will require the Department 
to develop protocols for the notification of State and local officials, 
and it will require the Department to study and report to Congress 
regarding security enhancing measures such as secondary containment 
technologies, GPS tracking of shipments, and the feasibility of 
smaller, more secure tankers. The bill also includes a provision 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to work with State and 
local officials, the rail industry and other stakeholders to develop a 
strategy for rerouting a small fraction of the most dangerous materials 
around our most threatened city. It is estimated that only 5 percent of 
all hazardous materials shipped by rail will be subjected to this 
regulation. Finally, the bill will provide $100 million to State and 
local governments and rail operators to purchase safety equipment and 
provide training to first responders and rail workers who are likely to 
discover and respond to an incident involving hazardous materials. An 
additional $10 million will be made available to the National Labor 
College to provide further training for rail workers.
  I realize that the rail industry has invested considerable amounts of 
its own money to enhance security since September 11, and this 
legislation is not an indictment of their efforts. I have been pushing 
to get more Federal funding for rail security for years, but this plea 
has fallen on deaf ears within the administration. I realize that we 
cannot eliminate every conceivable risk, but at a time when we have 
troops overseas fighting the war on terror and our Nation's law 
enforcement agencies are on high alert, the least that we should do

[[Page S6744]]

is ensure that we have a national strategy for handling a threat that 
is comparable in scope to a nuclear or biological attack. I will close 
by again referring to the grave warning set out in the study by the 
Naval Research Laboratory--``over 100,000 people could be seriously 
harmed or even killed in the first half hour'' of an attack. The danger 
is simply too great to ignore, and I ask my colleagues to join me in 
passing this critical legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1256

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Hazardous 
     Materials Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2005''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress has specifically given the Department of 
     Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the Department 
     of Transportation and other Federal agencies, the primary 
     authority for the security of the United States 
     transportation sector, including passenger and freight rail.
       (2) This authority includes the responsibility to protect 
     American citizens from terrorist incidents related to the 
     transport by rail of extremely hazardous materials.
       (3) Federal agencies have determined that hazardous 
     materials can be used as tools of destruction and terror and 
     that extremely hazardous materials are particularly 
     vulnerable to sabotage or misuse during transport.
       (4) The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central 
     Intelligence Agency have found evidence suggesting that 
     chemical tankers used to transport and store extremely 
     hazardous chemicals have been targeted by terrorist groups.
       (5) Rail shipments of extremely hazardous materials are 
     often routed through highly attractive targets and densely 
     populated areas, including within a few miles of the White 
     House and United States Capitol.
       (6) According to security experts, certain extremely 
     hazardous materials present a mass casualty terrorist 
     potential rivaled only by improvised nuclear devices, certain 
     acts of bioterrorism, and the collapse of large occupied 
     buildings.
       (7) A report by the Chlorine Institute found that a 90-ton 
     rail tanker, if successfully targeted by an explosive device, 
     could cause a catastrophic release of an extremely hazardous 
     material, creating a toxic cloud 40 miles long and 10 miles 
     wide.
       (8) The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 
     an urban area a toxic cloud could extend for 14 miles.
       (9) The United States Naval Research Laboratories concluded 
     that a toxic plume of this type, created while there was a 
     public event on the National Mall, could kill or injure up to 
     100,000 people in less than 30 minutes.
       (10) According to security experts, rail shipments of 
     extremely hazardous materials are particularly vulnerable and 
     dangerous, however the Federal Government has made no 
     material reduction in the inherent vulnerability of hazardous 
     chemical targets inside the United States.
       (11) While the safety record related to rail shipments of 
     hazardous materials is very good, recent accidental releases 
     of extremely hazardous materials in rural South Carolina and 
     San Antonio, Texas, demonstrate the fatal danger posed by 
     extremely hazardous materials.
       (12) Security experts have determined that re-routing these 
     rail shipments is the only way to immediately eliminate this 
     danger in high threat areas, which currently puts hundreds of 
     thousands of people at risk.
       (13) Security experts have determined that the primary 
     benefit of re-routing the shipment of extremely hazardous 
     materials is a reduction in the number of people that would 
     be exposed to the deadly impact of the release due to an 
     attack, and the principal cost would be the additional 
     operating expense associated with possible increase inhaul 
     for the shipment of extremely hazardous materials.
       (14) Less than 5 percent of all hazardous materials shipped 
     by rail will meet the definition of extremely hazardous 
     materials under this Act.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Extremely hazardous material.--The term ``extremely 
     hazardous material'' means any chemical, toxin, or other 
     material being shipped or stored in sufficient quantities to 
     represent an acute health threat or have a high likelihood of 
     causing injuries, casualties, or economic damage if 
     successfully targeted by a terrorist attack, including 
     materials that--
       (A) are--
       (i) toxic by inhalation;
       (ii) extremely flammable; or
       (iii) highly explosive;
       (B) contain high level nuclear waste; or
       (C) are otherwise designated by the Secretary as extremely 
     hazardous.
       (2) High threat corridor.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``high threat corridor'' means a 
     geographic area that has been designated by the Secretary as 
     particularly vulnerable to damage from the release of 
     extremely hazardous materials, including--
       (i) large populations centers;
       (ii) areas important to national security;
       (iii) areas that terrorists may be particularly likely to 
     attack; or
       (iv) any other area designated by the Secretary as 
     vulnerable to damage from the rail shipment or storage of 
     extremely hazardous materials.
       (B) Other areas.--
       (i) In general.--Any city that is not designated as a high 
     threat corridor under subparagraph (A) may file a petition 
     with the Secretary to be so designated.
       (ii) Procedure.--The Secretary shall establish, by rule, 
     regulation, or order, procedures for petitions under clause 
     (i), including--

       (I) designating the local official eligible to file a 
     petition;
       (II) establishing the criteria a city shall include in a 
     petition;
       (III) allowing a city to submit evidence supporting its 
     petition; and
       (IV) requiring the Secretary to rule on the petition not 
     later than 60 days after the date of submission of the 
     petition.

       (iii) Notice.--The Secretary's decision regarding any 
     petition under clause (i) shall be communicated to the 
     requesting city, the Governor of the State in which the city 
     is located, and the Senators and Members of the House of 
     Representatives that represent the State in which the city is 
     located.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
       (4) Storage.--The term ``storage'' means any temporary or 
     long-term storage of extremely hazardous materials in rail 
     tankers or any other medium utilized to transport extremely 
     hazardous materials by rail.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS FOR TRANSPORT OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS 
                   MATERIALS.

       (a) Purposes of Regulations.--The regulations issued under 
     this section shall establish a national, risk-based policy 
     for extremely hazardous materials transported by rail or 
     being stored. To the extent the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, the regulations issued under this section shall 
     be consistent with other Federal, State, and local 
     regulations and international agreements relating to shipping 
     or storing extremely hazardous materials.
       (b) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue, 
     after notice and opportunity for public comment, regulations 
     concerning the rail shipment and storage of extremely 
     hazardous materials by owners and operators of railroads. In 
     developing such regulations, the Secretary shall consult with 
     other Federal, State, and local government entities, security 
     experts, representatives of the hazardous materials rail 
     shipping industry, labor unions representing persons who work 
     with hazardous materials in the rail shipping industry, and 
     other interested persons, including private sector interest 
     groups.
       (c) Requirements.--The regulations issued under this 
     section shall--
       (1) include a list of the high threat corridors designated 
     by the Secretary;
       (2) contain the criteria used by the Secretary to determine 
     whether an area qualifies as a high threat corridor;
       (3) include a list of extremely hazardous materials;
       (4) establish protocols for owners and operators of 
     railroads that ship extremely hazardous materials regarding 
     notifying all governors, mayors, and other designated 
     officials and local emergency responders in a high threat 
     corridor of the quantity and type of extremely hazardous 
     materials that are transported by rail through the high 
     threat corridor;
       (5) require reports regarding the transport by railroad of 
     extremely hazardous materials by the Secretary to local 
     governmental officials designated by the Secretary, and Local 
     Emergency Planning Committees, established under the 
     Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 
     (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.);
       (6) establish protocols for the coordination of Federal, 
     State, and local law enforcement authorities in creating a 
     plan to respond to a terrorist attack, sabotage, or accident 
     involving a rail shipment of extremely hazardous materials 
     that causes the release of such materials;
       (7) require that any rail shipment containing extremely 
     hazardous materials be re-routed around any high threat 
     corridor; and
       (8) establish standards for the Secretary to grant 
     exceptions to the re-routing requirement under paragraph (7).
       (d) High Threat Corridors.--
       (1) In general.--The criteria under subsection (c)(2) for 
     determining whether an area qualifies as a high threat 
     corridor may be the same criteria used for the distribution 
     of funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative program.
       (2) Initial list.--If the Secretary is unable to complete 
     the review necessary to determine which areas should be 
     designated as high threat corridors within 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the initial list shall be the 
     cities that receive funding under the Urban Areas Security 
     Initiative Program in fiscal year 2004.
       (e) Extremely Hazardous Materials List.--If the Secretary 
     is unable to complete

[[Page S6745]]

     the review necessary to determine which materials should be 
     designated extremely hazardous materials under subsection 
     (c)(3) within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the initial list shall include--
       (1) explosives classified as Class 1, Division 1.1, or 
     Class 1, Division 1.2, under section 173.2 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, in a quantity greater than 500 
     kilograms;
       (2) flammable gasses classified as Class 2, Division 2.1, 
     under section 173.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     in a quantity greater than 10,000 liters;
       (3) poisonous gasses classified as Class 2, Division 2.3, 
     under section 173.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     that are also assigned to Hazard Zones A or B under section 
     173.116 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, in a 
     quantity greater than 500 liters;
       (4) poisonous materials, other than gasses, classified as 
     Class 6, Division 6.1, under section 173.2 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, that are also assigned to Hazard 
     Zones A or B under section 173.116 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, in a quantity greater than 1,000 
     kilograms; and
       (5) anhydrous ammonia classified as Class 2, Division 2.2, 
     under section 173.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     in a quantity greater than 1,000 kilograms.
       (f) Notification.--
       (1) In general .--The protocols under subsection (c)(4) 
     shall establish the required frequency of reporting by an 
     owner and operator of a railroad to the Governors, Mayors, 
     and other designated officials and local emergency responders 
     in a high threat corridor.
       (2) Reports to secretary.--The protocols under subsection 
     (c)(4) shall require owners and operators of railroad to make 
     annual reports to the Secretary regarding the transportation 
     of extremely hazardous materials, and to make quarterly 
     updates if there has been any significant change in the type, 
     quantity, or frequency of shipments.
       (3) Considerations.--In developing protocols under 
     subsection (c)(4), the Secretary shall consider both the 
     security needs of the United States and the interests of 
     State and local governmental officials.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Frequency.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall make an annual report 
     to local governmental officials and Local Emergency Planning 
     Committees under subsection (c)(5).
       (B) Updates.--If there has been any significant change in 
     the type, quantity, or frequency of rail shipments in a 
     geographic area, the Secretary shall make a quarterly update 
     report to local governmental officials and Local Emergency 
     Planning Committees in that geographic area.
       (2) Contents.--Each report made under subsection (c)(5) 
     shall incorporate information from the reports under 
     subsection (c)(4) and shall include--
       (A) a good-faith estimate of the total number of rail cars 
     containing extremely hazardous materials shipped through or 
     stored in each metropolitan statistical area; and
       (B) if a release from a railcar carrying or storing 
     extremely hazardous materials is likely to harm persons or 
     property beyond the property of the owner or operator of the 
     railroad, a risk management plan that provides--
       (i) a hazard assessment of the potential effects of a 
     release of the extremely hazardous materials, including--

       (I) an estimate of the potential release quantities; and
       (II) a determination of the downwind effects, including the 
     potential exposures to affected populations;

       (ii) a program to prevent a release of extremely hazardous 
     materials, including--

       (I) security precautions;
       (II) monitoring programs; and
       (III) employee training measures utilized; and

       (iii) an emergency response program that provides for 
     specific actions to be taken in response to the release of an 
     extremely hazardous material, including procedures for 
     informing the public and Federal, State, and local agencies 
     responsible for responding to the release of an extremely 
     hazardous material.
       (h) Transportation and Storage of Extremely Hazardous 
     Materials Through High Threat Corridors.--
       (1) In general.--The standards for the Secretary to grant 
     exceptions under subsection (c)(8) shall require a finding of 
     special circumstances by the Secretary, including that--
       (A) the shipment originates in or is destined to the high 
     threat corridor;
       (B) there is no practical alternate route;
       (C) there is an unanticipated, temporary emergency that 
     threatens the lives of people in the high threat corridor; or
       (D) there would be no harm to persons or property beyond 
     the property of the owner or operator of the railroad in the 
     event of a successful terrorist attack on the shipment.
       (2) Practical alternate routes.--Whether a shipper must 
     utilize an interchange agreement or otherwise utilize a 
     system of tracks or facilities owned by another operator 
     shall not be considered by the Secretary in determining 
     whether there is a practical alternate route under paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       (3) Grant of exception.--If the Secretary grants an 
     exception under subsection (c)(8)--
       (A) the extremely hazardous material may not be stored in 
     the high threat corridor, including under a leased track or 
     rail siding agreement; and
       (B) the Secretary shall notify Federal, State, and local 
     law enforcement and first responder agencies (including, if 
     applicable, transit, railroad, or port authority agencies) 
     within the high threat corridor.

     SEC. 4. SAFETY TRAINING.

       (a) Homeland Security Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to local 
     governments and owners and operators of railroads to conduct 
     training regarding safety procedures for handling and 
     responding to emergencies involving extremely hazardous 
     materials.
       (2) Use of funds.--Grants under this subsection may be used 
     to provide training and purchase safety equipment for 
     individuals who--
       (A) transport, load, unload, or are otherwise involved in 
     the shipment of extremely hazardous materials;
       (B) would respond to an accident or incident involving a 
     shipment of extremely hazardous materials; and
       (C) would repair transportation equipment and facilities in 
     the event of such an accident or incident.
       (3) Application.--A local government or owner or operator 
     of a railroad desiring a grant under this subsection shall 
     submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably establish.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Railway Hazmat Training Program.--
       (1) Program.--Section 5116(j) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Railway hazmat training program.--
       ``(A) In order to further the purposes of subsection (b), 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall, subject to the 
     availability of funds, make grants to national nonprofit 
     employee organizations with experience in conducting training 
     regarding the transportation of hazardous materials on 
     railways for the purpose of training railway workers who are 
     likely to discover, witness, or otherwise identify a release 
     of extremely hazardous materials and to prevent or respond 
     appropriately to the incident.
       ``(B) The Secretary of Transportation shall delegate 
     authority for the administration of the Railway Hazmat 
     Training Program to the Director of the National Institute of 
     Environmental Health Sciences under subsection (g). In 
     administering the program under this paragraph, the Director 
     of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
     shall consult closely with the Secretary of Transportation 
     and the Secretary of Homeland Security.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 5127 of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Railway Hazmat Training Program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006, 2007, and 2008 to carry out section 
     5116(j)(6).''.

     SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Transport.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     the benefits and availability of technology and procedures 
     that may be utilized to--
       (A) reduce the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a rail 
     shipment of extremely hazardous materials;
       (B) reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic release of 
     extremely hazardous materials in the event of a terrorist 
     attack; and
       (C) enhance the ability of first responders to respond to a 
     terrorist attack on a rail shipment of extremely hazardous 
     materials and other required activities in the event of such 
     an attack.
       (2) Matters studied.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall include the evaluation of--
       (A) whether safer alternatives to 90-ton rail tankers 
     exist;
       (B) the feasibility of requiring chemical shippers to 
     electronically track the movements of all shipments of 
     extremely hazardous materials and report this information to 
     the Department of Homeland Security on an ongoing basis as 
     such shipments are transported; and
       (C) the feasibility of utilizing finger-print based access 
     controls for all chemical conveyances.
       (3) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress describing the findings of the study conducted under 
     this subsection, which shall include recommendations and cost 
     estimates for securing shipments of extremely hazardous 
     materials.
       (b) Physical Security.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     the physical security measures available for rail shipments 
     of extremely hazardous materials that will reduce the risk of 
     leakage or release in the event of a terrorist attack or 
     sabotage.
       (2) Matters studied.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall consider the use of passive secondary 
     containment of tanker valves, additional security force 
     personnel, surveillance technologies, barriers, decoy rail 
     cars, and methods to minimize delays during shipping.
       (3) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the

[[Page S6746]]

     Secretary shall submit a report to Congress describing the 
     findings of the study conducted under this subsection, which 
     shall contain recommendations and cost estimates for securing 
     shipments of extremely hazardous materials.
       (c) Leased Track Storage Arrangements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of available 
     alternatives to storing extremely hazardous materials in or 
     on leased track facilities.
       (2) Matters studied.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) evaluate the extent of the use of leased track 
     facilities and the security measures that should be taken to 
     secure leased track facilities; and
       (B) assess means to limit the consequences of an attack on 
     extremely hazardous materials stored on leased track 
     facilities to nearby communities.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress describing the findings of the study conducted under 
     this subsection, which shall contain recommendations and cost 
     estimates for securing shipments of extremely hazardous 
     materials.

     SEC. 6. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

       (a) Prohibition Against Discrimination.--No owner or 
     operator of a railroad may discharge or otherwise 
     discriminate against any employee with respect to 
     compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment 
     because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to the 
     request of the employee) provided information to the 
     Secretary, the Attorney General, or any Federal supervisory 
     agency regarding a possible violation of any provision of 
     this Act by the owner or operator of a railroad or any 
     director, officer, or employee of an owner or operator of a 
     railroad.
       (b) Enforcement.--Any employee or former employee who 
     believes that such employee has been discharged or 
     discriminated against in violation of subsection (a) may file 
     a civil action in the appropriate United States district 
     court before the end of the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date of such discharge or discrimination.
       (c) Remedies.--If the district court determines that a 
     violation has occurred, the court may order the owner or 
     operator of a railroad that committed the violation to--
       (1) reinstate the employee to the employee's former 
     position;
       (2) pay compensatory damages; or
       (3) take other appropriate actions to remedy any past 
     discrimination.
       (d) Limitation.--The protections of this section shall not 
     apply to any employee who--
       (1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged 
     violation of law or regulation; or
       (2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false 
     information to the Secretary, the Attorney General, or any 
     Federal supervisory agency.

     SEC. 7. PENALTIES.

