[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10039-S10047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1697. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
the Hope Scholarship Credit to cover fees, books, supplies, and
equipment and to exempt Federal Pell Grants and Federal supplemental
educational opportunity grants from reducing expenses taken into
account for the Hope Scholarship Credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senator Smith and I are introducing
legislation today that would allow more students in our Nation to take
full advantage of the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.
Since it was signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, the Hope
Scholarship Tax Credit has annually helped millions of students reduce
the cost of going to college. In 2003 alone, more than 7.3 million
college students claimed this and the Lifetime Learning tax credit.
This credit, which can be as much as $1,500, has helped families offset
the increasing cost of college--costs that have gone up 51 percent at
public 4-year colleges, 36 percent at private 4-year colleges and 26
percent at public 2-year colleges over the past decade.
Unfortunately, many students and their families are unable to take
advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to
covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students that attend
colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those at many of our
Nation's community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of
the credit. As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses
associated with going to college. Room, board, books, supplies,
equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend
colleges that have reasonable tuition charges.
The bill addresses this inequity, by allowing the Hope scholarship
tax credit to cover expenses associated with fees, books, supplies, and
equipment. To limit the bill's cost, a student's room, board and
related expenses would remain excluded. It is important to note that
the Tax Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including
substantial living expenses, in programs such as section 529 plans and
tax-exempt, pre-paid tuition plans. Our bill, reasonably, covers a much
more limited subset of these same expenses.
In addition, the legislation changes the Tax Code so that any Federal
Pell grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when
Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some
assistance to needier students, especially those attending 4-year
public colleges. However, since the Hope tax credit will remain non-
refundable, the costs of these changes will remain low.
Both of these modest changes will make college more affordable to
many students and families that do not currently benefit from many of
the other tax provisions that are targeted to more wealthy families.
For many of these students, the ability to get the maximum amount of
the tax credit may be the difference in the student being able to take
an additional class or not having to sit out a semester.
This legislation is supported by the American Council on Education,
the United States Student Association, the American Association of
Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities,
the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and a number of
other prominent higher education organizations.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 1698. A bill to accelerate efforts to develop vaccines for
diseases primarily affecting developing countries and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week world leaders are meeting at the
United Nations to reaffirm the commitments made five years ago under
the United Nations Millennium Declaration, including the commitment to
halt and begin to reverse by the year 2015 the spread of HIV/AIDs,
malaria, and other major diseases that claim the lives of millions of
people around the world every year. We still have a long way to go if
we are going to meet this challenge.
AIDS, which has already claimed the lives of 20 million people,
continues to be the leading cause of premature death in sub-Saharan
Africa. An estimated 39 million people worldwide are infected with HIV.
Last year alone, 4.9 million people were newly infected with HIV, and
3.1 million died. For years, the epidemic was focused on sub-Saharan
Africa, but now HIV is spreading fastest in Central Europe and in parts
of Asia.
Although the AIDS pandemic has gripped the world's notice, other
diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis have drawn less attention--
but they too are deadly, particularly for those in the world's poorest
countries. Malaria claims the lives of a million people annually, many
of them young children; ninety percent of these deaths occur among
people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Tuberculosis, once thought to be
eradicated, has reemerged in new and more drug resistant strains. An
estimated 1.7 million people now die annually from TB. Because those
living
[[Page S10040]]
with HIV or AIDS are particularly vulnerable, the number of TB cases
has been growing rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Europe.
Taken together HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria kill over 5 million people
annually. A human crisis of this proportion demands that we respond
with urgency and thoughtfulness. We must continue to support robust
prevention, treatment and care programs. But we must also recognize
that vaccines are the most effective weapons in the arsenal of modern
medicine to stop the threat of AIDS and other infectious diseases that
are decimating the developing world. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology
companies, however, are reluctant to invest in research for vaccines
for these diseases because they fear that the market will not be
lucrative enough to cover the costs of research and development
The bill that I am introducing today, Vaccines for the New Millennium
Act of 2005, is designed to address this problem by providing
incentives for these companies to accelerate their efforts to develop
vaccines and microbicides to prevent HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other
neglected diseases. It builds upon legislation that I introduced in
2001 with Senator Frist. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, is joining me in introducing this
new, expanded bill.
The bill provides a variety of economic incentives. First, it
mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury enter into negotiations
with the World Bank, the International Development Association, the
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and other interested
parties in order to establish advanced market commitments, AMCs, for
the purchase of vaccines and microbicides to combat neglected diseases.
Research has shown that the major obstacle to the development of
vaccines for these diseases is the absence of a market because these
diseases hit hardest in poor countries that cannot afford to buy the
vaccines. Advanced market commitments AMCs are designed to remove this
obstacle by creating the market ahead of time. AMCs would be legally
binding contracts to purchase a vaccine or microbicide at a fair market
price for a guaranteed number of treatments, thereby creating a market
incentive for a company to invest in the development and production of
vaccines for these diseases. The international framework for the AMCs
would also include clearly defined requirements for eligible vaccines
to ensure that they are safe and effective as well as clearly defined
and transparent rules of competition. The bill also mandates that the
Secretary establish a purchase fund in the Treasury as soon as a
vaccine to combat one of these diseases is available.
Second, the bill supplements the market incentive with a variety of
tax incentives designed to provide appropriate and equitable incentives
to both large pharmaceutical and small private sector companies to
stimulate vaccine development. The bill provides a 30 percent tax
credit each year on qualified research expenses to develop microbicides
for HIV and vaccines for HIV, TB, malaria and other neglected diseases
that kill more than 1 million people annually. This is an expansion of
the existing R&D tax credit and can be applied to clinical trials
outside of the United States, since the majority of those infected with
these diseases are beyond our borders.
