[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]]
____________________