       (a) Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--Any State or local government may bring a 
     civil action in a United States district court for redress of 
     injuries caused by a violation of this Act against any person 
     (other than an individual) who transports, loads, unloads, or 
     is otherwise involved in the shipping of extremely hazardous 
     materials by rail and who violated this Act.
       (2) Relief.--In an action under paragraph (1), a State or 
     local government may seek, for each violation of this Act--
       (A) an order for injunctive relief; and
       (B) a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000.
       (b) Administrative Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may issue an order imposing 
     an administrative penalty of not more than $1,000,000 for 
     each failure by a person (other than an individual) who 
     transports, loads, unloads, or is otherwise involved in the 
     shipping of extremely hazardous materials to comply with this 
     Act.
       (2) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide the person who 
     allegedly violated this Act--
       (A) written notice of the proposed order; and
       (B) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the person received the notice, a 
     hearing on the proposed order.
       (3) Procedures.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations 
     establishing procedures for administrative hearings and the 
     appropriate review of penalties issued under this subsection, 
     including establishing deadlines.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1257. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify 
that persons may bring private rights of actions against foreign states 
for certain terrorist acts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, along with my colleague, Senator 
Lautenberg, I am introducing the Justice for Marine Corps Families--
Victims of Terrorism Act. I am submitting this legislation on behalf of 
the families of the brave servicemen who died when terrorists--with the 
support of the Government of Iran--sent a suicide bomber into the 
Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, on October 23, 1983, killing 
241 U.S. servicemen--18 sailors, 3 soldiers, and 220 marines.
  This legislation clarifies a private right of action, in Federal 
courts, for U.S. citizens against state sponsors of terrorism and will 
ultimately make it easier for victims of such acts to collect court-
ordered damages against state-sponsors of terrorism. The specific 
provisions of the legislation have been drafted to harmonize existing 
statutory law with the recent decision by the District of Columbia 
circuit in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024, 
D.C. Cir. 2004, which held that ``neither 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(7) nor 
the Flatow Amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. . . ., 
nor the two considered in tandem, creates a private right of action 
against a foreign government.'' 353 F.3d 1024, 1032-33 (D.C. Cir. 
2004). This bill will permit the families of the brave servicemen who 
died at the Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, to collect court-
ordered damages against state-sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.
  The initial section of the bill clarifies that victims of a state-
sponsored terrorist attack are permitted to bring a private suit 
against the sponsoring foreign terrorist government. Congress first 
allowed U.S. citizen victims of state sponsored terrorism to pursue 
private actions against a foreign terrorist government when we passed 
the Flatow Amendment in 1996. Now, some 9 years and over 50 successful 
cases later, the Federal Appellate Court for the District of Columbia 
Circuit in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 353 F.3d 1024 
D.C., 2004, has held that the Flatow amendment did not create a private 
right of action against a foreign terrorist government. Accordingly, 
the initial section of this bill will correct Cicippio-Puleo by 
explicitly inserting language into the Flatow amendment enabling U.S. 
citizens to once again bring private suits against foreign terrorist 
governments who have murdered or maimed their loved ones.
  The second section of the bill eliminating many of the barriers which 
have prevented U.S. citizens from collecting on court ordered damages 
against state sponsors of terrorism. The bill does this by changing the 
legal standard of the Bancec doctrine from day to day-managerial 
control to those under the beneficial ownership of the state. The 
Supreme Court enunciated the so-called Bancec doctrine in First Nat'l 
City Bank v. Banco Para EI Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 
626-27, 1983. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court created a 
presumption against a party that seeks to satisfy an outstanding 
judgment against a foreign government by seizing the foreign 
government's assets. This section of the bill will ease the burden on 
the families of victims of terrorism by permitting them to attach the 
hidden assets of terrorist states held within the United States. 
Finally, the remaining portions of the bill would create a mechanism 
whereby a lien could be filed in any jurisdiction in the United States 
where a state sponsor of terrorism directly or indirectly owns assets. 
This would prevent foreign state sponsors of terrorism from removing 
these assets from the country after the passage of this legislation.
  On October 23, 2004, in Philadelphia, I was privileged to take part 
in a memorial service held in honor of the servicemen killed in the 
1983 Beirut attack. Some of the family members of those killed attended 
the event. Their moving comments about how they had been denied the 
ability to seek legal redress, despite clear findings implicating Iran 
in the attacks, were both poignant and persuasive. It is vitally 
important to victims' families that they have a private right of action 
against the state sponsor itself, not just against its officials, 
employees, or agents acting in their official capacity. These victims 
and their families deserve not only a day in court but also the ability 
to recover damages from these terrorist states that commit, direct, or 
materially support terrorist acts against American citizens or 
nationals. This bill reaffirms that the United States will not tolerate 
state-sponsored terrorism. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join us 
in support of this

[[Page S6747]]

bill. I yield the floor. I ask unaminous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1257

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST 
                   TERRORIST STATES; DAMAGES.

       (a) Right of Action.--Section 1605 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``or (h)'' after ``subsection (a)(7)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Certain Actions Against Foreign States or Officials, 
     Employees, or Agents of Foreign States.--
       ``(1) Cause of action.--
       ``(A) Cause of action.--A foreign state designated as a 
     state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or 
     section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371), or an official, employee, or agent of such a foreign 
     state, shall be liable to a national of the United States (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) or the national's 
     legal representative for personal injury or death caused by 
     an act of that foreign state, or by that official, employee, 
     or agent while acting within the scope of his or her office, 
     employment, or agency, for which the courts of the United 
     States may maintain jurisdiction under subsection (a)(7) for 
     money damages. The removal of a foreign state from 
     designation as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 
     6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2405(j)), section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2371), or other provision of law shall not 
     terminate a cause of action arising under this subparagraph 
     during the period of such designation.
       ``(B) Discovery.--The provisions of subsection (g) apply to 
     actions brought under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Nationality of claimant.--No action shall be 
     maintained under subparagraph (A) arising from an act of a 
     foreign state or an official, employee, or agent of a foreign 
     state if neither the claimant nor the victim was a national 
     of the United States (as that term is defined in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)) when such acts occurred.
       ``(2) Damages.--In an action brought under paragraph (1) 
     against a foreign state or an official, employee, or agent of 
     a foreign state, the foreign state, official, employee, or 
     agent, as the case may be, may be held liable for money 
     damages in such action, which may include economic damages, 
     damages for pain and suffering, or, notwithstanding section 
     1606, punitive damages. In all actions brought under 
     paragraph (1), a foreign state shall be vicariously liable 
     for the actions of its officials, employees, or agents.
       ``(3) Appeals.--An appeal in the courts of the United 
     States in an action brought under paragraph (1) may be made--
       ``(A) only from a final decision under section 1291 of this 
     title, and then only if filed with the clerk of the district 
     court within 30 days after the entry of such final decision; 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of an appeal from an order denying the 
     immunity of a foreign state, a political subdivision thereof, 
     or an agency of instrumentality of a foreign state, only if 
     filed under section 1292 of this title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 589 of the Foreign 
     Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1997, as contained in section 101(a) of 
     Division A of Public Law 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009-172; 28 
     U.S.C. 1605 note), is repealed.

     SEC. 2. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT EXECUTION.

       Section 1610 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Property Interests in Certain Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--A property interest of a foreign state, 
     or agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, against 
     which a judgment is entered under subsection (a)(7) or (h) of 
     section 1605, including a property interest that is a 
     separate juridical entity, is subject to execution upon that 
     judgment as provided in this section, regardless of--
       ``(A) the level of economic control over the property 
     interest by the government of the foreign state;
       ``(B) whether the profits of the property interest go to 
     that government;
       ``(C) the degree to which officials of that government 
     manage the property interest or otherwise control its daily 
     affairs;
       ``(D) whether that government is the real beneficiary of 
     the conduct of the property interest; or
       ``(E) whether establishing the property interest as a 
     separate entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits 
     in United States courts while avoiding its obligations.
       ``(2) United states sovereign immunity inapplicable.--Any 
     property interest of a foreign state, or agency or 
     instrumentality of a foreign state, to which paragraph (1) 
     applies shall not be immune from execution upon a judgment 
     entered under subsection (a)(7) or (h) of section 1605 
     because the property interest is regulated by the United 
     States Government by reason of action taken against that 
     foreign state under the Trading With the Enemy Act or the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act.''.

     SEC. 3. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTERS.

       (a) Victims of Crime Act.--Section 1404C(a)(3) of the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c(a)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``December 21, 1988, with respect to 
     which an investigation or'' and inserting ``October 23, 1983, 
     with respect to which an investigation or a civil or 
     criminal''.
       (b) Justice for Marines.--The Attorney General shall 
     transfer, from funds available for the program under sections 
     1404C of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c), 
     to the Administrator of the United States District Court for 
     the District of Columbia such funds as may be required to 
     carry out the orders of United States District Judge Royce C. 
     Lamberth appointing Special Masters in the matter of 
     Peterson, et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 
     01CV02094 (RCL).

     SEC. 4. LIS PENDENS.

       (a) Liens.--In every action filed in a United States 
     district court in which jurisdiction is alleged under 
     subsection (a)(7) or (h) of section 1605 of title 28, United 
     States Code, the filing of a notice of pending action 
     pursuant to such subsection, to which is attached a copy of 
     the complaint filed in the action, shall have the effect of 
     establishing a lien of lis pendens upon any real property or 
     tangible personal property located within that judicial 
     district that is titled in the name of any defendant, or 
     titled in the name of any entity controlled by any such 
     defendant if such notice contains a statement listing those 
     controlled entities. A notice of pending action pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(7) or (h) of section 1605 of title 28, United 
     States Code, shall be filed by the clerk of the district 
     court in the same manner as any pending action and shall be 
     indexed by listing as defendants all named defendants and all 
     entities listed as controlled by any defendant.
       (b) Enforcement.--Liens established by reason of subsection 
     (a) shall be enforceable as provided in chapter 111 of title 
     28, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act apply to 
     any claim for which a foreign state is not immune under 
     subsection (a)(7) or (h) of section 1605 of title 28, United 
     States Code, arising before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prior Causes of Action.--In the case of any action 
     that--
       (1) was brought in a timely manner but was dismissed before 
     the enactment of this Act for failure to state of cause of 
     action, and
       (2) would be cognizable by reason of the amendments made by 
     this Act, the 10-year limitation period provided under 
     section 1605(f) of title 28, United States Code, shall be 
     tolled during the period beginning on the date on which the 
     action was first brought and ending 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
  S. 1258. A bill to designate the building located at 493 Auburn 
Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights 
Institute''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has 
been at the front of our country's fight for civil rights. Born a son 
of sharecroppers in Troy, AL, John grew up to become one of the leading 
proponents fighting on the frontlines of the civil rights movement.
  John grew up listening to speeches from the Reverend Martin Luther 
King Jr., and observing many courageous acts, such as the Montgomery 
bus boycotts. Through those examples, Lewis could no longer stand idly 
by while others suffered for his sake. He was motivated to become an 
active participant in these historical events. From organizing peaceful 
demonstrations, to riding in the fronts of buses, Lewis was a key 
leader and played a dynamic role in the civil rights movement.
  From 1963-1966 Lewis served as chairman of the Student Nonviolent 
Coordinating Committee. In 1963 Lewis was named one of the Big Six 
Civil Rights leaders along with Martin Luther King Jr., James Farmer, 
Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, and A. Phillip Randolph.
  In August 1963, John Lewis was a keynote speaker at the momentous 
March on Washington where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his ``I Have a 
Dream'' speech. On March 7, 1965, Lewis helped the now pivotal voting 
rights march from Selma to Montgomery, AL. Sustaining physical injuries 
for the principles he believed in, John Lewis remained steadfast in his 
commitment to promoting human rights in the United States. The violent 
reactions by Alabama state troopers that day sparked an outcry and

[[Page S6748]]

eventually served to facilitate passage of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965.
  Mr. President, as a congressman, statesman, humanitarian, the Nation 
has benefited greatly from the lifelong contributions of John Lewis. I 
am proud to introduce legislation honoring John Lewis.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1258

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

     SECTION 1. JOHN LEWIS CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE.

       (a) Designation.--The building located at 493 Auburn 
     Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 
     a reference to the John Lewis Civil Rights Institute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER:
  S. 1261. A bill to simplify access to financial aid and access to 
information on college costs, to provide for more learning and less 
reporting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in case the President may be wondering, 
and I asked consent about this, these are 7,000 regulations. We have 
6,000 autonomous institutions of higher education in the United States, 
colleges and universities.
  The Presiding Officer comes from the State that has some of the 
finest colleges and universities anywhere in America. I will not begin 
to name them because there are so many of them I might leave one out. 
Every single college or university, public or private, in North 
Carolina, Tennessee, or Colorado which has students with Federal grants 
or loans gets all of these boxes this year. These are the Federal 
regulations under title IV of the Higher Education Act that somebody at 
the smallest college or the biggest university must wade through in 
order to help students have Federal grants and Federal loans. The 
Federal grant and Federal loans are one of the great success stories of 
the United States of America. I will talk more about that.
  Mr. President, 60 percent of our college students and university 
students at those 6,000 public and private and profit and nonprofit 
institutes of higher education, 60 percent of them have a Federal grant 
or loan to help pay for college. That has increased over the last 4 or 
5 years about 10 times faster--9 times faster--than State funding for 
higher education.
  But my goal today, in my remarks and in the bill I am introducing, is 
to make it easier for boys and girls and men and women who attend our 
colleges and universities--and many of them are mature, older 
students--to make it easier for them to go through these documents. And 
then, on the other hand, to make it easier for our colleges and 
universities to comply with all these rules and regulations. I would 
like for them to be spending their time and their money helping our 
students learn instead of spending their time and their money reporting 
to us what they are doing.
  That is the purpose of what I want to do today. I am introducing the 
Higher Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005, a bill 
that does what I just described. It will help students get access to 
available financial resources. Second, it will reduce the burden on 
colleges and universities imposed by Federal regulations so they can 
devote more of their time doing what they are meant to do: provide the 
highest quality postsecondary education in the world. And third, it 
will ensure that the autonomy and independence of our 6,000 
institutions of higher education are preserved.
  I am delighted I am able to interrupt the energy debate to talk about 
higher education because I think while it sounds like we are shifting 
gears, they really go together. If I am looking at our country today, 
and I had to take an exam this minute about the two greatest issues 
facing the United States of America, I would say, No. 1, terrorism, 
and, No. 2, competitiveness. ``Competitiveness'' a big word, meaning: 
How are we going to keep our jobs? How are we going to keep our 
standard of living in this country when we have 5 or 6 percent of the 
people in the world, and yet we produce a third of all the money, 
consume 25 percent of all the energy? And China and India and Singapore 
and Malaysia, not to mention Japan and Europe, are saying: Wait a 
minute. Our brains are as good as those American brains. A lot of our 
students have been going to the United States, creating jobs for those 
Americans. In fact, 572,000 foreign students are in this country today, 
basically improving our standard of living by their work here.
  So we are in a very competitive time. Just as we have been saying in 
energy, here comes China, here comes Malaysia, here comes India buying 
up the oil reserves, driving up the price. Here comes Germany and other 
parts of the world with lower natural gas prices than we have. And our 
jobs are going toward them.
  The other thing we could do to ensure our good jobs and to keep our 
higher standard of living is to focus on our brainpower. The great 
advantages the United States of America has had since World War II have 
been our low cost, reliable supply and access to energy, our science 
and technology edge, and our educational institutions. There are so 
many examples of that.
  Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, and our 
majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, had a little session in the 
leader's office last year. They invited the former Brazilian President 
Fernando Henrique Cardoso. He was concluding his residency at the 
Library of Congress. I remember after he had said what he had to say, 
we asked our questions.
  Senator Hutchison asked of President Cardoso: Mr. President, what is 
the one thing you are going to remember about the United States from 
your stay here at the Library of Congress that you will take with you 
back to your country of Brazil? Without a moment's hesitation, he said: 
The American university, the greatness and the autonomy of the American 
university.
  I will tell you another story. A few years ago, I was asked to be the 
president of the University of Tennessee. It was 1988. I was glad to do 
it. I had been chairman of the board of the university for 8 years as 
Governor, and I appointed a lot of the trustees, but I was not a 
skilled university president. So I sought out David Gardner, the 
president of the University of California, which I regard, with all 
respect to North Carolina, at least at that time, to be the outstanding 
public university in America and perhaps one of the best in the world.
  I said to David Gardner: Why is the University of California so good? 
Without a moment's hesitation, he said: First, autonomy. When 
California created the university--they created four branches of 
government, really: legislative, executive, judicial, and then the 
University of California. He said: Fundamentally, they give us the 
money, and then our board and we decide how to spend it. Our autonomy 
has permitted us to do the second thing, set very high standards. And 
then he said the third thing was the large amount of Federal dollars 
that follows students to the educational institution of their choice.
  So autonomy, excellence, and choice--Federal dollars following 
students to the schools of their choice. That is how David Gardner 
explained the California model for excellence in higher education.
  That model has worked for our country since the GI bill for veterans 
was enacted in 1944. I have wondered many times how we were fortunate 
enough to have decided to do it in the way they did it. This was for 
the veterans. It was the end of World War II. There were college 
presidents who were very upset about the idea of giving the veterans 
money and just telling them to go wherever they wanted to go to 
college.
  The president of the University of Chicago said it would make the 
University of Chicago a hobo's jungle. But we know what it did. We had 
veterans coming back and taking their GI bill. Many of them took it to 
Catholic high schools and other high schools because they had not 
finished high school. But they went wherever they wanted, to any 
accredited institution. They went to Yeshiva. They went to Vanderbilt. 
They went to the historically Black colleges and universities across 
America--Harvard. It did not matter. If it was accredited, they chose 
the institution.

[[Page S6749]]

  The same formula was applied when the Pell grants were created by 
this Congress in honor of Senator Pell, who was a former Member of this 
body; as is true with Senator Stafford and the Stafford loans. Instead 
of giving those grants and loans to the University of North Carolina 
and the University of Tennessee, they went to the student. The student 
then said: Well, I will decide where I want to go. I may want to go to 
Rhodes College, or I may want to go to Lenore Rhyne or I may want to go 
to the University of Florida or Yeshiva or Howard. They go where they 
want to go.

  Because of that, we now have 6,000 autonomous institutions around the 
country. Many of them are nonprofit. Many of them are for profit. 
Eighty percent of our students go to public institutions, but 20 
percent go to private institutions. Because it is a marketplace of 
6,000 institutions, and some are, of course, better than others, 
because it is a marketplace, we have been able to adapt to a changing 
world that now has different subjects, different standards, a more 
global environment, and students who are, by and large, much older and 
have different needs than they did before.
  If we had not had that kind of marketplace of colleges and 
universities, we would be stuck in the mud, and we would not have 
former President Cardoso of Brazil talking so well about our colleges 
and universities.
  We do not just have some of the best colleges and universities in the 
world; we have almost all of them. And the rest of the world knows 
that. We do not have 572,000 foreign students studying in our country 
this year because we made them come, or even because we give them 
scholarships. They pay to come for the most part. They are the 
brightest students in most of these countries. And 60 percent of our 
postdoctoral students are from overseas. Half our students in computer 
and engineering graduate programs are from overseas. They are here for 
that reason. So we attract these students. The Federal Government has 
continued to be generous.
  So there are two things I am introducing today with this bill. Number 
one, this legislation would simplify the financial aid process and 
expand access for students. We do it in these ways: (a) streamline the 
forms for Federal grants and loans, making access to student financial 
aid easier; (b) provide students who want to expedite their education 
and study year-round the Federal support to do so; (c) provide students 
with financial information about colleges and universities in a clear 
and concise manner that does not require additional reporting from 
institutions.
  The second purpose of the bill is to protect that autonomy, that one 
word, that independence, that autonomy of these 6,000 institutions. 
That is, in my view, a critical element of why we have the best 
colleges and universities in the world.
  What I mean by that is we did not order them to be good from 
Washington. That is not how they got to be great. They were autonomous 
and independent. We allowed them to be, and then we gave them students, 
followed by money, who created a competitive marketplace. And they 
became the best in the world.
  So this legislation eliminates, streamlines, and evaluates 
regulations currently imposed on institutions of higher education with 
the goal of lessening the burden on schools. That way, universities can 
focus more on teaching and researching and less on maintaining 
reporting requirements for the Federal Government.
  The bill, No. 1, appoints an expert panel to review Department of 
Education regulations and to recommend how those regulations might be 
streamlined or eliminated. Two, it accelerates the ``negotiated 
rulemaking process'' whereby universities negotiate new rules with the 
Department so that an end result can be reached without costly delays. 
And three, it develops a compliance calendar so that universities know 
what requirements they have to meet and when they to have meet them.
  What I mean by that is, it will be up to us in the Federal Government 
to send to the University of North Carolina or Maryville College in 
Tennessee a list of the rules they have to comply with so they don't 
have to hire a whole team of people to try to wade through and read 
everything.
  This is just one title of the Higher Education Act. It has several 
titles. So a compliance calendar would help deregulate.
  These changes build on the successful model for American higher 
education. By making the financial aid process more user friendly and 
more accessible, more students will have Federal funds following them 
to the college or university of their choice. And by relieving some of 
the Federal regulatory burden, we are restoring university autonomy so 
they can spend more time teaching and researching and less time filling 
out paperwork.
  I have two major purposes. The first is to simplify and expand access 
to financial aid, to make it easier for the 60 percent of our college 
students who fill out a form to get a Federal grant or loan; and 
second, to reduce the burdensome paperwork on the colleges and 
universities.
  In terms of simplifying access, we need to remember that the faces 
and needs of our college students have changed. More typically these 
days, when I go to a graduation--this has been true for a number of 
years--the cry you hear from the audience is: Way to go, mom. It is the 
mom who is getting her degree, or the dad, going back to school, 
college, community college, trade school, university to get the skills 
they need to get a better job or another job in a rapidly changing 
world.
  In 1970, we had 7.4 million students, 28 percent of whom were 
enrolled part time and 38 percent at two-year colleges. Only 28 percent 
were 25 or older. By 1999, enrollment had grown to 12.7 million, a 7.2-
percent increase with 39 percent enrolled part time and 44 percent in 
two-year colleges. Nearly half our students in 1999 were in two-year 
colleges. Our financial aid system needs to catch up.
  The first thing we can do is to simplify what we call the Free 
Application Federal Student Aid. As one might expect, it is known 
around here as FAFSA. Imagine that. You go out and try to talk to a 
family of someone who might be going to college for the first time and 
that family says let me talk to you about FAFSA.
  I think we ought to change the name. I think we ought to make it easy 
for people to understand what we are talking about. I recently met a 
chief financial officer of a company who said she found the form 
challenging when helping her high school daughter fill out a form for 
financial aid. I can only imagine the challenge to a high school 
student, or a working mother, when trying to answer over 100 confusing 
questions, the vast majority of which are only applicable for the State 
of California.
  So a second thing we can do is make sure students can use the Federal 
aid for education they need year round. Flexibility for year-round Pell 
grants is a part of this legislation so students can have the 
flexibility they need to go and continue their education in the summer. 
There is a disincentive for that. Not only is that inconvenient for 
students and working students, it tends to encourage institutions to 
waste the resources in the summertime, which they should be putting to 
better use.
  The third thing we can do is make sure there is more information. 
That is why I suggest the ``best buy'' list--a list of the 100 schools 
with the lowest tuition and required fees, with the greatest 
availability of scholarships and grants. In other words, this would 
help parents and students decide where they could get the biggest bang 
for their buck.
  Many of the ideas that are in our legislation came from the Advisory 
Committee on Student Financial Assistance. Senator Gregg, when he was 
chairman, and I invited them to work on this. They did a terrific job 
and they came up with 10 recommendations, 8 of which are in this bill, 
and I believe they have no cost to the budget.
  The other area and my final comments have to do with the other side 
of the ledger. While we are making it easier for students to have 
access to financial aid, we should work to relieve the regulatory 
burden on colleges and universities represented by these boxes of 7,000 
regulations that contain all the forms any college or university in 
Florida or Tennessee or North Carolina would receive this year to fill 
out. Thanks to the last two rounds of reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act,