It provides a refundable tax credit to small biotechnology companies
based on the amount of qualified research that they do in a given year.
This credit is designed to stimulate research among the firms that are
the most innovative and to ensure that assistance is given to those
small companies that need it the most. Increased research efforts by
these firms could be instrumental to the effort to develop effective
vaccines for neglected diseases, particularly for HIV/AIDS.
And it provides a 100 percent tax credit on contracts and other
arrangements for research and development of these vaccines and
microbicides. This credit, which is an increase over the 65 percent
credit now in the tax code, is designed to serve as an incentive to
larger pharmaceutical companies to work hand in hand with the smaller
biotech companies to pick up the pace of vaccine development.
Once vaccines are developed, it is imperative that they be widely
distributed. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Lugar
also addresses the distribution side of the equation. It provides a 100
percent tax credit to companies on the sales of new vaccines and
microbicides as long as those sales are made to a qualified
international health organization or foreign government for
distribution in developing countries
Finally, the bill sets up a pilot program under the Small Business
Act to encourage the development of vaccines and microbicides by
eligible companies under the auspices of the Small Business Innovation
Research, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR,
programs in US government agencies with a global health or disease
prevention mission. Under this pilot program, these agencies have new
authority to undertake outreach activities to eligible biotech firms
and other small business to promote the objectives of the pilot
program.
In recent years, a number of pharmaceutical companies have taken
steps to help in the treatment of those infected with AIDS by providing
life-extending therapies to the developing world at reduced costs.
These drugs are critically important but the war against AIDS cannot be
won unless we develop vaccines against the HIV virus and other
neglected diseases. The pharmaceutical and biotech companies hold the
key
Many steps need to be taken in the war against these diseases. This
bill focuses on only one area but a critically important one: vaccine
development and distribution. If the public and private sectors work
together with energy and commitment, I believe we can develop the
vaccines, and once developed, we will win the war against these deadly
diseases that victimize so many in the developing world.
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. 1698
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 ``Vaccines for the New
Millennium Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) AIDS.--The term ``AIDS'' has the meaning given the term
in section 104A(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151b-2).
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Developing country.--The term ``developing country''
means a country that the World Bank determines to be a
country with a lower middle income or less.
(4) HIV/AIDS.--The term ``HIV/AIDS'' has the meaning given
the term in section 104A(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b-2).
(5) Global alliance for vaccines and immunizations.--The
term ``Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations'' means
the public-private partnership launched in 2000 for the
purpose of saving the lives of children and protecting the
health of all people through the widespread use of vaccines.
(6) Neglected disease.--The term ``neglected disease''
means--
(A) HIV/AIDS;
(B) malaria;
(C) tuberculosis; or
(D) any infectious disease (of a single etiology), which,
according to the World Health Organization, causes more than
1,000,000 deaths each year in developing countries.
(7) World bank.--The term ``World Bank'' means the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Immunization is cheap, reliable, and effective, and has
made a profound impact on global health, in both rich and
poor countries.
(2) During the 20th century, global immunization efforts
have successfully led to the eradication of smallpox and the
elimination of polio from the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and
most of Asia. Vaccines for diseases such as measles and
tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood mortality
worldwide, and vaccines for diseases such as influenza,
pneumonia, and hepatitis help prevent sickness and death of
adults as well as children.
(3) According to the World Health Organization, combined,
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria kill more than 5,000,000
people a year, most of whom are in the developing
[[Page S10041]]
world, yet there are no vaccines for these diseases.
(4) It is estimated that just 10 percent of the world's
research and development on health is targeted on diseases
affecting 90 percent of the world's population.
(5) Economic disincentives result in little private sector
investment in vaccines for neglected diseases, a situation
which disproportionately affects populations in developing
countries.
(6) Of more than $100,000,000,000 spent on health research
and development across the world, only $6,000,000,000 is
spent each year on diseases that are specific to developing
countries, most of which is from public and philanthropic
sources.
(7) Infants, children, and adolescents are among the
populations hardest hit by AIDS and malaria, but they are at
risk of being left behind in the search for effective
vaccines against such diseases.
(8) Providing a broad range of economic incentives to
increase private sector research on neglected diseases,
including increased public and private sector funding for
research and development, guaranteed markets, tax credits,
and improved regulatory procedures would increase the number
of products in development and the likelihood of finding
effective vaccines for such diseases.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SUPPORT FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should continue to encourage efforts to
support the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, a virtual
consortium of scientists and organizations committed to
accelerating the development of an effective HIV vaccine;
(2) the United States should work with the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (``UNAIDS''), the World Health
Organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, and
the World Bank to ensure that all countries heavily affected
by the HIV/AIDS pandemic have national AIDS vaccine plans;
(3) the United States should support and encourage the
carrying out of the agreements of the Group of 8 made at the
2005 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, to increase direct
investment and create market incentives, including through
public-private partnerships and advance market commitments,
to complement public research in the development of vaccines,
microbicides, and drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis,
and other neglected diseases;
(4) the United States should support testing of promising
vaccines in infants, children, and adolescents as early as is
medically and ethically appropriate, in order to avoid
significant delays in the availability of pediatric vaccines
at the cost of thousands of lives;
(5) the United States should continue supporting the work
of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and the
Global Fund for Children's Vaccines as appropriate and
effective vehicles to purchase and distribute vaccines for
neglected diseases at an affordable price once such vaccines
are discovered in order to distribute them to the developing
world; and
(6) the United States should work with others in the
international community to address the multiple obstacles to
the development of vaccines for neglected diseases including
scientific barriers, insufficient economic incentives,
protracted regulatory procedures, lack of delivery systems
for products once developed, liability risks, and
intellectual property rights.
SEC. 5. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Creative partnerships between governments and
organizations in the private sector (including foundations,
universities, corporations including pharmaceutical companies
and biotechnology firms, community-based organizations and
other nongovernmental organizations) are playing a critical
role in the area of global health, particularly in the fight
against neglected diseases, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis,
and malaria.
(2) Public-private sector partnerships increase local and
international capacities to improve the delivery of health
services in developing countries and to accelerate research
and development of vaccines and other preventive medical
technologies essential to combating infectious diseases that
disproportionately kill people in developing countries.
(3) These partnerships maximize the unique capabilities of
each sector while combining financial and other resources,
scientific knowledge, and expertise toward common goals which
cannot be achieved by either sector alone.
(4) Public-private partnerships such as the International
AIDS Vaccine Initiative, the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, and
the Global TB Drug Facility are playing cutting edge roles in
the efforts to develop vaccines for these diseases.
(5) Public-private partnerships serve as incentives to the
research and development of vaccines for neglected diseases
by providing biotechnology companies, which often have no
experience in developing countries, with technical assistance
and on the ground support for clinical trials of the vaccine
through the various stages of development.
(6) Sustaining existing public-private partnerships and
building new ones where needed are essential to the success
of the efforts by the United States and others in the
international community to find a cure for these and other
neglected diseases.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the sustainment and promotion of public-private
partnerships must be a central element of the strategy
pursued by the United States to create effective incentives
for the development of vaccines and other preventive medical
technologies for neglected diseases debilitating the
developing world; and
(2) the United States government should take steps to
address the obstacles to the development of these
technologies by increasing investment in research and
development and establishing market and other incentives.
(c) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to
accelerate research and development for vaccines and
microbicides for neglected diseases by substantially
increasing funding for public-private partnerships that
invest directly in research, such as the International AIDS
Vaccine Initiative, the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, and the
Global TB Drug Facility, and for partnerships such as the
Vaccine Fund that incentivize the development of new vaccines
by purchase existing vaccines.
SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF VACCINES FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES.
(a) Requirement for Strategy.--The President shall
establish a comprehensive strategy to accelerate efforts to
develop vaccines and microbicides for neglected diseases such
as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Such strategy shall--
(1) expand public-private partnerships and the leveraging
of resources from other countries and the private sector;
(2) include initiatives to create economic incentives for
the research, development, and manufacturing of vaccines for
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other neglected
diseases;
(3) include the negotiation of advanced market commitments;
(4) address intellectual property issues surrounding the
development of vaccines and microbicidies for neglected
diseases;
(5) maximize United States capabilities to support clinical
trials of vaccines and microbicidies in developing countries;
(6) address the issue of regulatory approval of such
vaccines, whether through the Commissioner of the Food and
Drug Administration, or the World Health Organization or
another internally-recognized and agreed upon entity;
(7) expand the purchase and delivery of existing vaccines;
and
(8) address the challenges of delivering vaccines in
developing countries in advance so as to minimize historical
delays in access once vaccines are available.
(b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report setting forth
the strategy described in subsection (a) and the steps to
implement such strategy.
SEC. 7. ADVANCED MARKET COMMITMENTS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to create
incentives for the private sector to invest in research,
development, and manufacturing of vaccines for neglected
diseases by creating a competitive market for future vaccines
through advanced market commitments.
(b) Authority to Negotiate.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter
into negotiations with the appropriate officials of the World
Bank, the International Development Association, and Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, the member nations
of such entities, and other interested parties for the
purpose of establishing advanced market commitments to
purchase vaccines and microbicides to combat neglected
diseases.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the status
of the negotiations to create advanced market commitments
under this section.
(c) Requirements.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall work
with the entities referred to in subsection (b) to ensure
that there is an international framework for the
establishment and implementation of advanced market
commitments and that such commitments include--
(1) legally binding contracts for product purchase that
include a fair market price for a guaranteed number of
treatments to ensure that the market incentive is sufficient;
(2) clearly defined and transparent rules of competition
for qualified developers and suppliers of the product;
(3) clearly defined requirements for eligible vaccines to
ensure that they are safe and effective;
(4) dispute settlement mechanisms; and
(5) sufficient flexibility to enable the contracts to be
adjusted in accord with new information related to projected
market size and other factors while still maintaining the
purchase commitment at a fair price.
(d) Trust Fund.--
(1) Authority to establish.--On the date that the Secretary
of the Treasury determines that a vaccine to combat a
neglected disease is available for purchase, the Secretary
shall establish in the Treasury of the United States a fund
to be known as the
[[Page S10042]]
Lifesaving Vaccine Purchase Fund consisting of amounts
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (4).
(2) Investment of fund.--Amounts in such Fund shall be
invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 31, United
States Code, and any interest on, and proceeds from any such
investment shall be credited to and become part of the Fund.
(3) Use of fund.--The Secretary is authorized to expend
amounts in such Fund for the purchase of a vaccine to combat
a neglected disease pursuant to an advanced market commitment
undertaken on behalf of the Government of the United States.
(4) Authority to accept contributions.--The President may
accept and use in furtherance of the purposes of this Act
contributions from nongovernmental organizations,
international health agencies, the United Nations, the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, private
nonprofit organizations that are organized to support public
health research and programs, and any other organizations
willing to contribute to the Lifesaving Vaccine Purchase
Fund.
(5) Appropriations.--
(A) In general.--For each fiscal year beginning after the
date that the Secretary determines that a vaccine to combat a
neglected disease is available for purchase, there are
authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of such Fund.
(B) Transfer of funds.--The Secretary shall transfer the
amount appropriated under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year to
such Fund.
(C) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to this
paragraph shall remain available until expended without
fiscal year limitation.