[[Page S6750]]

there are today more than 7,000 regulations associated with the title 
IV student aid program. With the exception of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, every Federal 
agency is involved in regulating some aspect of higher education. That 
is incredible and it is absolutely ridiculous.
  In 1997, Gerhard Casper, the president of Stanford University, said 
Stanford spends 7 cents out of every tuition dollar on compliance with 
Government regulations. This has only gotten worse in the last 9 years. 
We need to ease the burden. For example, under the Higher Education 
Act, universities are required to report how many full-time employees 
have dental insurance, whether the university is a member of a national 
athletic association, and the number of meals that are in a ``board'' 
charge. Colleges are required to hand every student a paper in-State 
voter registration form and cannot use modern technology such as Web 
registrations, which would actually reach more students. We are giving 
university staff busy work to do when they ought to be helping 
students.
  Here is another example. When a major chemical company such as DuPont 
produces 55-gallon containers of a potentially hazardous waste, we 
require Dupont to report on how all that waste is disposed and ensure 
that it is done in a certain manner. This is a good regulation and 
idea. Right now, we are applying the same regulation and paperwork to a 
chemistry class at a college that might produce half a test tube of the 
same substance.
  Mr. President, I don't know about the presiding officer, the Senator 
from Florida, and I now see the Senator from Virginia; I suspect that 
when we all go back to our States and speak to our Lincoln Day dinners, 
or when the Democrats go to the Jefferson Day dinners, we all say the 
thing we need to do once we pass these laws is to have more oversight 
and ease the burden of regulation. When I say that, I get a big round 
of applause, because at home people don't think we get any smarter when 
we fly to Washington, DC, each week. They think it would be absurd to 
know there are 7,000 regulations governing college grants and loans, 
and that Stanford University spends 7 cents out of--and this is a 
private university--every tuition dollar paying for the cost of 
Government regulations.

  One reason we have an increased interest in regulating is because 
there are a great many Members of Congress, as well as people in the 
country, who worry about rising tuition costs. I worry about those, 
too. When I was Governor of Tennessee, we used to have a deal with the 
students. The State will pay 70 percent of the cost, and you pay 30 
percent, and if we raise your tuition, we will raise the State 
contribution. That has changed, I am afraid, and I think it is 
important for us to know that. Tuition is not going up because the 
Federal Government is failing to do its job. Over the last 4 years, 
Pell grants, work-study, scholarships all gone up about 30 percent. At 
the same time, over the last 4 years, State spending for higher 
education is up 3.6 percent. I will say that again. This is according 
to various educational institutions, including the Center for Study of 
Education Policy, Illinois State University. In fiscal year 2001, there 
was a 3.4 percent increase in State funding for higher education. In 
2002, there was a 1.2-percent decrease; in the next year, a 2.4-percent 
decrease. This is State funding for higher education. Last year, there 
was a 3.8-percent increase--3.6 over the 4 years.
  So what our colleges and universities are feeling, and what our 
students are feeling, is decreased State support for higher education. 
One reason they are feeling that is because we have not given States 
the tools to control the growth in Medicaid spending. So in Tennessee, 
Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, our colleges and universities 
are hurting because the Governors and legislatures are spending the 
dollars that ought to be going for excellence in universities. They are 
spending it on huge increases in Medicaid costs. That is part of our 
responsibility, too.
  So I come to the floor today to introduce the Higher Education 
Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005. I invite my colleagues to 
join me in it. We will be marking up a Higher Education Authorization 
Act next month. It affects 60 percent of the college students in the 
United States. I am sure we are going to continue to fund those grants 
and loans, as we have from here, but we also need to do two other 
things. One of them is in here, and that is not to get busy regulating 
more colleges and universities. We should be deregulating. The other 
thing we should do, which is not a part of this bill, is to keep our 
commitment to the Governors that, by about the fall of this year, we 
should give them the legislative tools they need--and I believe also 
relief from Federal court consent decrees, which are outdated--so they 
can manage the growth of Medicaid spending, so that in turn we can 
continue to support higher education.
  Our energy bill and our higher education bill are at the forefront of 
our policies to keep our jobs and our competitiveness.
  Here's one more example: If you grab a pint bottle of rubbing alcohol 
from your bathroom and take it to a university laboratory, it will 
immediately fall under the regulation and scrutiny of six different 
regulatory agencies:
  (1) the air quality management district,
  (2) the sewer district,
  (3) OSHA,
  (4) the local fire department,
  (5) the county environmental health department, and
  (6) the state hazardous waste agency.
  While all of these are not directly governed by federal regulations, 
many are responding to them, and we should do our part to reduce this 
type of burden. In one instance, a prestigious institution in the 
Midwest was visited by the EPA and a bottle of dishwashing soap was 
found in a lab near a sink. The institution was fined for improper 
management of hazardous waste because the label was not still attached 
to the bottle. Even worse, the institution had to pay to have the soap 
analyzed to document that it was not hazardous.
  Colleges are in the business of teaching students, not sending 
meaningless paperwork to the federal government. To fix this problem, 
my legislation would establish an expert panel to review federal 
regulations applicable to colleges and universities and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Education and the Congress on how 
some of these regulations could be streamlined or eliminated. The bill 
also would assist institutions in complying with all these requirements 
by requiring the Department to develop a compliance calendar outlining 
specific deadlines for paperwork submissions.
  In those cases where there is already clarity about how to deal with 
regulations, the bill takes action. The bill will accelerate the 
``negotiated rulemaking process,'' a process whereby university 
representatives negotiate new regulations with the Department. Today 
this process can drag on for years, imposing unnecessary costs along 
the way due to uncertainty over a final outcome for the rule. Under my 
bill, that process would have a one year deadline. To give schools a 
chance to adjust to newly agreed regulations, institutions of higher 
education would be provided with a minimum of at least 270 days between 
the publication of any final regulations or guidance and the initiation 
of data collection related to new disclosure requirements.
  The bill also reinstates provisions to allow schools with a low 
``cohort default rate,'' meaning that less than 10 percent of their 
students fail to pay all their loans back on time, the option of 
distributing loan money to students right at the beginning of the year 
rather than waiting a month or spacing the money out over the period of 
a year. This is important since students incur many expenses up front 
during their education and need the flexibility to pay for fees, books, 
and other costs.
  Mr. President, since the end of World War II, our system of higher 
education has been unmatched around the globe. According to the 
Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai University, more than half 
the world's top 100 universities are in the United States.
  But our lead is slipping. During a trip to Europe, I discovered that 
Chancellor Schroeder of Germany is putting a strong emphasis on 
reforming his country's university system to mirror--and perhaps even 
eclipse--our own. British prime minister Tony Blair is overhauling his 
nation's system because he sees a growing gap between the quality

[[Page S6751]]

of American and British universities. Authorities in India and 
especially China are working harder than ever to improve the quality of 
education in their own countries and keep their brightest minds from 
leaving their countries. Australia and Canada are making strides as 
well. And, for the first time, we have witnessed a decline in graduate 
student enrollment. The Council on Graduate Schools estimated that 
foreign applications to graduate programs in the U.S. were down this 
year by five percent.
  This greater competition means that not only do we find it harder 
than ever to attract foreign students, but our graduates will find it 
harder to compete for top-paying jobs in the global economy since they 
will be competing against talented, well-educated individuals from 
around the world.
  Now is the time to fine-tune our own system of higher education and 
restore its greatest strengths: generous financial assistance for 
students, autonomy, and high standards. Generous support is most 
effective when students can access it with a minimum of hassle and with 
maximum flexibility to apply it to their accredited program. Freedom 
from over-regulation or control by government allows colleges and 
universities to quickly adjust to the needs of their students and focus 
on teaching and research. High standards are the natural result of a 
competitive system where schools compete among each other for dollars 
and students.
  My bill restores the pillars of our higher education system and gives 
us the ability to move forward with confidence in the twenty-first 
century. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a summary of the Higher Education Simplification and 
Deregulation Act of 2005.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Higher Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005

       There are 6,000 autonomous institutions of higher education 
     nationwide, and it is the autonomy and independence that our 
     universities possess that makes our system of higher 
     education the best in the world. While the federal government 
     partners with American students, families and institutions to 
     make a college education accessible, increased regulations on 
     these same entities threatens this remarkably successful 
     relationship. Countries around the world look to our higher 
     education system and are trying to emulate it. The Higher 
     Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005 (the 
     Act) takes steps to reduce bureaucratic red tape, increase 
     autonomy and allow the U.S. to continue to be the best in the 
     world. As we reauthorize The Higher Education Act over the 
     next five years, our goal should be to make college more 
     accessible and not restrict that autonomy.


   Simplify: Access to Financial Aid and Information on College Costs

       (1) Simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 
     (FAFSA)
       Implement the majority of recommendations from the Advisory 
     Committee on Student Financial Assistance on simplification 
     of the FAFSA form including improved transparency, 
     verification of need and earlier notification of financial 
     aid eligibility. There is no cost associated with 
     implementing these recommendations.
       (2) Year-Round Pell Grants and Flexible Loans for Year 
     Round Study
       Authorize year-round Pell grants for both 2 and 4 year 
     institutions. This will help working students and older 
     adults who need increased flexibility and year round 
     financial aid.
       Increase annual loan limits for greater funding flexibility 
     for students attending college for more than two academic 
     semesters.
       (3) Secretary's list on College ``BEST BUYS''
       Secretary will publish existing institutional data in a 
     user friendly way.
       Best Buy List of ``the top 100'' will help students 
     decipher institutional expenses and financial aid.
       Each year the Secretary shall publish a list of 
     institutions of higher education, by all nine sectors, that 
     identifies:
       (a) The 100 schools with the lowest tuition and required 
     fees;
       (b) The 100 schools with the lowest cost of attendance;
       (c) The 100 schools with the largest percentage of incoming 
     full-time students who receive financial aid;
       (d) The 100 schools with the largest average amount of 
     incoming full-time student financial aid on a per student 
     basis;
       (e) The 100 schools with the largest percentage of students 
     who receive institutional grants and scholarships;
       (f) The 100 schools with the slowest increase in tuition 
     and fees during the preceding 5 years; and
       (g) The 100 schools with the slowest increase in total cost 
     of attendance during the preceding 5 years.
       (4) Make the Department of Education's Graduate Programs' 
     Need Analysis consistent with other federal graduate 
     programs.
       All graduate and professional students are, by definition, 
     independent students and therefore highly likely to have 
     financial need. The federal need analysis requirement in 
     Jacob K. Javits fellowship and Graduate Assistance in Areas 
     of National Need (GAANN) programs often causes lengthy delays 
     in processing grant applications. Instead of yielding helpful 
     distinctions among the applicant pool, the requisite 
     utilization of the federal needs analysis methodology creates 
     massive amounts of paperwork for students, institutions, and 
     the Department of Education. Comparable graduate fellowship 
     programs, such as the Title VI Foreign Language and Area 
     Studies program, and similar training and fellowship programs 
     at National Institutes of Health, National Science 
     Foundation, and the Department of Defense contain no such 
     requirement. Therefore, Javits and GAANN will not be subject 
     to federal needs analysis.


                     More Learning, Less Reporting

       Institutions of higher education are among the most 
     regulated entities in the United States.
       With the exception of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, all federal 
     agencies are involved in regulating some aspect of higher 
     education.
       In addition, there are more than 7,000 regulations 
     associated with Title IV student aid programs alone.
       Seven cents of every tuition dollar is spent on government 
     regulations (Stanford University, 1997)
       There are lots of regulators of higher education and even 
     more regulations issued by the Department.
       (1) Appoint an Expert Panel to Review and Streamline 
     Department of Education Regulations
       Panels, appointed by the Secretary, will review regulations 
     on financial aid, institutional eligibility, regulations 
     unrelated to the delivery of student aid and dissemination of 
     information requirements. The panel would then make 
     recommendations to the Secretary and the appropriate 
     Congressional committees on streamlining and eliminating 
     these regulations.
       (2) One Size Does Not Fit All for Industry and Academic 
     Regulations
       Fund a project by the National Research Council to develop 
     standards in environmental, health and safety areas to 
     provide for differential regulation of industrial facilities, 
     on the one hand, and research and teaching laboratories and 
     facilities on the other. The report will make specific 
     recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes that are 
     needed to develop such a differential approach.
       (3) Accelerate Negotiated Rulemaking Process
       The process, while somewhat successful, is costly, and 
     significantly delays implementation of regulations. This 
     process should be streamlined. This bill gives the Secretary 
     of Education the authority to engage in negotiated 
     rulemaking, but she is not required to do so if she decides 
     the process is too cumbersome or inefficient.
       (4) Develop a Compliance Calendar
       For financial aid programs alone, institutions must comply 
     with over 7,000 pages of regulations.
       Each year, the Secretary will be required to provide 
     eligible institutions a list of the reporting and disclosure 
     requirements under the Higher Education Act to assist 
     institutions in complying with these requirements.
       The list will include: (1) the date each report is required 
     to be completed and to be submitted, made available, or 
     disseminated; (2) the required recipients of each report, 
     including reports that must be kept on file for inspection 
     upon request; (3) any required method for transmittal or 
     dissemination; (4) a description of the content of each 
     report sufficient to allow the institution to identify the 
     appropriate individuals to be assigned the responsibility for 
     its preparation; (5) references to the statutory authority, 
     applicable regulations, and current guidance issued by the 
     Secretary regarding each report; and (6) any other 
     information which is pertinent to the content or distribution 
     of the report or disclosure.
       (5) Reinstate two expiring provisions on disbursement of 
     student loans.
       The first provision allows schools with cohort default 
     rates below 10 percent to disburse a loan in a single 
     installment rather than in multiple disbursements over the 
     year.
       The second lets schools with low cohort default rates waive 
     the requirement that loan proceeds of a first-year, first-
     time borrower loan be withheld for thirty days so that these 
     students can purchase books and supplies, pay housing costs, 
     and meet other expenses.
       (6) Voter Registration Dissemination.
       This bill clarifies that institutions can use electronic 
     means to meet the requirement to disseminate voter 
     registration forms to students. Electronic means will ensure 
     that dissemination to students occurs both effectively and 
     efficiently.


   Eliminate or Alter the following Reporting Requirements in the HEA

       (1) Application of Change of Ownership to non-profit 
     institutions

[[Page S6752]]