SEC. 8. CREDIT FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH RELATED TO DEVELOPING
VACCINES AGAINST NEGLECTED DISEASES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 45J. CREDIT FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH RELATED TO DEVELOPING
VACCINES FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
vaccine research credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to 30 percent of the
qualified vaccine research expenses for the taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Vaccine Research Expenses.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Qualified vaccine research expenses.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, the term `qualified vaccine research expenses'
means the amounts which are paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during the taxable year which would be described in
subsection (b) of section 41 if such subsection were applied
with the modifications set forth in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Modifications; increased incentive for contract
research payments.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
subsection (b) of section 41 shall be applied--
``(i) by substituting `vaccine research' for `qualified
research' each place it appears in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
such subsection, and
``(ii) by substituting `100 percent' for `65 percent' in
paragraph (3)(A) of such subsection.
``(C) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified vaccine research expenses' shall not include
any amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(2) Vaccine research.--The term `vaccine research' means
research to develop vaccines and microbicides for--
``(A) HIV/AIDS (as that term is defined in section 104A(g)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 21516-2)),
``(B) malaria,
``(C) tuberculosis, or
``(D) any infectious disease (of a single etiology) which,
according to the World Health Organization, causes more than
1,000,000 human deaths each year in developing countries.
``(c) Coordination With Credit for Increasing Research
Expenditures.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
qualified vaccine research expenses for a taxable year to
which an election under this section applies shall not be
taken into account for purposes of determining the credit
allowable under section 41 for such taxable year.
``(2) Expenses included in determining base period research
expenses.--Any qualified vaccine research expenses for any
taxable year which are qualified research expenses (within
the meaning of section 41(b)) shall be taken into account in
determining base period research expenses for purposes of
applying section 41 to subsequent taxable years.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Limitations on foreign testing.--No credit shall be
allowed under this section with respect to any vaccine
research (other than human clinical testing) conducted
outside the United States.
``(2) Pre-clinical research.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section for pre-clinical research unless such
research is pursuant to a research plan an abstract of which
has been filed with the Secretary before the beginning of
such year. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, shall prescribe regulations
specifying the requirements for such plans and procedures for
filing under this paragraph.
``(3) Certain rules made applicable.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 41(f) shall apply
for purposes of this section.
``(4) Election.--This section (other than subsection (e))
shall apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year only if such
taxpayer elects to have this section apply for such taxable
year.
``(e) Credit To Be Refundable for Certain Taxpayers.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an electing qualified
taxpayer--
``(A) the credit under this section shall be determined
without regard to section 38(c), and
``(B) the credit so determined shall be allowed as a credit
under subpart C.
``(2) Electing qualified taxpayer.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `electing qualified taxpayer' means,
with respect to any taxable year, any domestic C corporation
if--
``(A) the aggregate gross assets of such corporation at any
time during such taxable year are $500,000,000 or less,
``(B) the net income tax (as defined in section 38(c)) of
such corporation is zero for such taxable year and the 2
preceding taxable years,
``(C) as of the close of the taxable year, the corporation
is not under the jurisdiction of a court in a title 11 or
similar case (within the meaning of section 368(a)(3)(A)),
``(D) the corporation provides such assurances as the
Secretary requires that, not later than 2 taxable years after
the taxable year in which the taxpayer receives any refund of
a credit under this subsection, the taxpayer will make an
amount of qualified vaccine research expenses equal to the
amount of such refund, and
``(E) the corporation elects the application of this
subsection for such taxable year.
``(3) Aggregate gross assets.--Aggregate gross assets shall
be determined in the same manner as such assets are
determined under section 1202(d).
``(4) Controlled groups.--A corporation shall be treated as
meeting the requirement of paragraph (2)(B) only if each
person who is treated with such corporation as a single
employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 also
meets such requirement.
``(5) Special rules.--
``(A) Recapture of credit.--The Secretary shall promulgate
such regulations as necessary and appropriate to provide for
the recapture of any credit allowed under this subsection in
cases where the taxpayer fails to make the expenditures
described in paragraph (2)(D).
``(B) Exclusion of certain qualified vaccine research
expenses.--For purposes of determining the credit under this
section for a taxable year, the qualified vaccine research
expenses taken into account for such taxable year shall not
include an amount paid or incurred during such taxable year
equal to the amount described in paragraph (2)(D) (and not
already taken into account under this subparagraph for a
previous taxable year).''.
(b) Inclusion in General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``plus'' at the end of paragraph (18), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (19) and inserting ``, plus'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(20) the vaccine research credit determined under section
45J.''.
(c) Denial of Double Benefit.--Section 280C of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Credit for Qualified Vaccine Research Expenses.--
``(1) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed for that
portion of the qualified vaccine research expenses (as
defined in section 45J(b)) otherwise allowable as a deduction
for the taxable year which is equal to the amount of the
credit determined for such taxable year under section 45J(a).
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (c) shall apply
for purposes of this subsection.''.
(d) Deduction for Unused Portion of Credit.--Section 196(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified
business credits) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (12) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the vaccine research credit determined under section
45J(a) (other than such credit determined under the rules of
section 280C(e)(2)).''.
(e) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or from section 45J(e) of such Code,''
after ``1978,''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45J. Credit for medical research related to developing vaccines
against widespread diseases.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2005.
[[Page S10043]]
(g) Study.--
(1) In general.--The National Institutes of Health shall
conduct a study of the extent to which the credit under
section 45J of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by
subsection (a), has stimulated vaccine research.
(2) Report.--Not later than the date that is 5 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the National
Institutes of Health shall submit to Congress the results of
the study conducted under paragraph (1), together with
recommendations (if any) to improve the effectiveness of such
credit in stimulating vaccine research.