       The Department of Education applies provisions concerning 
     change of institutional ownership to nonprofit institutions, 
     despite clear expression of contrary congressional intent and 
     the common understanding that nonprofit institutions do not 
     have owners. This places unnecessary burdens on institutions, 
     and may act as a deterrent to governance changes intended to 
     make institutions more efficient and effective.
       (2) Disclosure of Foreign Gifts
       When an institution receives a foreign gift in excess of 
     $250,000 they must report it to the federal government. This 
     data is publicly available in the annual reports prepared by 
     every college and university and is carefully monitored for 
     public institutions by state governments. The Department of 
     Education reports that it never gets public requests for this 
     information. Institutions will no longer be required to 
     provide this information to the federal government, but make 
     it publicly available on an annual basis.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Talent, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 1262. A bill to reduce healthcare costs, improve efficiency, and 
improve healthcare quality through the development of a nation-wide 
interoperable health information technology system, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning I am pleased to be joined on 
the floor by my distinguished colleague from the State of New York. 
Together we share an important goal to improve health care quality and 
reduce costs through the use of health information technology tools.
  I had the wonderful opportunity of spending 20 years as a physician 
and as a heart surgeon before coming to this body. Like most 
physicians, I wanted to and, in fact, did use the very latest, most 
advanced technology, anything that could possibly, in my practice, make 
my patients live a healthier life, a better life, a more comfortable 
life.
  But amidst the artificial heart assist devices, the lasers that are 
used to remove lesions in the windpipe or the trachea, CT scan 
machines, x-rays, digital x-rays, digital thermometers, doctors today, 
unfortunately, for the most part, keep patient records the very same 
way I did 10 years ago and, indeed, almost exactly as my dad did 60 
years ago as he practiced medicine, and that is handwritten on paper in 
manila folders, typically stored in the basements of clinics or 
doctors' offices or hospitals.
  It is amazing because we design hospitals, structures on computers 
today, we conduct medical research with computers, we use computers in 
nearly every aspect of the clinical setting, the delivery of medicine. 
From very compact bedside monitors to these massive MRI scanners we 
have today, computers power almost everything we use, everything we do 
in terms of diagnosis in medicine, in health care.
  But--and this is what we have come to the floor to address--when it 
comes to health information, when it comes to electronic medical 
records, we are in the stone age and not the information age.
  Imagine a traveler far away from home who gets in an automobile 
accident and is taken unconscious or confused to a hospital. Paramedics 
rush them to a hospital, and at the very moment that individual arrives 
at the door of that emergency room, the emergency room physician meets 
them, but emptyhanded, with no notification of allergies or past 
medical history or preexisting illnesses, all of which is potentially 
lifesaving information. That is inexcusable in this day and age.
  My colleague from New York knows this all too well.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to 
Senator Frist for his leadership on this issue because we certainly do 
need to bring our health care system out of the information dark ages. 
I am pleased to be introducing this legislation today with the majority 
leader. It is a priority for both of us, and I look forward to 
continuing our partnership to move this legislation through the 
legislative process.
  For several years, I have been promoting the adoption of health 
information technology as a means to improve our health care system and 
bring it into the 21st century. I introduced health quality and 
information technology legislation in 2003 to jump-start the 
conversation on health IT. I am very pleased that I have had the 
opportunity now to work with the majority leader for more than a year 
on realizing what we believe would work, that would enable patients, 
physicians, nurses, hospitals--all--to have access electronically in a 
privacy-protected way to health information.
  We have a lot of challenges facing us in health care. We have a long 
way to go to achieve the goal of expanding access to quality, 
affordable health care for all Americans. But creating a health 
information technology infrastructure needs to be a key part of 
achieving our health care goals because we are facing an escalating 
health care crisis.
  Information technology has radically changed business and other 
aspects of our lives. It is time to use it to bring our health sector 
into the information age.
  Currently, the health industry spends 2 to 3 percent of its revenues 
on information technology, compared to roughly 12 percent in industries 
such as finance or banking. That is why you can go to an ATM virtually 
anywhere in the world and access money from your bank account.
  But despite evidence that greater investments could yield returns, we 
have not put in place the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the 
necessary investment in an interoperable health information technology 
and quality infrastructure.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this needs to change and it must change. We 
must establish an interoperable privacy-protected electronic medical 
record for every American who wants one. Working together, our Nation 
can confront these challenges, and we can build an interoperable 
national health information technology system. We know it will save 
lives. We know it will save money. It will improve quality and it will 
lead to huge measurable progress in the medical field, in the health 
field.
  We face enormous problems as a result of the underinvestment in 
health information technology. No industry as important to our economy 
as health spends as little on information technology. Our Nation has 
nearly 900,000 doctors and over 2.8 million nurses. Americans visit a 
doctor 900 million times per year. We have nearly 6,000 hospitals all 
over the country. Our health care system is enormous, yes, but it is 
dangerously fragmented. Even a small efficiency improvement can greatly 
reduce cost and improve quality, and there is plenty of room for 
improvement.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I could not agree more. The majority 
leader comes to this debate with a lifetime of experience and 
expertise. Researchers at Dartmouth University found that we waste as 
much as one-third of the $1.8 trillion we spend on health care on care 
that is not necessary.
  Doctors write over 2 billion prescriptions each year by hand. With 
all respect to my doctors, some are unclear or even illegible. 
Handwritten prescriptions filled incorrectly result in as many as 7,000 
deaths each year because we do not have access to a fail-safe system so 
that providing the prescription electronically, which also would 
trigger a response if it was interacting with another drug the patient 
was taking, is not yet available.
  With that data, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to track 
the quality of care patients receive. We cannot reward good providers 
or work to improve those who provide inferior care.
  Widening health care disparities really are a growing problem in our 
society. It is especially important because every moment that a doctor 
or a nurse spends with a patient is precious. For every hour that they 
spend with a patient, they spend one-half hour filling out those forms 
by hand. So we can save time, we can save money, and we can make it 
clear that this information will be easily electronically transportable 
where it is needed.
  Mr. FRIST. The problem is enormous and the problem is real. So what 
are we going to do about it? Senator Clinton and I propose three 
concrete steps to remedy these problems and establish a fully 
interoperable information technology system. First, we must establish 
standards for electronic medical records. Sharing data effectively 
requires more than just that fiber optic

[[Page S6753]]

cable, more than those Internet connections. It requires standards and 
laws that make it possible to exchange medical information in a 
privacy-protected way throughout our Nation.
  The Government should not impose these standards on the private 
sector, but it has a duty, and indeed it has an obligation, to lead the 
way. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the Indian Health Service, and other 
Federal programs should lead the way and establish electronic health 
records for all of their clients.
  The Veterans' Administration already leads the way with interoperable 
systems, but we need to get the VA to be able to talk to the Department 
of Defense.
  Mrs. CLINTON. That is absolutely the case, especially as we 
tragically know so many young people who have been injured in Iraq or 
Afghanistan move from the DOD to the VA. We have to have a better 
system so that they can know what needs to be done for these brave 
young men and women.
  Secondly, we believe our legislation should work to reduce barriers 
and facilitate the electronic exchange of health information among 
providers in a secure and private way to improve health care quality 
and meet community needs. When communities come together, as is 
beginning to happen all over the country, the Federal Government should 
help them implement an interoperable health IT system.
  Interoperable sounds like a confusing word, but it means they can 
talk to each other, they can operate in the same overall system and do 
it in a way that complies with national standards. To speed up this 
process, we propose spending a total of $600 million--$125 million a 
year, over 5 years--to begin the work of rolling out interoperable 
electronic medical records systems around the Nation.
  Finally, we must use the data we collect to focus intensely on 
improving the quality of health care. Our medical system, which is, and 
deserves to be, the envy of the world, still suffers from enormous and 
unpardonable disparities in the quality of care. Health IT will be a 
tool to help our dedicated health care professionals improve care, and 
efficiently, so that they spend more time at the bedside, more time at 
the office visit, and less on paperwork.
  Through this legislation, we will begin to collect consistent data on 
the quality of health care delivered in America. As the largest health 
care payer in the country, the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to begin that process of collecting data on its own health care 
programs and share it with the public. Then, with this data, we can 
begin to move to a health care system that actually rewards providers 
who give their patients superior care.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as we talk about these systems and 
standards and words such as interoperability, which, as the Senator 
from New York said, does mean being able to connect it all together, 
people who are listening must ask: Well, how in the world do these 
electronic health records and the appropriate use of that data bring 
concrete benefits to them as individuals and to their families?
  First, it will reduce waste and inefficiency in the system. It only 
makes sense that fragmented systems, with no interconnectivity at all, 
have inherent inefficiencies and waste. That is moved aside. That has a 
very direct impact on lower costs, making health care more affordable 
and thus available for people broadly.
  It improves quality. Right now we know that medical errors occur. Too 
many medical errors occur in our health care system today. By the 
application of technology, we can move those medical errors aside. They 
will not occur and that improves quality.
  They will empower patients. It gives that individual who is listening 
right now the knowledge and power to be able to participate in a 
consumer-driven system where choices can be made, where the focus is on 
the patient, that is provider friendly, that is driven by information 
and choice and empowerment to make that choice.
  They will protect patient privacy and promote the secure exchange of 
life-saving health information. It is spelled out in the legislation. 
It is going to be privacy protected.
  For the first time, they will seamlessly integrate this advancement 
in health information technology with quality measures, with quality 
advancements, harmonizing and integrating them in a way that simply has 
not been done in the past.
  This proposal brings together people, as we can see, from across the 
political spectrum, and it will unlock the potential of medical 
information technology for all Americans.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I am delighted to be working on this very important 
national initiative with the majority leader because we are at a 
pivotal moment. Pockets of innovation and investment are developing all 
over the country. In my State, places like Rochester, NY, and in the 
majority leader's State, the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee, health 
care providers, employers and community groups are beginning the 
process of building a health information technology network. That is a 
positive first step, but it could be either a last step or a misstep 
because to truly achieve the promise of health information technology, 
we must ensure that these efforts do not become silos. In other words, 
there is one system for every hospital, one system for every clinical 
practice. They cannot talk to each other. So a person goes to one 
doctor. Their doctor is in New York, but they travel to Tennessee to 
visit friends, they are in an accident, and nobody knows how to get the 
information that will give them the best possible treatment.
  So if we do this right, this comprehensive legislation will create a 
health information technology framework that improves quality, protects 
patient privacy and ensures interoperability through the adoption of 
health IT standards and quality measures.
  We are marrying technology and quality to create a seamless, 
efficient health care system for the 21st century. I thank the majority 
leader, who has brought so much interest and expertise to this, for 
being a leader and making this happen in the next 18 months.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank my colleague in this endeavor. As mentioned 
earlier, we began working on the information technology aspects of 
health care about a year ago and published our first op-ed together 
about July of last year.
  In closing, this is not going to be an easy process. I look back at 
the technology in my past in medicine for 20 years, but then also in my 
dad's practice; he practiced medicine for 55 years. I remember he had 
one of the very earliest electrocardiogram, EKG, machines in the State 
of Tennessee. At that time--because there were so few machines and so 
few cardiologists--he would take referrals from all over the State of 
Tennessee. The machine itself was bigger than the desk before me, at 
the time.
  What would happen then is, if there was a machine in a little rural 
community 100 miles away from Nashville, the machine there would take a 
piece of paper, they would run it through, they would send it by mail. 
It would take 2 days to get to Nashville. Dad would read it and send it 
back. Four days later, that doctor would be able to read that EKG.
  Then, when I was about 9 or 10 years of age--because their bedroom 
was right around the corner from mine--I remember so well when he 
installed a telephone to put another big box there to have the first in 
Tennessee again of a machine--and it was amazing at the time--one could 
transmit these EKGs electronically over the telephone wire and have it 
interpreted at the bedside. He would keep it there because people, of 
course, have heart attacks in the middle of the night. Then it would 
take probably about 30 or 40 minutes to get the result back.
  Of course, today we are at a point where with a little tiny machine, 
an EKG machine, we can get an instantaneous readout not just of the 
paper and of the EKG but the result actually read by the box.
  I have been able to see huge progress in my own life and watching my 
dad's practice and my practice. Now we need to see all of that sort of 
progress condensed, applied not just to the technology but to the 
collection of information, the promotion of electronic health records, 
and the appropriate sharing of that information which is privacy 
protected. That is the sort of progress we are going to see. We are 
going to see it come alive on the Senate floor and with the House and 
work

[[Page S6754]]

in concert with the President of the United States to make sure that 
the great advantages, in terms of lowering costs, getting rid of 
inefficiencies, and promoting quality will be realized.
  The bill that we will shortly introduce does present a comprehensive 
approach of medical information and the use of medical information as 
we address our health care challenges. It provides that important 
backbone and critical building block for a better, a stronger, and a 
more responsive health care system for all Americans.
  Again, I thank my distinguished colleague from New York. We urge all 
of our colleagues to look at this bill and support this bill. With this 
legislation, there is no doubt in my mind that we will, yes, help save 
money and help save time, but most importantly we will save lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill we will shortly 
send to the desk be printed in the Record.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Frist and 
Clinton in introducing the Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 
2005.
  Our national health care system is in crisis. Forty-five million 
Americans are uninsured, and this number continues to rise. Health care 
costs are increasing at almost double digit rates. Millions of 
Americans are suffering, and dying, from diseases such as diabetes or 
AIDS that could have been prevented or delayed for many years. And the 
chance of Americans receiving the right care, at the right time and for 
the right reason is no greater than the flip of a coin.
  These health care issues are varied and complex, as are the 
solutions. But, as one of my constituents advised, it is time for us in 
the Congress to put on our hard hats, pick up our tool belts and get to 
work fixing our broken health care system.
  One place to start is by bringing the health care system into the 
21st century. In our lifetimes, we have seen some of the greatest 
advances in the history of technology and the sharing of information. 
Yet, in our health care system, too much care is still provided with a 
pen and paper. Too much information about patients is not shared 
between doctors or readily available to them in the first place. And 
providers too often do not have the information to know what care has 
worked most effectively and efficiently to make patients healthy.
  Mistakes are easily made--medical errors alone kill up to 98,000 
people a year, more people than the number who die from AIDS each year.
  But embracing 21st century technology is not just about reducing 
errors and improving the quality of medical care. It is also about 
cost.
  We spend nearly $1.5 trillion a year on health care in America. But a 
quarter of that money--one out of every four dollars--is spent on non-
medical costs--most of it on bills and paperwork. Every transaction you 
make at a bank now costs them less than a penny. Yet, because we have 
not updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a 
single transaction still costs up to $25--not one dime of which goes 
toward improving the quality of our health care.
  The Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005 is going to help 
bring the health care system into the 21st century. This bill will lead 
to the development and implementation of health information technology 
standards to ensure interoperability of health information systems. The 
legislation codifies the Office of National Coordinator for Information 
Technology and establishes standards for the electronic exchange of 
health information. The bill also provides grant funding to support 
development of health information technology infrastructure as well as 
measurement of the quality of care provided to patients.
  This legislation will help our health care system take a huge step 
forward. A vote for the Health TEQ Act is a vote for health care that 
is safe, effective, and affordable. I urge my colleagues to join us in 
passing this bill quickly.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1262

       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 ``Health Technology to Enhance 
     Quality Act of 2005'' or the ``Health TEQ Act of 2005''.

     TITLE I--HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS ADOPTION AND 
                       INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COORDINATOR; 
                   RECOMMENDATION, ADOPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   HEALTH INFORMATION ELECTRONIC EXCHANGE 
                   STANDARDS.

       The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

              ``TITLE XXIX--HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

     ``SEC. 2901. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Group health plan.--The term `group health plan' has 
     the meaning giving that term in section 2791.
       ``(2) Healthcare provider.--The term `healthcare provider' 
     means a hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health 
     entity, healthcare clinic, community health center, group 
     practice (as defined in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act), a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act), a pharmacist, a pharmacy, a 
     laboratory, and any other category of facility or clinician 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Health information.--The term `health information' 
     means any information, recorded in any form or medium, that 
     relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental 
     health or condition of an individual, the provision of 
     healthcare to an individual, or the past, present, or future 
     payment for the provision of healthcare to an individual.
       ``(4) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance 
     issuer' has the meaning given that term in section 2791.
       ``(5) Laboratory.--The term `laboratory' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 353.
       ``(6) Pharmacist.--The term `pharmacist' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act.

     ``SEC. 2902. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR OF HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) Office of National Health Information Technology.--
     There is established within the Office of the Secretary an 
     Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information 
     Technology (referred to in this section as the `Office'). The 
     Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be 
     appointed by the President in consultation with the Secretary 
     and shall report directly to the Secretary.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It shall be the purpose of the Office to 
     carry out programs and activities to develop a nationwide 
     interoperable health information technology infrastructure 
     that--
       ``(1) improves healthcare quality, reduces medical errors, 
     and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
       ``(2) reduces healthcare costs resulting from inefficiency, 
     medical errors, inappropriate care, and incomplete 
     information;
       ``(3) ensures that appropriate information to help guide 
     medical decisions is available at the time and place of care;
       ``(4) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater 
     competition, and increased choice through the wider 
     availability of accurate information on healthcare costs, 
     quality, and outcomes;
       ``(5) improves the coordination of care and information 
     among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other 
     entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure 
     and authorized exchange of healthcare information;
       ``(6) improves public health reporting and facilitates the 
     early identification and rapid response to public health 
     threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and 
     infectious disease outbreaks;
       ``(7) facilitates health research; and
       ``(8) ensures that patients' health information is secure 
     and protected.
       ``(c) Duties of National Coordinator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The National Coordinator shall--
       ``(A) facilitate the adoption of a national system for the 
     electronic exchange of health information;
       ``(B) serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary on 
     the development, application, and use of health information 
     technology, and coordinate and oversee the health information 
     technology programs of the Department;
       ``(C) ensure the adoption and implementation of standards 
     for the electronic exchange of health information, including 
     coordinating the activities of the Standards Working Group 
     under section 2903;
       ``(D) carry out activities related to the electronic 
     exchange of health information that reduce cost and improve 
     healthcare quality;
       ``(E) ensure that health information technology policy and 
     programs of the Department are coordinated with those of 
     relevant executive branch agencies (including Federal 
     commissions) with a goal of avoiding duplication of efforts 
     and of helping to ensure that each agency undertakes health 
     information technology activities primarily within the areas 
     of its greatest expertise and technical capability;
       ``(F) to the extent permitted by law, coordinate outreach 
     and consultation by the relevant executive branch agencies 
     (including Federal commissions) with public and

[[Page S6755]]

     private parties of interest, including consumers, payers, 
     employers, hospitals and other healthcare providers, 
     physicians, community health centers, laboratories, vendors 
     and other stakeholders;
       ``(G) advise the President regarding specific Federal 
     health information technology programs; and
       ``(H) submit the reports described under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Reports to congress.--The National Coordinator shall 
     submit to Congress, on an annual basis, a report that 
     describes--
       ``(A) specific steps that have been taken to facilitate the 
     adoption of a nationwide system for the electronic exchange 
     of health information;
       ``(B) barriers to the adoption of such a nationwide system; 
     and
       ``(C) recommendations to achieve full implementation of 
     such a nationwide system.
       ``(d) Detail of Federal Employees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon the request of the National 
     Coordinator, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to 
     detail, with or without reimbursement from the Office, any of 
     the personnel of such agency to the Office to assist it in 
     carrying out its duties under this section.
       ``(2) Effect of detail.--Any such detail shall--
       ``(A) not interrupt or otherwise affect the civil service 
     status or privileges of the Federal employee; and
       ``(B) be in addition to any other staff of the Department 
     employed by the National Coordinator.
       ``(3) Acceptance of Detailees.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Office may accept detailed personnel 
     from other Federal agencies without regard to whether the 
     agency described under paragraph (1) is reimbursed.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the activities of the Office under this section 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     ``SEC. 2903. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION, 
                   ADOPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Establishment of Working Group.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this title, the National 
     Coordinator, in consultation with the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology (referred to 
     in this section as the `Director'), shall establish a 
     permanent Electronic Health Information Standards Development 
     Working Group (referred to in this title as the `Standards 
     Working Group').
       ``(b) Composition.--The Standards Working Group shall be 
     composed of--
       ``(1) the National Coordinator, who shall serve as the 
     chairperson of the Standards Working Group;
       ``(2) the Director;
       ``(3) representatives of the relevant Federal agencies and 
     departments, as selected by the Secretary in consultation 
     with the National Coordinator, including representatives of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of 
     Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department 
     of Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       ``(4) private entities accredited by the American National 
     Standards Institute, as selected by the National Coordinator;
       ``(5) representatives, as selected by the National 
     Coordinator--
       ``(A) of group health plans or other health insurance 
     issuers;
       ``(B) of healthcare provider organizations;
       ``(C) with expertise in health information security;
       ``(D) with expertise in health information privacy;
       ``(E) with experience in healthcare quality and patient 
     safety, including those with experience in utilizing health 
     information technology to improve healthcare quality and 
     patient safety;
       ``(F) of consumer and patient organizations;
       ``(G) of employers;
       ``(H) with experience in data exchange; and
       ``(I) with experience in developing health information 
     technology standards and new health information technology; 
     and
       ``(6) other representatives as determined appropriate by 
     the National Coordinator in consultation with the Secretary.
       ``(c) Standards Deemed Adopted.--On the date of enactment 
     of this title, the Secretary and the Standards Working Group 
     shall deem as adopted, for use by the Secretary and private 
     entities, the standards adopted by the Consolidated Health 
     Informatics Initiative prior to such date of enactment.
       ``(d) Duties.--
       ``(1) First year review.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this title, the Standards Working Group 
     shall--
       ``(A) review existing standards (including content, 
     communication, and security standards) for the electronic 
     exchange of health information, including such standards 
     deemed adopted under subsection (c);
       ``(B) identify deficiencies and omissions in such existing 
     standards;
       ``(C) identity duplications and omissions in existing 
     standards, and recommend modifications to such standards as 
     necessary; and
       ``(D) submit a report to the Secretary recommending for 
     adoption by such Secretary and private entities--
       ``(i) modifications to the standards deemed adopted under 
     subsection (c); and
       ``(ii) any additional standards reviewed pursuant to this 
     paragraph.
       ``(2) Ongoing review.--Beginning 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, and on an ongoing basis thereafter, 
     the Standards Working Group shall--
       ``(A) review existing standards (including content, 
     communication, and security standards) for the electronic 
     exchange of health information, including such standards 
     adopted by the Secretary under subsections (c) and (e);
       ``(B) identify deficiencies and omissions in such existing 
     standards;
       ``(C) identity duplications and omissions in existing 
     standards, and recommend modifications to such standards as 
     necessary; and
       ``(D) submit reports to the Secretary recommending for 
     adoption by such Secretary and private entities--
       ``(i) modifications to any existing standards; and
       ``(ii) any additional standards reviewed pursuant to this 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The standards described under this 
     subsection shall not include any standards developed pursuant 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996.
       ``(e) Adoption by Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the receipt of a report from the Standards Working Group 
     under paragraph (1)(D) or (2)(D) of subsection (d), the 
     Secretary shall review and provide for the adoption by the 
     Federal Government of any modification or standard 
     recommended in such report.
       ``(f) Voluntary Adoption.--Any standards adopted by the 
     Secretary under this section shall be voluntary for private 
     entities.
       ``(g) Application of FACA.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the Standards Working Group 
     established under this section.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 2-
     year termination date under section 14 of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Standards 
     Working Group.