SEC. 9. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN SALES OF LIFESAVING VACCINES.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits), as amended by section 4, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 45K. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN SALES OF LIFESAVING VACCINES.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the
lifesaving vaccine sale credit determined under this section
with respect to a taxpayer for the taxable year is an amount
equal to the amount of qualified vaccine sales for the
taxable year.
``(b) Qualified Vaccine Sales.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified vaccine sales' means
the aggregate amount paid to the taxpayer for a qualified
sale.
``(2) Qualified sale.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified sale' means a sale
of a qualified vaccine--
``(i) to a nonprofit organization or to a government of any
foreign country (or instrumentality of such a government),
and
``(ii) for distribution in a developing country.
``(B) Developing country.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `developing country' means a country which the
Secretary determines to be a country with a lower middle
income or less (as such term is used by the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
``(3) Qualified vaccine.--The term `qualified vaccine'
means any vaccine and microbicide--
``(A) which is described in section 45J(b)(2), and
``(B) which is approved as a new drug after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph by--
``(i) the Food and Drug Administration,
``(ii) the World Health Organization, or
``(iii) the appropriate authority of a country included in
the list under section 802(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.
``(c) Limit on Amount of Credit.--The maximum amount of the
credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to a sale
shall not exceed the portion of the limitation amount
allocated under subsection (d) with respect to such sale.
``(d) National Limitation on Amount of Credits.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
there is a lifesaving vaccine sale credit limitation amount
for each calendar year equal to--
``(A) $100,000,000 for each of years 2006 through 2010, and
``(B) $125,000,000 for each of years 2011 through 2012.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
``(A) In general.--The limitation amount under paragraph
(1) shall be allocated for any calendar year by the
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development (referred to in this section as the
`Administrator') among organizations with an application
approved by the Administrator in accordance with subparagraph
(B).
``(B) Application for allocation.--The Administrator shall
prescribe the procedures for an application for an allocation
under this subsection and the factors to be taken into
account in making such allocations. Such applications shall
be made at such time and in such form and manner as the
Administrator shall prescribe and shall include a detailed
plan for distribution of the vaccine.
``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If the limitation
amount under paragraph (1) for any calendar year exceeds the
aggregate amount allocated under paragraph (2), such
limitation for the following calendar year shall be increased
by the amount of such excess. No amount may be carried under
the preceding sentence to any calendar year after 2024.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules
similar to the rules of section 41(f)(2) shall apply.''.
(b) Inclusion in General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to current year
business credit), as amended by section 4(b), is amended by
striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (19), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (20) and inserting ``,
plus'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(21) the lifesaving vaccine sale credit determined under
section 45K.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 2(c), is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45K. Credit for certain sales of lifesaving vaccines.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales of vaccines after December 31, 2005, in
taxable years ending after such date.
SEC. 10. SBIR AND STTR PROGRAM FUNDING FOR VACCINE
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Pilot Program.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(x) Required Expenditures for the Development of Vaccines
for Neglected Diseases.--
``(1) SBIR expenditures.--Each agency required to make
expenditures under subsection (f)(1) or under subsection
(n)(1), that is determined by the Administrator to have a
mission related to global health or disease prevention shall
expend with small business concerns, in addition to any
amounts required to be expended under subsections (f) and
(n), not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and each
fiscal year thereafter, specifically in connection with SBIR
and STTR programs which meet the requirements of this
section, policy directives, and regulations to carry out this
section, to carry out the pilot program established under
this subsection.
``(2) Pilot program.--During the 4-year period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Vaccines for the New Millennium
Act of 2005, the Administrator shall establish and carry out
a program to encourage the development of vaccines and
microbicides to combat a neglected disease, including
outreach activities to raise awareness of such program.
``(3) Administrative costs.--The limitations in subsection
(f)(2) and (n)(2) shall not apply to agency expenditures
under the pilot program established under this subsection.
``(4) Report.--Six months before the date of expiration of
the pilot program established under this subsection, the
Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives a report containing
an assessment of whether the pilot program is meeting the
objective of providing incentives to small business concerns
to research the development of vaccines and microbicides to
combat a neglected disease, and an accounting of the
expenditures for the pilot program.
``(5) Definitions.--As used in this subsection and
subsection (j), the terms `neglected disease' and `developing
country' have the same meanings as in section 2 of the
Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2005.''.
(b) Policy Objectives.--Section 9(j) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 638(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) Additional modifications for the development of
vaccines for a neglected disease.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of the Vaccines for the New
Millennium Act of 2005, the Administrator shall modify the
policy directives issued pursuant to this subsection to
ensure that agencies participating in the SBIR and STTR
programs develop an action plan for implementing the pilot
program for the development of vaccines and microbicides to
combat a neglected disease under subsection (x), including
outreach to raise awareness of the pilot program.''.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with Senator Kerry the
Vaccines for a New Millennium Act of 2005.
The AIDS crisis is devastating sub-Saharan Africa. According to the
latest figures from UNAIDS, there are approximately 40 million people
living with HIV/AIDS around the world. An estimated 4.9 million people
were newly infected last year. This means that every day, some 14,000
people contract HIV/AIDS. Last year, an estimated 3 million people died
from AIDS.
The AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa has profound implications for
political stability, development, and human welfare that extend far
beyond the region. In addition to the current crisis in Africa, public
health experts warn of a ``second wave'' of countries on the verge of
potential AIDS crises, such as China, India, Russia, Nigeria, and
Ethiopia.
Despite efforts through programs like the President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief PEPFAR, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to treat those
living with HIV/AIDS and to prevent new infections, the disease is
outpacing us. While prevention programs are critical in the struggle to
slow the spread of the disease, over the long term, the most effective
way to defeat this pandemic is through the development of an effective
HIV vaccine.