     ``SEC. 2904. IMPLEMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Implementation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     National Coordinator and the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, shall develop criteria 
     to ensure uniform and consistent implementation of any 
     standards for the electronic exchange of health information 
     voluntarily adopted by private entities in technical 
     conformance with such standards adopted under this title.
       ``(2) Implementation assistance.--The Secretary may 
     recognize a private entity or entities to assist private 
     entities in the implementation of the standards adopted under 
     this title.
       ``(b) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     National Coordinator and the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology shall develop criteria 
     to ensure and certify that hardware, software, and support 
     services that claim to be in compliance with any standard for 
     the electronic exchange of health information adopted under 
     this title have established and maintain such compliance in 
     technical conformance with such standard.
       ``(2) Certification assistance.--The Secretary may 
     recognize a private entity or entities to assist in the 
     certification described under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Delegation authority.--The Secretary may delegate the 
     development of the criteria under subsection (a) and (b) to a 
     private entity.

     ``SEC. 2905. AUTHORITY FOR COORDINATION AND SPENDING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary acting through the 
     National Coordinator--
       ``(1) shall direct and coordinate--
       ``(A) Federal spending related to the development, 
     adoption, and implementation of standards for the electronic 
     exchange of health information; and
       ``(B) the adoption of the recommendations submitted to such 
     Secretary by the Standards Working Group established under 
     section 2903; and
       ``(2) may utilize the entities recognized under section 
     2904 to assist in implementation and certification related to 
     the implementation by the Federal Government of the standards 
     adopted by the Secretary under this title.
       ``(b) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no Federal agency shall expend Federal funds for the 
     purchase of hardware, software, or support services for the 
     purpose of implementing a standard related to the electronic 
     exchange of health information that is not a standard adopted 
     by the Secretary under section 2903.
       ``(2) Effective date.--The limitation under paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect not later than 1 year after the adoption by 
     the Secretary of such standards under section 2903.''.

     SEC. 102. ENCOURAGING SECURE EXCHANGE OF HEALTH INFORMATION.

       (a) Study and Grant Programs Related to State Health 
     Information Laws and Practices.--
       (1) Study of state health information laws and practices.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall carry 
     out, or contract with a private entity to carry out, a study 
     that examines--

[[Page S6756]]

       (i) the variation among State laws and practices that 
     relate to the privacy, confidentiality, and security of 
     health information;
       (ii) how such variation among State laws and practices may 
     impact the electronic exchange of health information (as 
     defined in section 2901 of the Public Health Service Act) (as 
     added by section 101)--

       (I) among the States;
       (II) between the States and the Federal Government; and
       (III) among private entities; and

       (iii) how such laws and practices may be harmonized to 
     permit the secure electronic exchange of health information.
       (B) Report and recommendations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       (i) describes the results of the study carried out under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) makes recommendations based on the results of such 
     study.
       (2) Secure exchange of health information; incentive 
     grants.--Title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     added by section 101) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2906. SECURE EXCHANGE OF HEALTH INFORMATION; INCENTIVE 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to States 
     to carry out programs under which such States cooperate with 
     other States to develop and implement State policies that 
     will facilitate the secure electronic exchange of health 
     information utilizing the standards adopted under section 
     2903--
       ``(1) among the States;
       ``(2) between the States and the Federal Government; and
       ``(3) among private entities.
       ``(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall give priority to States that provide 
     assurance that any funding awarded under such a grant shall 
     be used to harmonize privacy laws and practices between the 
     States, the States and the Federal Government, and among 
     private entities related to the privacy, confidentiality, and 
     security of health information.
       ``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall 
     disseminate information regarding the efficacy of efforts of 
     a recipient of a grant under this section.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to recipients of a grant under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.
       (b) Study and Grant Programs Related to State Licensure 
     Laws.--
       (1) Study of state licensure laws.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, or contract 
     with a private entity to carry out, a study that examines--
       (i) the variation among State laws that relate to the 
     licensure, registration, and certification of medical 
     professionals; and
       (ii) how such variation among State laws impacts the secure 
     electronic exchange of health information (as defined in 
     section 2901 of the Public Health Service Act) (as added by 
     section 101)--

       (I) among the States; and
       (II) between the States and the Federal Government.

       (B) Report and recommendations.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     publish a report that--
       (i) describes the results of the study carried out under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) makes recommendations to States regarding the 
     harmonization of State laws based on the results of such 
     study.
       (2) Reauthorization of incentive grants regarding 
     telemedicine.--Section 330L(b) of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-18(b)) is amended by striking ``2002 
     through 2006'' and inserting ``2006 through 2010''.
       (3) HIPAA application to electronic health information.--
     Title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act (as added by 
     section 101 and amended by subsection (a)) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2907. APPLICABILITY OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY 
                   REGULATIONS.

       ``The regulations promulgated by the Secretary under part C 
     of title XI of the Social Security Act and sections 261, 262, 
     263, and 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996 with respect to the privacy, 
     confidentiality, and security of health information shall--
       ``(1) apply to any health information stored or transmitted 
     in an electronic format as of the date of enactment of this 
     title; and
       ``(2) apply to the implementation of standards, programs, 
     and activities under this title.''.
       (c) Study and report.--
       (1) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out, or 
     contract with a private entity to carry out, a study that 
     examines the integration of the standards adopted under the 
     amendments made by this Act with the standards adopted under 
     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-191).
       (2) Plan; report.--
       (A) Plan.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, based on the 
     results of the study carried out under paragraph (1), develop 
     a plan for the integration of the standards described under 
     such paragraph and submit a report to Congress describing 
     such plan.
       (B) Periodic Reports.--The Secretary shall submit periodic 
     reports to Congress that describe the progress of the 
     integration described under subparagraph (A).

TITLE II--FACILITATING THE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEROPERABLE 
                     ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

     SEC. 201. GRANTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL OR LOCAL 
                   HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.

       Title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by 
     section 102) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2908. GRANTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL OR 
                   LOCAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     National Coordinator, may award competitive grants to 
     eligible entities to implement regional or local health 
     information plans to improve healthcare quality and 
     efficiency through the electronic exchange of health 
     information pursuant to the standards, protocols, and other 
     requirements adopted by the Secretary under sections 2903 and 
     2910.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a) an entity shall--
       ``(1) demonstrate financial need to the Secretary;
       ``(2) demonstrate that one of its principal missions or 
     purposes is to use information technology to improve 
     healthcare quality and efficiency;
       ``(3) adopt bylaws, memoranda of understanding, or other 
     charter documents that demonstrate that the governance 
     structure and decisionmaking processes of such entity allow 
     for participation on an ongoing basis by multiple 
     stakeholders within a community, including--
       ``(A) physicians (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act), including physicians that provide 
     services to low income and underserved populations;
       ``(B) hospitals (including hospitals that provide services 
     to low income and underserved populations);
       ``(C) group health plans or other health insurance issuers;
       ``(D) health centers (as defined in section 330(b)) and 
     Federally qualified health centers (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act);
       ``(E) rural health clinics (as defined in section 1861(aa) 
     of the Social Security Act);
       ``(F) consumer organizations;
       ``(G) employers; and
       ``(H) any other healthcare providers or other entities, as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary;
       ``(4) adopt nondiscrimination and conflict of interest 
     policies that demonstrate a commitment to open, fair, and 
     nondiscriminatory participation in the health information 
     plan by all stakeholders;
       ``(5) adopt the national health information technology 
     standards adopted by the Secretary under section 2903;
       ``(6) facilitate the electronic exchange of health 
     information within the local or regional area and among local 
     and regional areas;
       ``(7) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application in 
     accordance with subsection (c); and
       ``(8) agree to provide matching funds in accordance with 
     subsection (e).
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Required information.--At a minimum, an application 
     submitted under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) clearly identified short-term and long-term 
     objectives of the regional or local health information plan;
       ``(B) a technology plan that complies with the standards 
     adopted under section 2903 and that includes a descriptive 
     and reasoned estimate of costs of the hardware, software, 
     training, and consulting services necessary to implement the 
     regional or local health information plan;
       ``(C) a strategy that includes initiatives to improve 
     healthcare quality and efficiency, including the use of 
     healthcare quality measures adopted under section 2910;
       ``(D) a plan that describes provisions to encourage the 
     implementation of the electronic exchange of health 
     information by all physicians, including single physician 
     practices and small physician groups participating in the 
     health information plan;
       ``(E) a plan to ensure the privacy and security of personal 
     health information that is consistent with Federal and State 
     law;
       ``(F) a governance plan that defines the manner in which 
     the stakeholders shall jointly make policy and operational 
     decisions on an ongoing basis; and
       ``(G) a financial or business plan that describes--
       ``(i) the sustainability of the plan;
       ``(ii) the financial costs and benefits of the plan; and
       ``(iii) the entities to which such costs and benefits will 
     accrue.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall be used to establish and implement a 
     regional

[[Page S6757]]

     or local health information plan in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(e) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not make a grant under 
     this section to an entity unless the entity agrees that, with 
     respect to the costs to be incurred by the entity in carrying 
     out the infrastructure program for which the grant was 
     awarded, the entity will make available (directly or through 
     donations from public or private entities) non-Federal 
     contributions toward such costs in an amount equal to not 
     less than 50 percent of such costs ($1 for each $2 of Federal 
     funds provided under the grant).
       ``(2) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal 
     contributions required under paragraph (1) may be in cash or 
     in kind, fairly evaluated, including equipment, technology, 
     or services. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or 
     services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by 
     the Federal Government, may not be included in determining 
     the amount of such non-Federal contributions.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section, $125,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2010.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available for obligation until expended.

     ``SEC. 2909. REPORTS.

       ``Not later than 1 year after the date on which the first 
     grant is awarded under section 2908, and annually thereafter 
     during the grant period, an entity that receives a grant 
     under such section shall submit to the Secretary, acting 
     through the National Coordinator, a report on the activities 
     carried out under the grant involved. Each such report shall 
     include--
       ``(1) a description of the financial costs and benefits of 
     the project involved and of the entities to which such costs 
     and benefits accrue;
       ``(2) an analysis of the impact of the project on 
     healthcare quality and safety;
       ``(3) a description of any reduction in duplicative or 
     unnecessary care as a result of the project involved; and
       ``(4) other information as required by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 202. EXCEPTION FOR THE PROVISION OF PERMITTED SUPPORT.

       (a) Exemption From Criminal Penalties.--Section 1128B(b) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (H), as added by section 237(d) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2213)--
       (i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (H), as added by section 
     431(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2287), as subparagraph (I);
       (D) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--
       (i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new:
       ``(J) subject to paragraph (4), the provision, with or 
     without charge, of any permitted support (as defined in 
     paragraph (4)(A) and subject to the conditions in paragraph 
     (4)(B)) to an entity or individual for developing, 
     implementing, operating, or facilitating the electronic 
     exchange of health information (as defined in section 2901 of 
     the Public Health Service Act), so long as such support is 
     primarily designed to promote the electronic exchange of 
     health information.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Permitted support.--
       ``(A) Definition of permitted support.--In this section, 
     the term `permitted support' means the provision of, or 
     funding used exclusively to provide or pay for, any 
     equipment, item, information, right, license, intellectual 
     property, software, or service, regardless of whether any 
     such support may have utility or value to the recipient for 
     any purpose beyond the exchange of health information (as 
     defined in section 2901 of the Public Health Service Act).
       ``(B) Conditions on permitted support.--Paragraph (3)(J) 
     shall not apply unless the following conditions are met:
       ``(i) The provision of permitted support is not conditioned 
     on the recipient of such support making any referral to, or 
     generating any business for, any entity or individual for 
     which any Federal health care program provides reimbursement.
       ``(ii) The permitted support complies with the standards 
     for the electronic exchange of health information adopted by 
     the Secretary under section 2903 of the Public Health Service 
     Act.
       ``(iii) The entity or network receiving permitted support 
     is able to document that such support is used by the entity 
     or the network for the electronic exchange of health 
     information in accordance with the standards adopted by the 
     Secretary under section 2903 of the Public Health Service 
     Act.''.
       (b) Exemption From Limitation on Certain Physician 
     Referrals.--Section 1877(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395nn(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Permitted support.--The provision of permitted 
     support (as described in section 1128B(b)(3)(J)).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to permitted support provided on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. GROUP PURCHASING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a safe 
     harbor for group purchasing of hardware, software, and 
     support services for the electronic exchange of health 
     information in compliance with section 2903 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (as added by section 101).
       (b) Conditions.--In establishing the safe harbor under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish conditions on 
     such safe harbor consistent with the purposes of--
       (1) improving healthcare quality;
       (2) reducing medical errors;
       (3) reducing healthcare costs;
       (4) improving the coordination of care;
       (5) streamlining administrative processes; and
       (6) promoting transparency and competition.

     SEC. 204. PERMISSIBLE ARRANGEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary shall establish guidelines in 
     compliance with section 2903 of the Public Health Service Act 
     that permit certain arrangements between group health plans 
     and health insurance issuers (as defined in section 2791 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91)) and 
     between healthcare providers (as defined in section 2901 of 
     such Act, as added by section 101) in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Conditions.--In establishing the guidelines under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish conditions on 
     such arrangements consistent with the purposes of--
       (1) improving healthcare quality;
       (2) reducing medical errors;
       (3) reducing healthcare costs;
       (4) improving the coordination of care;
       (5) streamlining administrative processes; and
       (6) promoting transparency and competition.

  TITLE III--ADOPTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND USE OF HEALTHCARE QUALITY 
                                MEASURES

     SEC. 301. STANDARDIZED MEASURES.

       Title XXIX of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by 
     section 201) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2910. COLLABORATIVE PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, 
                   RECOMMENDATION, AND ADOPTION OF STANDARDIZED 
                   MEASURES OF QUALITY HEALTHCARE.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Collaboration.--The Secretary, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and any other 
     heads of relevant Federal agencies as determined appropriate 
     by the President, (referred to in this section as the 
     `Secretaries') shall adopt, on an ongoing basis, uniform 
     healthcare quality measures to assess the effectiveness, 
     timeliness, patient self-management, patient-centeredness, 
     efficiency, and safety of care delivered by healthcare 
     providers across Federal healthcare programs, including those 
     in titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act.
       ``(2) Review of measures adopted.--The Secretaries shall 
     conduct an ongoing review of the measures adopted under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Existing activities--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the measures and reporting activities 
     described in this subsection shall replace, to the extent 
     practicable and appropriate, any duplicative or redundant 
     existing measurement and reporting activities currently 
     utilized by Federal healthcare programs, including those in 
     titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act.
       ``(b) Priority Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining the measures to be 
     adopted under subsection (a), and the timing of any such 
     adoption, the Secretaries shall give priority to--
       ``(A) measures with the greatest potential impact for 
     improving the quality and efficiency of care provided under 
     Federal programs;
       ``(B) measures that may be rapidly implemented by group 
     health plans, health insurance issuers, physicians, 
     hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care providers, and other 
     providers; and
       ``(C) measures which may inform healthcare decisions made 
     by consumers and patients.
       ``(2) National Quality Forum Measures; Quality of care 
     indicators.--To the extent determined feasible and 
     appropriate by the Secretaries, the Secretaries shall adopt--
       ``(A) measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum, 
     subject to compliance with the amendments made by the 
     National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995; and
       ``(B) indicators relating to the quality of care data 
     submitted to the Secretary by hospitals under section 
     1886(b)(3)(B)(vii)(II) of the Social Security Act.
       ``(c) Collaboration With Private Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretaries may establish 
     collaborative agreements with private entities, including 
     group health plans

[[Page S6758]]

     and health insurance issuers, providers, purchasers, consumer 
     organizations, and entities receiving a grant under section 
     2908, to--
       ``(A) encourage the use of the healthcare quality measures 
     adopted by the Secretary under this section; and
       ``(B) foster uniformity between the healthcare quality 
     measures utilized in Federal programs and private entities.
       ``(2) Use of measures.--The measures adopted by the 
     Secretaries under this section may apply in one or more 
     disease areas and across delivery settings, in order to 
     improve the quality of care provided or delivered by private 
     entities.
       ``(d) Comparative Quality Reports.--Beginning on January 1, 
     2008, in order to make comparative quality information 
     available to healthcare consumers, health professionals, 
     public health officials, researchers, and other appropriate 
     individuals and entities, the Secretaries and other relevant 
     agencies shall provide for the aggregation, analysis, and 
     dissemination of quality measures collected under this 
     section. Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     modifying the privacy standards under the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     191).
       ``(e) Evaluations.--
       ``(1) Ongoing evaluations of use.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure the ongoing evaluation of the use of the healthcare 
     quality measures adopted under this section.
       ``(2) Evaluation and Report.--
       ``(A) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall, directly or 
     indirectly through a contract with another entity, conduct an 
     evaluation of the collaborative efforts of the Secretaries to 
     adopt uniform healthcare quality measures and reporting 
     requirements for federally supported healthcare delivery 
     programs as required under this section.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress concerning the 
     results of the evaluation under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 302. VALUE BASED PURCHASING PROGRAMS; SENSE OF THE 
                   SENATE.

       (a) Medicare Value Based Purchasing Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) a 
     value based purchasing pilot program based on the reporting 
     of quality measures pursuant to those adopted in section 2910 
     of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section 301) 
     and the overall improvement of healthcare quality through the 
     use of the electronic exchange of health information by 
     entities (including Federally qualified health centers, as 
     defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4))) pursuant to the standards adopted under 
     section 2903 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by 
     section 101). Such pilot program should be based on 
     experience gained through previous demonstration projects 
     conducted by the Secretary, including demonstration projects 
     conducted under sections 1866A and 1866C of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc-1; 1395cc-3), section 649 of 
     the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2322), and other relevant work conducted by private entities.
       (2) Expansion.--After conducting the pilot program under 
     paragraph (1) for not less than 2 years, the Secretary may 
     transition and implement such program on a national basis.
       (3) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Payments for the costs of carrying out the 
     provisions of this subsection shall be made from the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i) and the Federal 
     Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund under section 1841 of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t) (in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``Trust Funds''), as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (B) Limitation to ensure budget neutrality.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that the total amount of expenditures from the 
     Trust Funds in a year does not exceed the total amount of 
     expenditures from the Trust Funds that would have been made 
     in such year if this subsection had not been enacted.
       (C) Monitoring and reports.--
       (i) Ongoing monitoring by the secretary to ensure funding 
     limitation is not violated.--The Secretary shall continually 
     monitor expenditures made from the Trust Funds by reason of 
     the provisions of this subsection to ensure that the 
     limitation described in subparagraph (B) is not violated.
       (ii) Reports.--Not later than April 1 of each year 
     (beginning in the year following the year in which the pilot 
     program under paragraph (1) is implemented), the Secretary 
     shall submit a report to Congress and the Comptroller General 
     of the United States that includes--

       (I) a detailed description of--

       (aa) the total amount expended from the Trust Funds 
     (including all amounts expended as a result of the provisions 
     of this subsection) during the previous year compared to the 
     total amount that would have been expended from the Trust 
     Funds during such year if this subsection had not been 
     enacted;
       (bb) the projections of the total amount that will be 
     expended from the Trust Funds (including all amounts that 
     will be expended as a result of the provisions of this 
     subsection) during the year in which the report is submitted 
     compared to the total amount that would have been expended 
     from the Trust Funds during the year if this subsection had 
     not been enacted; and
       (cc) specify the steps (if any) that the Secretary will 
     take pursuant to subparagraph (D) to ensure that the 
     limitation described in subparagraph (B) will not be 
     violated; and

       (II) a certification from the Chief Actuary of the Centers 
     for Medicare & Medicaid Services that the descriptions under 
     items (aa), (bb), and (cc) of subclause (I) are reasonable, 
     accurate, and based on generally accepted actuarial 
     principles and methodologies, including that the steps 
     described in subclause (I)(cc) will be adequate to avoid 
     violating the limitation described in subparagraph (B).

       (D) Application of Limitation.--If the Secretary determines 
     that the provisions of this subsection will result in the 
     limitation described in subparagraph (B) being violated in 
     any year, the Secretary shall take appropriate steps to 
     reduce spending that is occurring by reason of such 
     provisions, including through reducing the scope, site, and 
     duration of the pilot project.
       (E) Authority.--The Secretary shall make necessary spending 
     adjustments under the medicare program to recoup amounts so 
     that the limitation described in subparagraph (B) is not 
     violated in any year.
       (b) Sense of the Senate Regarding Physician Payments Under 
     Medicare.--It is the sense of the Senate that modifications 
     to the medicare fee schedule for physicians' services under 
     section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1394w-4) 
     should include provisions based on the reporting of quality 
     measures pursuant to those adopted in section 2910 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (as added by section 301) and the 
     overall improvement of healthcare quality through the use of 
     the electronic exchange of health information pursuant to the 
     standards adopted under section 2903 of such Act (as added by 
     section 101).
       (c) Medicaid Value Based Purchasing Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall authorize waivers 
     under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1315) for States to establish value based purchasing programs 
     for State medicaid programs established under title XIX of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). Such programs shall be 
     based on the reporting of quality measures pursuant to those 
     adopted in section 2910 of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     added by section 301) and the overall improvement of 
     healthcare quality through the use of the electronic exchange 
     of health information pursuant to the standards adopted under 
     section 2903 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by 
     section 101).
       (2) Waiver.--In authorizing such waivers, the Secretary 
     shall waive any provisions of title XI or XIX of the Social 
     Security Act that would otherwise prevent a State from 
     establishing a value based purchasing program in accordance 
     with paragraph (1).
       (d) Quality Information Sharing.--
       (1) Review of medicare claims data.--
       (A) Procedures.--In order to improve the quality and 
     efficiency of items and services furnished to medicare 
     beneficiaires under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 
     the Secretary shall establish procedures to review claims 
     data submitted under such title with respect to items and 
     services furnished or ordered by physicians.
       (B) Use of most recent medicare claims data.--In conducting 
     the review under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use 
     the most recent claims data that is available to the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Sharing of data.--Beginning in 2006, the Secretary 
     shall periodically provide physicians with comparative 
     information on the utilization of items and services under 
     such title XVIII based upon the review of claims data under 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 303. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1154(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320c-3(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(18) The organization shall assist, at such time and in 
     such manner as the Secretary may require, healthcare 
     providers (as defined in section 2901 of the Public Health 
     Service Act) in implementing the electronic exchange of 
     health information (as defined in such section 2901).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contracts entered into on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1263. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to establish 
eligibility requirements for business concerns to receive awards under 
the Small Business Innovation Research Program; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the United States biotechnology industry is 
the world leader in innovation. This is due, in large part, to the 
Federal Government's partnership with the private sector to foster 
growth and commercialization in the hope that one day we will uncover a 
cure for unmet medical needs such as cystic fibrosis, heart disease, 
various cancers, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS.
  However, the industry was dealt a major setback last year when the 
Small Business Administration--SBA--determined that venture-backed 
biotechnology companies can no longer

[[Page S6759]]

participate in the Small Business Innovation Research--SBIR--program. 
Prior to the SBA's decision, the SBIR program was an example of a 
highly successful Federal initiative to encourage economic growth and 
innovation in the biotechnology industry by funding the critical 
startup and development stages of a company.
  Traditionally, to qualify for an SBIR grant a small business 
applicant had to meet two requirements: one, that the company have less 
than 500 employees; and two, that the business be 51 percent owned by 
one or more individuals. Now, according to the SBA, the term 
``individuals'' means natural persons only, whereas for the past 20 
years the term ``individual'' has included venture-capital companies. 
As a result, biotech companies backed by venture-capital funding in 
Missouri and throughout our Nation, who are on the cutting edge of 
science, can no longer participate in the program.
  The biotech industry is like no other in the world because it takes 
such a long span of time and intense capital expenditures to bring a 
successful product to market. In fact, according to a study completed 
by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, it takes roughly 
10-15 years and $800 million for a company to bring just one product to 
market. As you can imagine, the industry's entrepreneurs are seeking 
financial assistance wherever they can find it.
  For the past 20 years, the SBIR program has been a catalyst for 
developing our Nation's most successful biotechnology companies. In 
addition to these important government grants, venture capital funding 
plays a vital role in the financial support of these same companies. 
The strength of our biotechnology industry is a direct result of 
government grants and venture capital working together.
  However, some have argued that a biotech firm with a majority venture 
capital backing is a large business. This is simply a bogus conclusion. 
Venture capital firms solely invest in biotech start-ups for the 
possibility of a future innovation and financial return and generally 
do not seek to take control over the management functions or day-to-day 
operations of the company. Venture capital firms that seek to invest in 
small biotech businesses do not, simply by their investment, turn a 
small business into a large business. These are legitimate, small, 
start-up businesses. Let's not punish them.
  Instead, we must work together to avoid stifling innovation. Let me 
be clear. Our impact today will foster cures and medicines tomorrow 
that were once thought to be inconceivable. However, the industry 
cannot do it alone. We must nurture biotechnology and help the industry 
grow for the future of our economy and for our well-being.
  This bill that I am introducing today will do just that. It will 
ensure that the biotechnology industry has access to SBIR grants, as it 
has had for 20 years. It will level the playing field to ensure that 
SBIR grants are given to small businesses based on fruitful science and 
nothing else. This is still a young and fragile industry, and we are on 
the cusp of great scientific advances. However, there will be profound 
consequences if biotechnology companies continue to be excluded from 
the SBIR program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be in 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1263

       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 ``Save America's Biotechnology 
     Innovative Research Act of 2005'' or ``SABIR Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN SMALL BUSINESS 
                   INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(x) Eligibility for Participation in SBIR Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive an award under 
     the SBIR program, a business concern--
       ``(A) shall have not more than 500 employees; and
       ``(B) shall be owned in accordance with one of the 
     ownership requirements described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Ownership requirements.--The ownership requirements 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:
       ``(A) The business concern is--
       ``(i) at least 51 percent owned and controlled by 
     individuals or eligible venture capital companies, who are 
     citizens of or permanent resident aliens in the United 
     States; and
       ``(ii) not more than 49 percent owned and controlled by a 
     single eligible venture capital company (or group of 
     commonly-controlled eligible venture capital companies).
       ``(B) The business concern is at least 51 percent owned and 
     controlled by another business concern that is itself at 
     least 51 percent owned and controlled by individuals who are 
     citizens of or permanent resident aliens in the United 
     States.
       ``(C) The business concern is a joint venture in which each 
     entity to the joint venture meets one of the ownership 
     requirements under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Employee defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), 
     the term `employee' means an individual employed by the 
     business concern and does not include--
       ``(A) an individual employed by an eligible venture capital 
     company providing financing to the business concern; or
       ``(B) an individual employed by any entity in which the 
     eligible venture capital company is invested other than that 
     business concern.
       ``(4) Treatment of other forms of ownership.--
       ``(A) Stock option ownership.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, in the case of a business concern owned in whole 
     or in part by an employee stock option plan, each stock 
     trustee or plan member shall be deemed to be an owner.
       ``(B) Trust ownership.--For purposes of this subsection, in 
     the case of a business concern owned in whole or in part by a 
     trust, each trustee or trust beneficiary shall be deemed to 
     be an owner.
       ``(5) Exception for start-up concerns.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), any business concern that is a 
     start-up concern shall be eligible to receive funding under 
     the SBIR program.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 9(e) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(9) The term `eligible venture capital company' means a 
     business concern--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) is a Venture Capital Operating Company, as that term 
     is defined in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Labor; or
       ``(ii) is an entity that--

       ``(I) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 
     1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-51 et seq.); or
       ``(II) is an investment company, as defined in section 
     3(c)(14) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(14)), which is not 
     registered under such Act because it is beneficially owned by 
     less than 100 persons; and

       ``(B) that is not controlled by any business concern that 
     is not a small business concern within the meaning of section 
     3.
       ``(10) The term `start-up concern' means a business concern 
     that--
       ``(A) for at least 2 of the 3 preceding fiscal years has 
     had--
       ``(i) sales of not more than $3,000,000; or
       ``(ii) no positive cash flow from operations; and
       ``(B) is not formed to acquire any business concern other 
     than a small business concern that meets the requirement 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) Regulations.--Before the date that is 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Small Business Administration shall--
       (1) in accordance with the exceptions to public rulemaking 
     under section 553(b)(A) and (B) of title 5, United States 
     Code, promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of 
     this Act;
       (2) publish in the Federal Register a notification of the 
     changes in eligibility for participation in the Small 
     Business Innovation Research program made by this Act; and
       (3) communicate such changes to Federal agencies that award 
     grants under the Small Business Innovation Research program.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply with respect to any business concern that participates 
     in the Small Business Innovation Research program on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, 
        and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1264. A bill to provide for the provision by hospitals of 
emergency contraceptives to women, and post-exposure prophylaxis for 
sexually transmitted disease to individuals, who are survivors of 
sexual assault; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act. In the United 
States, more than 300,000 women are raped each year and an estimated 
25,000 to 32,000 become pregnant as a result. That is why I am 
reintroducing the Compassionate Assistance

[[Page S6760]]

in Rape Emergencies Act, or CARE Act.
  This bill will ensure that women who are survivors of sexual assault 
have access to the medical care they need, including emergency 
contraception. Emergency contraception reduces a woman's risk of 
becoming pregnant by up to 89 percent when taken within 72 hours of the 
assault. I want to be clear: emergency contraception does not end a 
pregnancy. Instead, emergency contraception works before a pregnancy 
can occur.
  There is widespread consensus in the medical community that emergency 
contraception is safe and effective. Yet, New Jersey is one of only six 
States that legally require all medical providers to offer this care to 
rape survivors. Before this law, one-third of New Jersey's hospitals 
did not provide this vital medication. New Jersey's law should be the 
national standard. The bill would require that all hospitals that 
receive Federal funding offer information and access to emergency 
contraception for victims of rape.
  In January of this year I, along with 21 Senators, wrote a letter to 
the Department of Justice asking that they include information about 
emergency contraception in their national protocol for sexual assault 
hospital examinations. But they did not. In all 141 pages, the protocol 
fails to provide sexual assault victims with access to this needed 
information and treatment. The protocol instead leaves the door open 
for health care professionals to decide whether or not to discuss 
certain treatment options. Today, I want to close that door.
  In order to provide comprehensive medical care, hospitals must also 
provide quick access to preventive medication that helps protect 
victims of sexual assault from potentially fatal sexually transmitted 
diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis B. We have an obligation to protect 
sexual assault victims from these life threatening infections.
  We must not sit idly by while so many sexual assault survivors are 
deprived the medical care they need and deserve. Once these survivors 
seek treatment we ought to make sure that they get the treatment they 
need. Ideology should never stand between patients and the care they 
deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1264

       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 ``Compassionate Assistance for 
     Rape Emergencies Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) It is estimated that 25,000 to 32,000 women become 
     pregnant each year as a result of rape or incest. An 
     estimated 22,000 of these pregnancies could be prevented if 
     rape survivors had timely access to emergency contraception.
       (2) A 1996 study of rape-related pregnancies (published in 
     the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) found that 
     50 percent of the pregnancies described in paragraph (1) 
     ended in abortion.
       (3) Surveys have shown that many hospitals do not routinely 
     provide emergency contraception to women seeking treatment 
     after being sexually assaulted.
       (4) The risk of pregnancy after sexual assault has been 
     estimated to be 4.7 percent in survivors who were not 
     protected by some form of contraception at the time of the 
     attack.
       (5) The Food and Drug Administration has declared emergency 
     contraception to be safe and effective in preventing 
     unintended pregnancy, reducing the risk by as much as 89 
     percent if taken within days of unprotected intercourse and 
     up to 95 percent if taken in the first 24 hours.
       (6) Medical research strongly indicates that the sooner 
     emergency contraception is administered, the greater the 
     likelihood of preventing unintended pregnancy.
       (7) In light of the safety and effectiveness of emergency 
     contraceptive pills, both the American Medical Association 
     and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
     have endorsed more widespread availability of such pills.
       (8) The American College of Emergency Physicians and the 
     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree 
     that offering emergency contraception to female patients 
     after a sexual assault should be considered the standard of 
     care.
       (9) Approximately 30 percent of American women of 
     reproductive age are unaware of the availability of emergency 
     contraception.
       (10) New data from a survey of women having abortions 
     estimates that 51,000 abortions were prevented by use of 
     emergency contraception in 2000 and that increased use of 
     emergency contraception accounted for 43 percent of the 
     decrease in total abortions between 1994 and 2000.
       (11) It is essential that all hospitals that provide 
     emergency medical treatment provide emergency contraception 
     as a treatment option to any woman who has been sexually 
     assaulted, so that she may prevent an unintended pregnancy.
       (12) Victims of sexual assault are at increased risk of 
     contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
       (13) Some sexually-transmitted infections cannot be 
     reliably cured if treatment is delayed, and may result in 
     high morbidity and mortality. HIV has killed over 520,000 
     Americans, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     currently estimates that over 1,000,000 Americans are 
     infected with the virus. Even modern drug treatment has 
     failed to cure infected individuals. Nearly 80,000 Americans 
     are infected with hepatitis B each year, with some 
     individuals unable to fully recover. An estimated 1,250,000 
     Americans remain chronically infected with the hepatitis B 
     virus and at present, one in five of these may expect to die 
     of liver failure.
       (14) It is possible to prevent some sexually transmitted 
     diseases by treating an exposed individual promptly. The use 
     of post-exposure prophylaxis using antiretroviral drugs has 
     been demonstrated to effectively prevent the establishment of 
     HIV infection. Hepatitis B infection may also be eliminated 
     if an exposed individual receives prompt treatment.
       (15) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 
     recommended risk evaluation and appropriate application of 
     post-exposure treatment for victims of sexual assault. For 
     such individuals, immediate treatment is the only means to 
     prevent a life threatening infection.
       (16) It is essential that all hospitals that provide 
     emergency medical treatment provide assessment and treatment 
     of sexually-transmitted infections to minimize the harm to 
     victims of sexual assault.

     SEC. 3. SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT; PROVISION BY HOSPITALS 
                   OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES WITHOUT CHARGE.

       (a) In General.--Federal funds may not be provided to a 
     hospital under any health-related program, unless the 
     hospital meets the conditions specified in subsection (b) in 
     the case of--
       (1) any woman who presents at the hospital and states that 
     she is a victim of sexual assault, or is accompanied by 
     someone who states she is a victim of sexual assault; and
       (2) any woman who presents at the hospital whom hospital 
     personnel have reason to believe is a victim of sexual 
     assault.
       (b) Assistance for Victims.--The conditions specified in 
     this subsection regarding a hospital and a woman described in 
     subsection (a) are as follows:
       (1) The hospital promptly provides the woman with medically 
     and factually accurate and unbiased written and oral 
     information about emergency contraception, including 
     information explaining that--
       (A) emergency contraception has been approved by the Food 
     and Drug Administration as a safe and effective way to 
     prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or 
     contraceptive failure if taken in a timely manner, and is 
     more effective the sooner it is taken; and
       (B) emergency contraception does not cause an abortion and 
     cannot interrupt an established pregnancy.
       (2) The hospital promptly offers emergency contraception to 
     the woman, and promptly provides such contraception to her at 
     the hospital on her request.
       (3) The information provided pursuant to paragraph (1) is 
     in clear and concise language, is readily comprehensible, and 
     meets such conditions regarding the provision of the 
     information in languages other than English as the Secretary 
     may establish.
       (4) The services described in paragraphs (1) through (3) 
     are not denied because of the inability of the woman to pay 
     for the services.

     SEC. 4. PREVENTION OF TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE.

       (a) In General.--No hospital shall receive Federal funds 
     unless such hospital provides risk assessment, counseling, 
     and treatment as required under this section to a survivor of 
     sexual assault described in subsection (b).
       (b) Survivors of Sexual Assault.--An individual is a 
     survivor of a sexual assault as described in this subsection 
     if the individual--
       (1) presents at the hospital and declares that the 
     individual is a victim of sexual assault, or the individual 
     is accompanied to the hospital by another individual who 
     declares that the first individual is a victim of a sexual 
     assault; or
       (2) presents at the hospital and hospital personnel have 
     reason to believe the individual is a victim of sexual 
     assault.
       (c) Requirement for Risk Assessment, Counseling, and 
     Treatment.--The following shall apply with respect to a 
     hospital described in subsection (a):
       (1) Risk assessment.--A hospital shall promptly provide a 
     survivor of a sexual assault with an assessment of the 
     individual's risk for contracting sexually transmitted 
     infections as described in paragraph (2)(A), which shall be 
     conducted by a licensed medical professional and be based 
     upon--
       (A) available information regarding the assault as well as 
     the subsequent findings from

[[Page S6761]]

     medical examination and any tests that may be conducted; and
       (B) established standards of risk assessment which shall 
     include consideration of any recommendations established by 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and may also 
     incorporate findings of peer-reviewed clinical studies and 
     appropriate research utilizing in vitro and non-human primate 
     models of infection.
       (2) Counseling.--A hospital shall provide a survivor of a 
     sexual assault with advice, provided by a licensed medical 
     professional, concerning--
       (A) significantly prevalent sexually transmissible 
     infections for which effective post-exposure prophylaxis 
     exists, and for which the deferral of treatment would either 
     significantly reduce treatment efficacy or would pose 
     substantial risk to the individual's health; and
       (B) the requirement that prophylactic treatment for 
     infections as described in subparagraph (A) shall be provided 
     to the individual upon request, regardless of the ability of 
     the individual to pay for such treatment.
       (3) Treatment.--A hospital shall provide a survivor of a 
     sexual assault, upon request, with prophylactic treatment for 
     infections described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (4) Ability to pay.--The services described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (3) shall not be denied because of the inability 
     of the individual involved to pay for the services.
       (5) Language.--Any information provided pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be clear and concise, readily 
     comprehensible, and meet such conditions regarding the 
     provision of the information in languages other than English 
     as the Secretary may establish.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to--
       (1) require that a hospital provide prophylactic treatment 
     for a victim of sexual assault when risk evaluation according 
     to criteria adopted by the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention clearly recommend against the application of post-
     exposure prophylaxis;
       (2) prohibit a hospital from seeking reimbursement for the 
     cost of services provided under this section to the extent 
     that health insurance may reimburse for such services; and
       (3) establish a requirement that any victim of sexual 
     assault submit to diagnostic testing for the presence of any 
     infectious disease.
       (e) Limitation.--Federal funds may not be provided to a 
     hospital under any health-related program unless the hospital 
     complies with the requirements of this section.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Emergency contraception.--The term ``emergency 
     contraception'' means a drug, drug regimen, or device that 
     is--
       (A) approved by the Food and Drug Administration to prevent 
     pregnancy; and
       (B) is used postcoitally.
       (2) Hospital.--The term ``hospital'' has the meaning given 
     such term in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 
     including the meaning applicable in such title for purposes 
     of making payments for emergency services to hospitals that 
     do not have agreements in effect under such title. Such term 
     includes a health care facility that is located within, or 
     contracted to, a correctional institution or a post-secondary 
     educational institution.
       (3) Licensed medical professional.--The term ``licensed 
     medical professional'' means a doctor of medicine, doctor of 
     osteopathy, registered nurse, physician assistant, or any 
     other healthcare professional determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (5) Sexual assault.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``sexual assault'' means a sexual 
     act (as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section 
     2246(2) of title 18, United States Code) where the victim 
     involved does not consent or lacks the capacity to consent.
       (B) Application of provisions.--The definition under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) in the case of section 2, apply to males and females, 
     as appropriate;
       (ii) in the case of section 3, apply only to females; and
       (iii) in the case of section 4, apply to all individuals.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; AGENCY CRITERIA.