In addition to AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis continue to kill many
in the developing world. More than 300 million people are infected with
malaria annually, and an estimated 1 million people--mostly children
under the age of five--die from malaria. Combined, AIDS, tuberculosis,
and malaria kill an estimated 5 million people a year. Yet
[[Page S10044]]
there are no vaccines for these diseases. While we must remain
committed to current prevention and treatment programs, we must also
look toward the future to see what hope science has for preventing the
spread of these diseases.
Historically, vaccines have led to some of the greatest achievements
in public health and are among the most cost-effective health
interventions. During the 20th century, global immunization efforts
have led to the eradication of smallpox and the elimination of polio
from the Western Hemisphere, Europe and most of Asia. Vaccines for
diseases such as measles and tetanus have dramatically reduced
childhood mortality worldwide, and vaccines for diseases such as
influenza, pneumonia, and hepatitis now help prevent sickness and death
of adults, too.
Vaccines for these diseases would play an important role in saving
lives in developing countries. Governments, private foundations, and
the private sector have made enormous strides. Public-private
partnerships have also contributed to scientific advances in this area.
However, much more needs to be done.
Because of the promise that vaccines hold, Senator Kerry and I are
introducing the ``Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2005.''
Representative Pete Visclosky is introducing a companion bill in the
House of Representatives. Our bill would require the United States to
develop a comprehensive strategy to accelerate research and development
in vaccines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious
diseases that are major killers in the developing world. The strategy
would require an increase in public-private partnerships, whereby
public entities such as governments, team up with companies or private
foundations to conduct research or vaccine trials. The bill would
require the United States government to commit to purchase vaccines for
these diseases once they are developed through ``advance market
commitments.'' Finally, the legislation would create a tax credit for
companies that invest in research and development for vaccines for
these diseases.
I am hopeful that Senators will join Senator Kerry and me in
supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Reed, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 1699. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit marks; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Leahy, and
my colleagues Senators Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Voinovich,
Feingold, Levin, Bayh, Reed, and Stabenow, I seek recognition to
introduce the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, a bill
that amends title 18 of the United States Code to provide criminal
penalties for trafficking in counterfeit marks.
This legislation closes a loophole in Federal trademark law, which
currently criminalizes the trafficking in counterfeit trademarks ``on
or in connection with goods or services.'' This language, however, does
not extend criminal liability to those persons who manufacture and/or
traffic the counterfeit marks themselves, marks which are later applied
to a product or service. In other words, Federal law does not prohibit
a person Tom selling counterfeit labels bearing otherwise protected
trademarks within the United States.
This current loophole was created in large part by the Tenth
Circuit's opinion in United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.
2000). In this case, the United States prosecuted the defendant for
manufacturing and selling counterfeit Dooney & Bourke labels that third
parties could later affix to generic purses. Examining Title 18,
section 2320, of the United States Code, the Tenth Circuit held that
persons who sell counterfeit trademarks that are not actually attached
to any ``goods or services'' do not violate the Federal criminal
trademark infringement statute. And because the defendant did not
attach the counterfeit mark to a ``good or service,'' the court found
that the defendant did not run afoul of the criminal statute as a
matter of law. Thus, an individual, caught red-handed with counterfeit
trademarks, walked free. Congress must act now to close this loophole,
which this legislation being introduced today will most certainly do.
Specifically, the bill will prohibit the trafficking, or attempt to
traffic, in ``labels, patches, stickers'' and generally any item to
which a counterfeit mark has been applied.
In addition to closing the loophole, the Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act strengthens the criminal code's forfeiture
provision by providing enhanced penalties for those trafficking in
counterfeit marks, goods and services bearing counterfeit marks.
Current law does not provide for the seizure and forfeiture of goods
and services bearing counterfeit marks. As such, many times such
counterfeit goods are seized one day, only to be returned and sold to
an unsuspecting public. To ensure that individuals engaging in the
practice of trafficking in counterfeit marks cannot reopen their doors,
this bill provides procedures for the mandatory seizure, forfeiture,
and destruction of counterfeit marks pre-conviction. Further, it
provides for procedures for the mandatory forfeiture and destruction of
property derived from or used to engage in the trafficking of
counterfeit marks.
The trade in counterfeit marks is only part of a much larger problem.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimates that trafficking
in counterfeit goods costs the United States approximately $200 million
annually. With each passing year, the United States loses millions of
dollars in tax revenues to the sale of counterfeit goods. Further,
counterfeit items manufactured overseas and distributed in the United
States cost American workers tens of thousands of jobs. This is a
problem that we can no longer ignore.
The trafficking in counterfeit goods and marks is not limited to
those of the popular designer goods that we have all seen sold on
corners of just about every major metropolitan city in the United
States. Counterfeited products can range from children's toys to
clothing to Christmas tree lights. More disturbing are the potentially
hazardous counterfeit automobile parts, batteries, and electrical
equipment that are being manufactured and placed into the stream of
commerce by the thousands with each passing day.
This legislation closes a loophole in the current criminal trademark
infringement statute and ensures that it is a crime not only to traffic
in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks, but also in the
counterfeit marks themselves. Further, this legislation ensures that
counterfeit goods and marks seized in violation of this statute are
properly disposed of and do not make their way back onto the street. I
am pleased to introduce this piece of legislation with my colleagues
and hope that it will receive the support that it is due.
Mr. LEAHY. Counterfeiting is a threat to America. It wreaks real harm
on our economy, our workers, and our consumers. Today, Senator Specter
and I introduce the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act,''
a tough bill that will give law enforcement improved tools to fight
this form of theft. The bill is short and straightforward, but its
impact should be profound and far-reaching.