       This Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-
     day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. Not later than 30 days prior to the expiration of such 
     period, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     publish in the Federal Register criteria for carrying out 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Isakson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 1265. A bill to make grants and loans available to States and 
other organizations to strengthen the economy, public health, and 
environment of the United States by reducing emissions from diesel 
engines; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I speak as Chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear 
Safety to introduce a landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation--the 
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
  This bill is cosponsored by Environment and Public Works Committee 
Jim Inhofe and ranking member Jim Jeffords and Senators Tom Carper, 
Johnny Isakson, Hillary Clinton, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Dianne 
Feinstein. Focused on improving air quality and protecting public 
health, it would establish voluntary national and state-level grant and 
loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. 
Additionally, the bill would help areas come into attainment for the 
new air quality standards.
  Developed with environmental, industry, and public officials, the 
legislation complements Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 
regulations now being implemented that address diesel fuel and new 
diesel engines. I am pleased to be joined by a strong and diverse group 
of organizations and officials: Environmental Defense; Clean Air Task 
Force; Union of Concerned Scientists; Ohio Environmental Council; 
Caterpillar Inc.; Cummins Inc.; Diesel Technology Forum; Emissions 
Control Technology Association; Associated General Contractors of 
America; State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency; Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 
in Dayton, Ohio; Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.
  The cosponsors of this legislation and these groups do not agree on 
many issues--which is why this bill is so special.
  The process for developing this legislation began last year when 
several of these organizations came in to meet with me. They informed 
me of the harmful public health impact of diesel emissions. Onroad and 
nonroad diesel vehicles and engines account for roughly one-half of the 
nitrogen oxide and particulate matter mobile source emissions 
nationwide.
  I was pleased to hear that the administration had taken strong action 
with new diesel fuel and engine regulations, which were developed in a 
collaborative effort to substantially reduce diesel emissions. However, 
I was told that the full health benefit would not be realized until 
2030 because these regulations address new engines and the estimated 11 
million existing engines have a long life.
  I was pleased that they had a constructive suggestion on how we could 
address this problem. They informed me of successful grant and loan 
programs at the State and local level throughout the Nation that were 
working on a voluntary basis to retrofit diesel engines.
  I was also cognizant that the new ozone and particulate matter air 
quality standards were going into effect and that a voluntary program 
was needed to help the nation's 495 and Ohio's 38 nonattainment 
counties--especially those that are in moderate nonattainment like 
Northeast Ohio.
  Additionally, I have visited with University of Cincinnati Medical 
Center doctors--as recently as this month--to discuss their Cincinnati 
Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study. Some of the early results 
indicate disturbing impacts on the development of children living near 
highways.
  It became clear to me that a national program was needed. We then 
formed a strong, diverse coalition comprised of environmental, 
industry, and public officials. The culmination of this work is being 
revealed today in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005.
  This legislation would establish voluntary national and State-level 
grant and loan programs to promote the reduction of diesel emissions. 
It would authorize $1 billion over 5 years--$200 million annually. Some 
will claim that this is too much money and others will claim it is not 
enough--which is probably why it is just right.
  We should first recognize that the need far outpaces what is 
contained in the legislation. This funding is also fiscally responsible 
as diesel retrofits have proven to be one of the most cost-effective 
emissions reduction strategies. Furthermore, as a former Governor, I 
know firsthand that the new air quality standards are an unfunded 
mandate on our states and localities--and they need the Federal 
Government's help.

[[Page S6762]]

  This legislation would help bring counties into attainment by 
encouraging the retrofitting or replacement of diesel engines, 
substantially reducing diesel emissions and the formation of ozone and 
particulate matter.
  The bill is efficient with the Federal Government's dollars in 
several ways. First, 20 percent of the funding would be distributed to 
States that establish voluntary diesel retrofit programs. 10 percent of 
the bill's overall funding would be set aside as an incentive for 
States to match the Federal dollars being provided. The remaining 70 
percent of the program would be administered by the EPA.
  Second, the program would focus on nonattainment areas where help is 
needed the most. Third, it would require at least 50 percent of the 
Federal program to be used on public fleets since we are talking about 
public dollars. Fourth, it would place a high priority on the projects 
that are the most cost effective and affect the most people.
  Lastly, the bill would include provisions to help develop new 
technologies, encourage more action through non-financial incentives, 
and require EPA to outreach to stakeholders and report on the success 
of the program.
  EPA estimates that this billion dollar program would leverage an 
additional $500 million leading to a net benefit of almost $20 billion 
with a reduction of about 70,000 tons of particulate matter. This is a 
13 to 1 benefit-cost ratio.
  The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2005 enjoys broad bipartisan 
support, and it is needed desperately. I plan to work with the bill's 
cosponsors and the coalition to use every avenue to get it signed into 
law as soon as possible.
  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. 1265

       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 ``Diesel Emissions Reduction 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Certified engine configuration.--The term ``certified 
     engine configuration'' means a new, rebuilt, or 
     remanufactured engine configuration--
       (A) that has been certified or verified by--
       (i) the Administrator; or
       (ii) the California Air Resources Board;
       (B) that meets or is rebuilt or remanufactured to a more 
     stringent set of engine emission standards, as determined by 
     the Administrator; and
       (C) in the case of a certified engine configuration 
     involving the replacement of an existing engine or vehicle, 
     an engine configuration that replaced an engine that was--
       (i) removed from the vehicle; and
       (ii) returned to the supplier for remanufacturing to a more 
     stringent set of engine emissions standards or for scrappage.
       (3) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a regional, State, local, or tribal agency with 
     jurisdiction over transportation or air quality; and
       (B) a nonprofit organization or institution that--
       (i) represents organizations that own or operate diesel 
     fleets; or
       (ii) has, as its principal purpose, the promotion of 
     transportation or air quality.
       (4) Emerging technology.--The term ``emerging technology'' 
     means a technology that is not certified or verified by the 
     Administrator or the California Air Resources Board but for 
     which an approvable application and test plan has been 
     submitted for verification to the Administrator or the 
     California Air Resources Board.
       (5) Heavy-duty truck.--The term ``heavy-duty truck'' has 
     the meaning given the term ``heavy duty vehicle'' in section 
     202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521).
       (6) Medium-duty truck.--The term ``medium-duty truck'' has 
     such meaning as shall be determined by the Administrator, by 
     regulation.
       (7) Verified technology.--The term ``verified technology'' 
     means a pollution control technology, including a retrofit 
     technology, that has been verified by--
       (A) the Administrator; or
       (B) the California Air Resources Board.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall use 70 percent of 
     the funds made available to carry out this Act for each 
     fiscal year to provide grants and low-cost revolving loans, 
     as determined by the Administrator, on a competitive basis, 
     to eligible entities to achieve significant reductions in 
     diesel emissions in terms of--
       (1) tons of pollution produced; and
       (2) diesel emissions exposure, particularly from fleets 
     operating in areas designated by the Administrator as poor 
     air quality areas.
       (b) Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall distribute funds 
     made available for a fiscal year under this Act in accordance 
     with this section.
       (2) Fleets.--The Administrator shall provide not less than 
     50 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this 
     section to eligible entities for the benefit of public 
     fleets.
       (3) Engine configurations and technologies.--
       (A) Certified engine configurations and verified 
     technologies.--The Administrator shall provide not less than 
     90 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under this 
     section to eligible entities for projects using--
       (i) a certified engine configuration; or
       (ii) a verified technology.
       (B) Emerging technologies.--
       (i) In general.--The Administrator shall provide not more 
     than 10 percent of funds available for a fiscal year under 
     this section to eligible entities for the development and 
     commercialization of emerging technologies.
       (ii) Application and test plan.--To receive funds under 
     clause (i), a manufacturer, in consultation with an eligible 
     entity, shall submit for verification to the Administrator or 
     the California Air Resources Board a test plan for the 
     emerging technology, together with the application under 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--To receive a grant or loan under this 
     section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Administrator 
     an application at a time, in a manner, and including such 
     information as the Administrator may require.
       (2) Inclusions.--An application under this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) a description of the air quality of the area served by 
     the eligible entity;
       (B) the quantity of air pollution produced by the diesel 
     fleet in the area served by the eligible entity;
       (C) a description of the project proposed by the eligible 
     entity, including--
       (i) any certified engine configuration, verified 
     technology, or emerging technology to be used by the eligible 
     entity; and
       (ii) the means by which the project will achieve a 
     significant reduction in diesel emissions;
       (D) an evaluation (using methodology approved by the 
     Administrator or the National Academy of Sciences) of the 
     quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits of the emissions 
     reductions of the proposed project;
       (E) an estimate of the cost of the proposed project;
       (F) a description of the age and expected lifetime control 
     of the equipment used by the eligible entity;
       (G) a description of the diesel fuel available to the 
     eligible entity, including the sulfur content of the fuel; 
     and
       (H) provisions for the monitoring and verification of the 
     project.
       (3) Priority.--In providing a grant or loan under this 
     section, the Administrator shall give priority to proposed 
     projects that, as determined by the Administrator--
       (A) maximize public health benefits;
       (B) are the most cost-effective;
       (C) serve areas--
       (i) with the highest population density;
       (ii) that are poor air quality areas, including areas 
     identified by the Administrator as--

       (I) in nonattainment or maintenance of national ambient air 
     quality standards for a criteria pollutant;
       (II) Federal Class I areas; or
       (III) areas with toxic air pollutant concerns;

       (iii) that receive a disproportionate quantity of air 
     pollution from a diesel fleet, including ports, rail yards, 
     and distribution centers; or
       (iv) that use a community-based multistakeholder 
     collaborative process to reduce toxic emissions;
       (D) include a certified engine configuration, verified 
     technology, or emerging technology that has a long expected 
     useful life;
       (E) will maximize the useful life of any retrofit 
     technology used by the eligible entity; and
       (F) use diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less than or 
     equal to 15 parts per million, as the Administrator 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible entity may use a grant or loan 
     provided under this section to fund the costs of--
       (A) a retrofit technology (including any incremental costs 
     of a repowered or new diesel engine) that significantly 
     reduces emissions through development and implementation of a 
     certified engine configuration, verified technology, or 
     emerging technology for--
       (i) a bus;
       (ii) a medium-duty truck or a heavy-duty truck;
       (iii) a marine engine;
       (iv) a locomotive; or
       (v) a nonroad engine or vehicle used in--

       (I) construction;
       (II) handling of cargo (including at a port or airport);
       (III) agriculture;
       (IV) mining; or
       (V) energy production; or

[[Page S6763]]

       (B) an idle-reduction program involving a vehicle or 
     equipment described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Regulatory programs.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no grant or 
     loan provided under this section shall be used to fund the 
     costs of emissions reductions that are mandated under 
     Federal, State or local law.
       (B) Mandated.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), voluntary 
     or elective emission reduction measures shall not be 
     considered ``mandated'', regardless of whether the reductions 
     are included in the State implementation plan of a State.

     SEC. 4. STATE GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of adequate 
     appropriations, the Administrator shall use 30 percent of the 
     funds made available for a fiscal year under this Act to 
     support grant and loan programs administered by States that 
     are designed to achieve significant reductions in diesel 
     emissions.
       (b) Applications.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) provide to States guidance for use in applying for 
     grant or loan funds under this section, including information 
     regarding--
       (A) the process and forms for applications;
       (B) permissible uses of funds received; and
       (C) the cost-effectiveness of various emission reduction 
     technologies eligible to be carried out using funds provided 
     under this section; and
       (2) establish, for applications described in paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) an annual deadline for submission of the applications;
       (B) a process by which the Administrator shall approve or 
     disapprove each application; and
       (C) a streamlined process by which a State may renew an 
     application described in paragraph (1) for subsequent fiscal 
     years.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator 
     shall allocate among States for which applications are 
     approved by the Administrator under subsection (b)(2)(B) 
     funds made available to carry out this section for the fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Allocation.--Using not more than 20 percent of the 
     funds made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
     year, the Administrator shall provide to each State described 
     in paragraph (1) for the fiscal year an allocation of funds 
     that is equal to--
       (A) if each of the 50 States qualifies for an allocation, 
     an amount equal to 2 percent of the funds made available to 
     carry out this section; or
       (B) if fewer than 50 States qualifies for an allocation, an 
     amount equal to the amount described in subparagraph (A), 
     plus an additional amount equal to the product obtained by 
     multiplying--
       (i) the proportion that--

       (I) the population of the State; bears to
       (II) the population of all States described in paragraph 
     (1); by

       (ii) the amount of funds remaining after each State 
     described in paragraph (1) receives the 2-percent allocation 
     under this paragraph.
       (3) State matching incentive.--
       (A) In general.--If a State agrees to match the allocation 
     provided to the State under paragraph (2) for a fiscal year, 
     the Administrator shall provide to the State for the fiscal 
     year an additional amount equal to 50 percent of the 
     allocation of the State under paragraph (2).
       (B) Requirements.--A State--
       (i) may not use funds received under this Act to pay a 
     matching share required under this subsection; and
       (ii) shall not be required to provide a matching share for 
     any additional amount received under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Unclaimed funds.--Any funds that are not claimed by a 
     State for a fiscal year under this subsection shall be used 
     to carry out section 3.
       (d) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) and, to 
     the extent practicable, the priority areas listed in section 
     3(c)(3), a State shall use any funds provided under this 
     section to develop and implement such grant and low-cost 
     revolving loan programs in the State as are appropriate to 
     meet State needs and goals relating to the reduction of 
     diesel emissions.
       (2) Apportionment of funds.--The Governor of a State that 
     receives funding under this section may determine the portion 
     of funds to be provided as grants or loans.
       (3) Use of funds.--A grant or loan provided under this 
     section may be used for a project relating to--
       (A) a certified engine configuration; or
       (B) a verified technology.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report evaluating 
     the implementation of the programs under this Act.
       (b) Inclusions.--The report shall include a description 
     of--
       (1) the total number of grant applications received;
       (2) each grant or loan made under this Act, including the 
     amount of the grant or loan;
       (3) each project for which a grant or loan is provided 
     under this Act, including the criteria used to select the 
     grant or loan recipients;
       (4) the estimated air quality benefits, cost-effectiveness, 
     and cost-benefits of the grant and loan programs under this 
     Act;
       (5) the problems encountered by projects for which a grant 
     or loan is provided under this Act; and
       (6) any other information the Administrator considers to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 6. OUTREACH AND INCENTIVES.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Technology.--In this section, 
     the term ``eligible technology'' means--
       (1) a verified technology; or
       (2) an emerging technology.
       (b) Technology Transfer Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     program under which the Administrator--
       (A) informs stakeholders of the benefits of eligible 
     technologies; and
       (B) develops nonfinancial incentives to promote the use of 
     eligible technologies.
       (2) Eligible stakeholders.--Eligible stakeholders under 
     this section include--
       (A) equipment owners and operators;
       (B) emission control technology manufacturers;
       (C) engine and equipment manufacturers;
       (D) State and local officials responsible for air quality 
     management;
       (E) community organizations; and
       (F) public health and environmental organizations.
       (c) State Implementation Plans.--The Administrator shall 
     develop appropriate guidance to provide credit to a State for 
     emission reductions in the State created by the use of 
     eligible technologies through a State implementation plan 
     under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410).
       (d) International Markets.--The Administrator, in 
     coordination with the Department of Commerce and industry 
     stakeholders, shall inform foreign countries with air quality 
     problems of the potential of technology developed or used in 
     the United States to provide emission reductions in those 
     countries.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT OF ACT.

       Nothing in this Act affects any authority under the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in existence on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
     to remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1267. A bill to amend title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
to reauthorize the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 
Undergraduate Programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Too many 
of our young people leave high school without the skills necessary to 
meet the demands of a global economy. According to a recent U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe 
difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of 
job applicants having poor skills. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be 
sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose 
$136 billion in wages. The strength of our economy, and the future of 
our nation, largely rests on our ability to improve educational 
opportunities for all of our citizens.
  An educated, skilled, and flexible workforce is essential to building 
a strong and dynamic economy, and, if we are going to maintain our 
country's ability to compete in a global economy, we must help prepare 
young people to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. I 
introduce legislation that will ensure more students graduate high 
school ready for college and the workforce.
  Only 68 percent of all students in the U.S. graduate high school on 
time with a regular diploma. And, the numbers are worse if the student 
is Hispanic, African American, Native American, has a disability, or is 
male. Sadly, a recent report indicates that students are dropping out 
at a younger age, resulting in an even less educated workforce.
  For students who graduate with a high school diploma, too few go on 
directly to college. Astonishingly, only 38 percent of high school 
freshmen will earn a high school diploma and make the immediate 
transition to college directly after graduation. In New Mexico, the 
statistics are pretty staggering. For every 50 ninth graders in New 
Mexico, only 30 will graduate high school; 18 will enter college; 11 
are still enrolled in their sophomore year; and 5.5 graduate from 
college within 6 years. We must do better.
  We also know, unfortunately, that as many as 40 percent of this 
country's high school graduates are not prepared to meet the demands of 
college or a

[[Page S6764]]

competitive workforce. A survey of college professors reveals that half 
of all public school graduates are not adequately prepared to do 
college-level math or writing.
  There is some good news, however; we know what works. Research 
conducted by the Department of Education shows that the single best 
predictor of college success is the quality and level of a student's 
high school classes. Students who take a solid college prep curriculum 
are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more likely to earn a 
college degree. In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality 
of high school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a 
bachelor's degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do 
college-bound students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all 
students benefit from more rigorous coursework. Accordingly, it is 
critical that all of our young people have access to rigorous 
coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands of 
postsecondary education and a competitive workforce.
  Therefore, I introduce legislation that builds on this research and 
works toward a goal of ensuring that all secondary school students are 
enrolled in classes that prepare them to excel in college and in the 
workplace.
  The GEAR UP program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for 
Undergraduate Programs, was first authorized in 1998 and was designed 
to promote student achievement and access to postsecondary education 
among low-income students. Since that time, GEAR UP grants have served 
over a million students per year. In my home State of New Mexico, there 
are six GEAR UP programs that serve thousands of students in many 
different ways, including by instituting reading and math programs, 
taking students to colleges so they can begin to imagine themselves on 
a college campus, creating science fairs and technology training 
seminars, providing career and financial counseling, and many other 
vital services. And, the individuals who work with GEAR UP programs are 
some of the most dedicated professionals I have met.