It is all too easy to think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime,
a means of buying sunglasses or a purse that would otherwise strain a
monthly budget. The reality, however, is far different. According to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, counterfeiting costs the U.S.
between $200 billion and $250 billion annually. In Vermont, companies
like Burton Snowboards, Vermont Tubbs, SB Electronics, and Hubbardton
Forge--all of which have cultivated their good names through pure hard
work and creativity--have felt keenly the damage of intellectual
property theft on their businesses. This is wrong. It is simply not
fair to the businesses who innovate and to the people whose economic
livelihoods depend on these companies.
The threat posed by counterfeiting is more than a matter of
economics. Inferior products can threaten the safety of those who use
them. When a driver taps a car's brake pedals there should be no
uncertainty about whether the
[[Page S10045]]
brake linings are made of compressed grass, sawdust, or cardboard. Sick
patients should not have to worry that they will ingest counterfeit
prescription drugs and, at best, have no effect. The World Health
Organization estimates that the market for counterfeit drugs is about
$32 billion each year. Knock-off parts have even been found in NATO
helicopters. What's more, according to Interpol, there is an
identifiable link between counterfeit goods and the financing of
terrorist operations.
This is a global problem, and it demands global solutions. Earlier
this year at a Judiciary Committee hearing on international piracy, the
General Counsel for the United States Trade Representative reported
that China continues to see piracy rates of about ninety percent in
nearly all industries. Russia is a growing concern too, even as that
country seeks membership in the World Trade Organization. Both
countries were added to USTR's Priority Watch List this year. Such
lists are useful, but they are meaningless without concrete steps by
the countries singled out by USTR. We know that counterfeiting can be
fought when a country treats it as a priority. China, for example,
flexed its intellectual property enforcement muscle recently in
protecting logos related to Beijing's 2008 Summer Olympic Games. In a
Newsweek International article last January, one vendor who was fined
for selling Olympic t-shirts noted that the crackdown was concerted: ``
`They are,' she says, `very serious.' ''
I am very serious as well. Even as we work toward better
international enforcement, there is much we can do, and much that we
have done, to improve domestic law. In 1996, I worked with Senator
Hatch to pass the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, which
strengthened our criminal and tariff codes and applied federal
racketeering laws to counterfeiting. And earlier this year, Senator
Cornyn and I introduced S. 1095, the Protecting American Goods and
Services Act. That bill would criminalize possession of counterfeit
goods with intent to traffic, expand the definition of ``traffic,'' and
criminalize the importing and exporting of counterfeit goods.
The bill that Senator Specter and I are introducing today also makes
several improvements to the U.S. Code. The bill strengthens 18 U.S.C.
2318, the part of the criminal code that deals with counterfeit goods
and services, to make it a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels or
packaging, even when counterfeit labels or packaging are shipped
separately from the goods to which they will ultimately be attached.
Savvy counterfeiters have exploited this loophole to escape liability.
This bill closes that loophole.
The bill will also make counterfeit labels and goods, and any
equipment used in facilitating a crime under this part of the code,
subject to forfeiture upon conviction. Any forfeited goods or machinery
would then be destroyed, and the convicted infringer would have to pay
restitution to the lawful owner of the trademark. Finally, although the
bill is tough, it is also fair. It states that nothing ``shall entitle
the United States to bring a cause of action under this section for the
repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or
confuse.'' It is truly just the bad actors we want to punish.
Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their
creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As
legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the
tools needed to capture these thieves. It is a task to which Senator
Specter and I are both committed. I would like to thank Senator Bayh,
Senator Brownback, Senator Cornyn, Senator DeWine, Senator Feingold,
Senator Hatch, Senator Levin, Senator Reed, and Senator Stabenow for
cosponsoring this important legislation.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 1703. A bill to provide for the development and implementation of
an emergency backup communications system; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Communications
Security Act of 2005. The events of 9/11 uncovered manifest structural
weaknesses in our communications system, which were then highlighted by
the 9/11 Commission. At the time, public safety and emergency response
officials were not able to communicate at a basic level. We have not
taken adequate steps to fix that dangerous problem, and Hurricane
Katrina has bluntly demonstrated that. Much of the communications
system was knocked off-line along the Gulf Coast. It was remarkable to
watch as the television news crews had better luck communicating than
our first responders. As the disaster unfolded, our first responders
and emergency officials repeatedly cited communications failures as a
major obstacle to the disaster response effort.
We need a redundant communications system that will work in times of
emergency. Dramatic advances in technology and the availability of new
spectrum as part of the DTV transition offer opportunities to address
this problem. The Communications Security Act of 2005 requires the
technical experts at the Department of Homeland Security and the
Federal Communications Commission evaluate the feasibility and cost of
deploying a back-up emergency communications system. The agencies will
evaluate all reasonable options, including satellites, wireless and
terrestrial-based systems. They will evaluate all available public and
private resources that could provide such a system and submit a report
to Congress detailing the findings. The DHS is then authorized to
request appropriations to implement the system. Congress would then be
in position to put in place whatever programs and funding are needed to
get the job done.
This proposal will not resolve all of our long-term needs in
preparedness and interoperability, and I am pleased that many of my
colleagues are working on the various pieces of this puzzle. However,
in the interim, we must ensure that we can respond in emergency
situations with an eye toward building a reliable, redundant system for
the long term.
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. 1703
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 ``Communications Security Act
of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The tragic events of September 11, 2001, placed an
enormous strain on the communications network in New York
City, New York and Washington, District of Columbia.
Officials from both cities struggled to communicate and
coordinate among the various emergency response teams
dispatched to ``Ground Zero'' and the Pentagon. These events
uncovered manifest structural weaknesses in the
communications infrastructure of the United States.