  I believe we can build on the successes of GEAR UP to ensure more 
students leave high school prepared for the academic rigor of college 
and a competitive workforce. My legislation, called Gearing Up for 
Academic Success, will support and strengthen GEAR UP so that it 
promotes lasting and systemic change in the schools served by the GEAR 
UP grant.
  The legislation places a particular focus on encouraging more 
students to take college preparation courses, especially those who are 
at risk for dropping out of school. But, it also builds capacity within 
the school so that activities funded with a GEAR UP grant benefit not 
only the students who receive the services, but also future cohorts of 
students who enter GEAR UP schools after the initial grants have ended.
  My legislation does not change the fundamental structure of GEAR UP; 
it maintains States and partnerships as eligible entities. The 
legislation, however, changes the focus and the types of activities the 
eligible entities must engage in. Eligible entities will now be 
required to provide activities that ensure more students participate in 
college preparation coursework. Further, my legislation requires the 
activities to be designed so as to benefit both current students as 
well as future cohorts of students.
  As in current law, partnerships are comprised of school districts, 
institutions of higher education, and community organizations. The 
legislation also retains the focus on cohorts of students that exists 
in current law by requiring grantees to serve one grade level of 
students, beginning not later than the 7th grade, through the 12th 
grade. Unlike current law, however, partnerships will now be required 
to provide activities designed to ensure the secondary school 
completion and college enrollment of this cohort of students. The 
legislation will also require the partnership to focus on developing a 
more rigorous curriculum and on professional development opportunities 
for teachers of college prep courses. Consequently, future cohorts of 
students would benefit from the more rigorous curriculum and the 
professional development available to the teachers.
  Partnerships may also engage in a wide variety of other activities 
permissible under current law, including providing mentoring and 
advising, creating summer programs at institutions of higher education, 
providing skills assessment, personal and family counseling, financial 
aid counseling, and activities designed to foster parent involvement in 
issues surrounding completion of high school and the attainment of a 
college education.
  The State can play a more effective role in ensuring students 
graduate high school prepared for college, and accordingly, my 
legislation requires State grantees to focus on two types of 
activities. First, the State would be required to provide policy 
leadership to promote college readiness of students in the State, 
particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of school and those 
who are economically disadvantaged. And, second, the State will be 
responsible for promoting coordination and information sharing among 
all GEAR UP grantees in the state, providing technical assistance and 
training, disseminating information about best practices, and providing 
opportunities for eligible partnerships to coordinate their efforts.
  This program is so worthwhile, and leadership at the State level is 
absolutely critical, and accordingly, propose changing the formula to 
make funds available to every State. When appropriations for GEAR UP 
exceed $400,000,000 per year, one third of the funds will be made 
available to each State by formula. The remainder of the allocation 
will go to eligible partnerships on a competitive basis.
  We all can agree that it is in our national interest to ensure that 
all of our students leave high school prepared to meet the demands of 
the 21st century workforce. This legislation provides an opportunity to 
systemically change the way our secondary schools prepare all students 
for college and a competitive workforce. I ask unanimous consent the 
text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1267

       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 ``Gearing Up for Academic 
     Success Act''.

     SEC. 2. GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR 
                   UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

       Chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-21 et seq.) is amended 
     to read as follows:

 ``CHAPTER 2--GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE 
                                PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 404A. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE ENTITY.

       ``In this chapter, the term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a State; or
       ``(2) a partnership consisting of--
       ``(A) 1 or more local educational agencies acting on behalf 
     of--
       ``(i) 1 or more elementary schools, middle schools, or 
     secondary schools; and
       ``(ii) the secondary schools that students from the schools 
     described in clause (i) would normally attend;
       ``(B) 1 or more degree granting institutions of higher 
     education; and
       ``(C) at least 2 community organizations or entities, such 
     as businesses, professional associations, community-based 
     organizations, philanthropic organizations, State agencies, 
     institutions or agencies sponsoring programs authorized under 
     subpart 4, or other public or private agencies or 
     organizations.

     ``SEC. 404B. EARLY INTERVENTION AND COLLEGE AWARENESS PROGRAM 
                   AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to award grants in accordance 
     with section 404C--
       ``(1) to eligible entities described in section 404A(1) to 
     enable the eligible entities to carry out the authorized 
     activities described in section 404D(b); and
       ``(2) to eligible entities described in section 404A(2) to 
     enable the eligible entities to carry out the authorized 
     activities described in section 404D(a).

     ``SEC. 404C. GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) General Reservations.--From the amount appropriated 
     under section 404H for a fiscal year the Secretary shall 
     reserve--
       ``(1) an amount sufficient to continue multiyear grant and 
     scholarship awards made under this chapter prior to the date 
     of enactment of the Gearing Up for Academic Success Act, in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions of such awards; and
       ``(2) the amount described in section 404G to carry out 
     section 404G.
       ``(b) Competitive Grant Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the amount appropriated under section 
     404H for a fiscal year is less than $400,000,000, then the 
     Secretary shall use the amount that remains after reserving 
     funds under subsection (a) to award

[[Page S6765]]

     grants, on a competitive basis and in accordance with 
     paragraph (2), to eligible entities described in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of section 404A to enable the eligible entities 
     to carry out the authorized activities described in section 
     404D.
       ``(2) Distribution of competitive grant awards.--From the 
     amount made available under paragraph (1) that remains after 
     reserving funds under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make available--
       ``(i) not less than 33 percent of the remainder to eligible 
     entities described in section 404A(1); and
       ``(ii) not less than 33 percent of the remainder to 
     eligible entities described in section 404A(2); and
       ``(B) award the remainder not made available under 
     subparagraph (A) to eligible entities described in paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of section 404A.
       ``(3) Special rule.--The Secretary shall annually 
     reevaluate the distribution of funds described in paragraph 
     (2)(B) based on the number, quality, and promise of the 
     applications and adjust the distribution accordingly.
       ``(c) Formula and Competitive Grant Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the amount appropriated under section 
     404H for a fiscal year is equal to or greater than 
     $400,000,000, then the Secretary shall use the amount that 
     remains after reserving funds under subsection (a) as 
     follows:
       ``(A) 33 percent of the remainder shall be used to award 
     grants, from allotments under paragraph (2), to eligible 
     entities described in section 404A(1) to enable the eligible 
     entities to carry out the authorized activities described in 
     section 404D.
       ``(B) 67 percent of the remainder shall be used to award 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities 
     described in section 404A(2) to enable the eligible entities 
     to carry out the authorized activities described in section 
     404D.
       ``(2) Formula.--
       ``(A) Reservations.--If the amount appropriated under 
     section 404H is greater than or equal to $400,000,000, then 
     the Secretary shall reserve, in addition to amounts reserved 
     under subsection (a)--
       ``(i) \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount to award grants to 
     the outlying areas according to their respective needs for 
     assistance under this chapter to enable the outlying areas to 
     carry out activities authorized under this chapter; and
       ``(ii) 1 percent of the amount to award a grant to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs to enable the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs to carry out activities authorized under this 
     chapter.
       ``(B) Formula.--If the amount appropriated under section 
     404H for a fiscal year is equal to or greater than 
     $400,000,000, then the Secretary shall allocate the amount 
     that remains after reserving funds under subsection (a) and 
     subparagraph (A) among eligible entities having plans 
     approved under section 404E as follows:
       ``(i) 50 percent of the remainder shall be allocated on the 
     basis of the number of individuals in the State; and
       ``(ii) 50 percent of the remainder shall be allocated on 
     the basis of the number of children in the State, aged 5 
     through 17, who are from families with incomes below the 
     poverty line.
       ``(C) Census data.--In allocating funds under subparagraph 
     (A) the Secretary shall use the most recent data available 
     from the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph;
       ``(i) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     the Republic of Palau.
       ``(ii) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) 
     of the Community Services Block Grant Act) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.
       ``(iii) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

     ``SEC. 404D. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Uses of Funds for Partnerships.--
       ``(1) Cohort approach.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall require that 
     eligible entities described in section 404A(2)--
       ``(i) provide services under this chapter to at least 1 
     grade level of students, beginning not later than 7th grade, 
     in a participating school that has a 7th grade and in which 
     at least 50 percent of the students enrolled are eligible for 
     a free or reduced-price lunch under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (or, if an eligible entity 
     determines that it would promote the effectiveness of a 
     program, an entire grade level of students, beginning not 
     later than the 7th grade, who reside in public housing as 
     defined in section 3(b)(1) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937); and
       ``(ii) ensure that the services are provided through the 
     12th grade to students in the participating grade level.
       ``(B) Coordination requirement.--In carrying out 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall, where applicable, 
     ensure that the cohort approach is done in coordination and 
     collaboration with existing early intervention programs and 
     does not duplicate the services already provided to a school 
     or community.
       ``(2) Mandatory activities.--In order to receive a grant 
     under this chapter, an eligible entity described in section 
     404A(2) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary, in the plan submitted under section 404E, that the 
     eligible entity will provide activities designed to ensure 
     the secondary school completion and college enrollment of 
     children at risk of dropping out of school, with a focus on 
     providing access to rigorous core courses that reflect 
     challenging academic standards. Such activities shall be 
     designed so as to ensure systemic change in the school, so 
     that future cohorts of children will benefit from the changes 
     as well. Such activities shall include--
       ``(A) enrollment of participating students in a standard 
     college preparation curriculum or, in the case of younger 
     students, in a curriculum that logically articulates with a 
     college preparation curriculum;
       ``(B) professional development opportunities for 
     instructors of college preparation classes; and
       ``(C) funds for curriculum development related to the 
     institution of college preparation classes.
       ``(3) Permissible activities.--In addition to the 
     activities described in paragraph (1), an eligible entity 
     described in section 404A(2) may provide other services or 
     supports that are designed to ensure the secondary school 
     completion and college enrollment of children at risk of 
     dropping out of school, such as comprehensive mentoring, 
     counseling, outreach, and supportive services. Examples of 
     activities that meet the requirements of the preceding 
     sentence include the following:
       ``(A) Providing participating students in elementary 
     school, middle school, or secondary school through grade 12 
     with a continuing system of mentoring and advising that--
       ``(i) is coordinated with the Federal and State community 
     service initiatives; and
       ``(ii) may include such support services as after school 
     and summer tutoring, assistance in obtaining summer jobs, 
     career mentoring, and academic counseling.
       ``(B) Requiring each student to enter into an agreement 
     under which the student agrees to achieve certain academic 
     milestones, such as completing a prescribed set of courses 
     and maintaining satisfactory progress described in section 
     484(c), in exchange for receiving tuition assistance for a 
     period of time to be established by each eligible entity.
       ``(C) Activities such as the identification of children at 
     risk of dropping out of school, volunteer and parent 
     involvement, providing former or current scholarship 
     recipients as mentor or peer counselors, skills assessment, 
     personal counseling, family counseling and home visits, and 
     programs and activities that are specially designed for 
     students of limited English proficiency and students with 
     disabilities.
       ``(D) Summer programs for individuals who are in their 
     sophomore or junior years of secondary school or are planning 
     to attend an institution of higher education in the 
     succeeding academic year, that--
       ``(i) are carried out at an institution of higher education 
     which has programs of academic year supportive services for 
     disadvantaged students through projects authorized under 
     section 402D or through comparable projects funded by the 
     State or other sources;
       ``(ii) provide for the participation of the individuals who 
     are eligible for assistance under section 402D or who are 
     eligible for comparable programs funded by the State;
       ``(iii)(I) provide summer instruction in remedial, 
     developmental or supportive courses;
       ``(II) provide such summer services as counseling, 
     tutoring, or orientation; and
       ``(III) provide financial assistance to the individuals to 
     cover the individuals' summer costs for books, supplies, 
     living costs, and personal expenses; and
       ``(iv) provide the individuals with financial assistance 
     during each academic year the individuals are enrolled at the 
     participating institution after the summer program.
       ``(E) Requiring eligible students to meet other standards 
     or requirements as the State determines necessary to meet the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(F) Financial aid counseling and information regarding 
     the opportunities for financial assistance.
       ``(G) Providing activities or information regarding--
       ``(i) fostering and improving parent involvement in--

       ``(I) promoting the advantages of a college education;
       ``(II) academic admission requirements; and
       ``(III) the need to take college preparation courses;

       ``(ii) college admission and achievement tests; and
       ``(iii) college application procedures.
       ``(b) Use of Funds for States.--
       ``(1) Mandatory activities.--In order to receive a grant 
     under this chapter, an eligible entity described in section 
     404A(1) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary, in the plan submitted under section 404E, that the 
     eligible entity will provide--
       ``(A) policy leadership designed to promote the college 
     readiness of students in the State, especially those who are 
     at risk of dropping out of school and those who are 
     economically disadvantaged; and

[[Page S6766]]

       ``(B) if there are eligible entities in the State that 
     received a grant under this chapter, services designed to 
     promote coordination and information sharing among all such 
     eligible entities in the State.
       ``(2) Permissible activities.--
       ``(A) Policy leadership.--In order to meet the requirements 
     of paragraph (1)(A), an eligible entity described in section 
     404A(1) may engage in the following activities:
       ``(i) Developing a core curriculum of college preparatory 
     classes that can be adopted by all State secondary schools.
       ``(ii) Facilitating curriculum development in individual 
     schools where needed.
       ``(iii) Supporting and creating professional development 
     opportunities for teachers in relation to the core 
     curriculum.
       ``(iv) Facilitating the alignment of kindergarten through 
     grade 12 classes with the requirements for passing college 
     entrance exams, and entering college without the need for 
     remedial courses.
       ``(v) Convening and consulting with groups of individuals 
     and organizations that can provide input and expertise 
     related to clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).
       ``(vi) Developing a comprehensive, statewide database that 
     can be used to track indicators of college readiness, and to 
     track enrollment in and completion of college, among the 
     secondary school students in the State.
       ``(vii) Other activities that will promote the college 
     readiness of students in the State, especially students who 
     are considered at risk for not completing secondary school.
       ``(C) Coordination and information sharing.--In order to 
     meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(B), an eligible entity 
     described in section 404A(1) may engage in the following 
     activities:
       ``(i) Providing technical assistance and training for 
     eligible entities described in section 404A(2) that receive a 
     grant under this chapter.
       ``(ii) Disseminating information about best practices among 
     eligible entities described in section 404A(2) that receive a 
     grant under this chapter.
       ``(iii) Providing eligible entities described in section 
     404A(2) that receive a grant under this chapter with 
     opportunities for coordinating their efforts and networking.
       ``(iv) Assisting eligible entities described in section 
     404A(2) that receive a grant under this chapter in adopting a 
     core curriculum and providing professional development 
     opportunities for teachers.
       ``(v) Providing a centralized source of information, 
     regarding college planning, college entrance requirements, 
     and opportunities for financial aid, to students in the 
     State.
       ``(vi) Providing other services that promote and support 
     the activities of eligible entities described in section 
     404A(2) in the State that receive a grant under this chapter.
       ``(c) Allowable Providers.--In the case of eligible 
     entities described in section 404A(1), the activities 
     required by this section may be provided by service providers 
     such as community-based organizations, schools, institutions 
     of higher education, public and private agencies, nonprofit 
     and philanthropic organizations, businesses, institutions and 
     agencies sponsoring programs authorized under subpart 4, and 
     other organizations the State determines appropriate.

     ``SEC. 404E. ELIGIBLE ENTITY PLANS.

       ``(a) Plan Required for Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order for an eligible entity to 
     receive a grant under this chapter, the eligible entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary a plan for carrying out the program 
     under this chapter.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each plan submitted pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall be in such form, contain or be accompanied by such 
     information or assurances, and be submitted at such time as 
     the Secretary may require by regulation. Each plan shall--
       ``(A) describe the activities for which assistance under 
     this chapter is sought; and
       ``(B) provide such assurances as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     chapter.
       ``(3) Additional requirements for partnerships.--An 
     eligible entity described in section 404A(2) shall also 
     include in its plan--
       ``(A) a description of the college preparation curriculum 
     that will be instituted;
       ``(B) a description of all uses of funds;
       ``(C) a description of how the funds provided under this 
     chapter shall be used to affect systemic schoolwide change 
     that will ensure that future cohorts of students will also 
     benefit from the use of the grant funds; and
       ``(D) a needs analysis detailing the ways in which the 
     funds provided under this chapter will be most profitably 
     used to ensure the success of curricular changes (for 
     example, by spending such funds on professional development, 
     the purchase of curricular materials, or other activities).
       ``(4) Additional requirements for states.--An eligible 
     entity described in section 404A(1) shall also include in its 
     plan--
       ``(A) an assessment of the activities and programs most 
     needed to enhance the college readiness of students in the 
     State;
       ``(B) a description of how the proposed activities will 
     enhance the college readiness of students in the State;
       ``(C) a description of how the State will ensure that 
     students who are at risk of dropping out of school and those 
     who are economically disadvantaged receive and benefit from 
     the proposed activities; and
       ``(D) if applicable, a description of how the proposed 
     activities will promote coordination and information-sharing 
     among all eligible entities in the State that receive a grant 
     under this chapter.
       ``(b) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve a plan 
     submitted under subsection (a) unless such plan--
       ``(A) provides that the eligible entity will provide, from 
     State, local, institutional, or private funds, not less than 
     50 percent of the cost of the program, which matching funds 
     may be provided in cash or in kind;
       ``(B) specifies the methods by which matching funds will be 
     paid; and
       ``(C) includes provisions designed to ensure that funds 
     provided under this chapter shall supplement and not supplant 
     funds expended for existing programs.
       ``(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding the matching 
     requirement described in paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary may 
     modify, by regulation, the percentage requirement described 
     in paragraph (1)(A) for eligible entities described in 
     section 404A(2).
       ``(3) Methods for complying with matching requirement.--An 
     eligible entity may count toward the matching requirement 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
       ``(A) the amount of the financial assistance paid to 
     students from State, local, institutional, or private funds 
     under this chapter;
       ``(B) the amount of tuition, fees, room or board waived or 
     reduced for recipients of financial assistance under this 
     chapter; and
       ``(C) the amount expended on documented, targeted, long-
     term mentoring and counseling provided by volunteers or paid 
     staff of nonschool organizations, including businesses, 
     religious organizations, community groups, postsecondary 
     educational institutions, nonprofit and philanthropic 
     organizations, and other organizations.
       ``(c) Peer Review Panels.--The Secretary shall convene peer 
     review panels to assist in making determinations regarding 
     the awarding of grants under this chapter.

     ``SEC. 404F. REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Coordination.--Each eligible entity shall ensure that 
     the activities assisted under this chapter are, to the extent 
     practicable, coordinated with, and complement and enhance--
       ``(1) services under this chapter provided by other 
     eligible entities serving the same school district or State; 
     and
       ``(2) related services under other Federal or non-Federal 
     programs.
       ``(b) Designation of Fiscal Agent.--An eligible entity 
     described in section 404A(2) shall designate an institution 
     of higher education or a local educational agency as the 
     fiscal agent for the eligible entity for purposes of this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) Coordinators.--Each eligible entity described in 
     section 404A(2) that receives a grant under this chapter 
     shall have a full-time program coordinator or a part-time 
     program coordinator, whose primary responsibility is to 
     assist such eligible entity in carrying out the authorized 
     activities described in section 404D(a).
       ``(d) Displacement.--An eligible entity described in 
     404A(2) shall ensure that the activities assisted under this 
     chapter will not displace an employee or eliminate a position 
     at a school assisted under this chapter, including a partial 
     displacement such as a reduction in hours, wages, or 
     employment benefits.

     ``SEC. 404G. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       ``(a) Evaluation.--Each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this chapter shall biennially evaluate the activities 
     assisted under this chapter in accordance with the standards 
     described in subsection (b) and shall submit to the Secretary 
     a copy of such evaluation. The evaluation shall permit 
     service providers to track eligible student progress during 
     the period such students are participating in the activities 
     and shall be consistent with the standards developed by the 
     Secretary pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(b) Evaluation Standards.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     standards for the evaluation described in subsection (a). 
     Such standards shall--
       ``(1) provide for input from eligible entities and service 
     providers; and
       ``(2) ensure that data protocols and procedures are 
     consistent and uniform.
       ``(c) Federal Evaluation.--In order to evaluate and improve 
     the impact of the activities assisted under this chapter, the 
     Secretary shall, from not more than 0.75 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under section 404H for a fiscal year, award 1 or 
     more grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to or with 
     public and private institutions and organizations, to enable 
     the institutions and organizations to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of the program and, as appropriate, disseminate 
     the results of the evaluation.
       ``(d) Report.--The Secretary shall biennially report to 
     Congress regarding the activities assisted under this chapter 
     and the evaluations conducted pursuant to this section.

     ``SEC. 404H. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     chapter $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.''.

[[Page S6767]]



                          ____________________