(2) The 9/11 Commission Report states that our Nation
remains largely unprepared to communicate effectively in the
event of another attack or natural catastrophe.
(3) The massive communications failures associated with
Hurricane Katrina illustrate the continuing inadequacies of
our communications systems in times of crisis.
(4) Despite heroic efforts by public officials and
communications industry personnel, the failure of our
communications network to persevere in the face of a
catastrophic hurricane severely hampered post-storm recovery
efforts.
(5) A comprehensive effort must be undertaken to deal with
the communications challenges faced by our Nation, including
short-term and long-term steps that can be taken to improve
the interoperable communications and emergency response
capability within the United States.
(6) There is an immediate need for the development and
deployment of an emergency back-up communications system to
enhance the Nation's emergency response capabilities.
Deployment of an emergency back-up communications system
should be a priority of the United States.
(7) The deployment of such a system is a critical first
step in enhancing the overall communications infrastructure.
Other required improvements will need to be made in such
areas as training, personnel, equipment, software, and
services for local governments, and assistance with capital
expenses. Supporting and enhancing ongoing efforts in this
regard is an important goal.
SEC. 3. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BACK-UP SYSTEM.
Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et seq.), as amended by section 4, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
[[Page S10046]]
``SEC. 317. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BACK-UP SYSTEM.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Communications Security Act of 2005, the
Secretary, in conjunction with the Federal Communications
Commission, shall evaluate the technical feasibility of
creating a back-up emergency communications system that
complements existing communications resources and takes into
account next generation and advanced telecommunications
technologies. The overriding objective for the evaluation
shall be providing a framework for the development of a
resilient interoperable communications system for emergency
responders in an emergency. In conducting that evaluation,
the Secretary shall evaluate all reasonable options,
including satellites, wireless, and terrestrial-based
communications systems and other alternative transport
mechanisms that can be used in tandem with existing
technologies.
``(b) Components.--The back-up system shall include--
``(1) reliable means of emergency communications; and
``(2) if necessary, handsets, desktop communications
devices, or other appropriate devices for each public safety
entity.
``(c) Factors to Be Evaluated.--The evaluation under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a survey of all Federal agencies that use terrestrial
or satellite technology for communications security and an
evaluation of the feasibility of using existing systems for
purposes creating such an emergency back-up medical facility
public safety communications system;
``(2) the feasibility of using private satellite, wireless,
or terrestrial networks for emergency communications;
``(3) the technical options, cost, and deployment methods
of software, equipment,handsets or desktop communications
devices for public safety entities in major urban areas, and
nationwide; and
``(4) the feasibility and cost of necessary changes to the
network operations center of terrestrial-based or satellite
systems to enable the centers to serve as an emergency back-
up communications systems.
``(d) Report.--Upon the completion of the evaluation under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress that details the findings of the evaluation,
including a full inventory of existing public and private
resources most efficiently capable of providing emergency
communications.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.
``(f) Expedited Funding Option and Implementation
Strategy.--If, as a result of the evaluation conducted under
subsection (a), the Secretary determines that the
establishment of such a back-up system is feasible then the
Secretary shall request appropriations for the deployment of
such a back-up communications system not later than 90 days
after submission of the report under subsection (d).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by section 4, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 316
the following:
``Sec. 317. Emergency communications back-up system.''.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1704. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the taking
of property by eminent domain for economic development; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DORGAN. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs.
New London that it was permissible for a government to use the power of
eminent domain simply for the purpose of economic development.
I am greatly troubled by this case. I do not believe that the
government can or should take property for a non-governmental purpose
simply because it will generate additional tax revenue.
This court decision stands logic on its head--and it is a dangerous
precedent as well.
I understand that there will be times when it is essential for the
government to use eminent domain for the public good. For example,
eminent domain is appropriate in order to build a flood control project
to protect a city. Or to construct a highway or lay a water line.
But it makes no sense for the Court to allow a city--or a state or
even the federal government--to use its power to allow private
developers to acquire property under the takings clause. Once you start
down that path, whose private property is safe? Could my home be
condemned because a larger, more expensive house could be built on that
lot? Can a local cafe be seized in order to provide space for a new,
high-end French restaurant?
Government at all levels should be protecting and strengthening
private property rights--not diminishing them.
So today I am introducing legislation to clarify and strengthen
private property rights and ensure that government cannot abuse its
power of eminent domain in the name of ``economic development.''
First, my bill prevents the use of Federal funds for any economic
development project that uses property that was subject of an eminent
domain taking. This would cut off the spigot of Federal dollars to
these questionable projects. Frankly, most economic development
projects rely in some way on Federal dollars so this provision would
have the practical effect of sharply curtailing this practice.
Second, my bill is explicit that traditional public use and public
purpose projects are still permitted. I am not trying to end the use of
eminent domain in order to protect public health and safety or in order
to build important infrastructure in our communities. My bill makes
this clear.
Finally, this bill clearly lays out that the funding prohibition
includes takings of private property for the use of, or ownership of,
another private individual or entity. One of the most troubling trends
in this area is the use of eminent domain by a government that then
turns the property over to a private person or group for their private
gain.
This issue also demands attention at the state level. I commend the
efforts of a number of leaders in North Dakota to make changes to our
state constitution in a way that will protect private property owners.
Our former state attorney general, Heidi Heitkamp, is spearheading an
effort to prevent the use of eminent domain at the State level for
economic development purposes regardless of whether Federal funds are
used. This is an important initiative and I fully support it. It is an
important complement to the bill I am introducing today. In fact, much
of the language in my bill reflects the language in the initiated
measure in North Dakota.
Strong private property rights are a fundamental part of our
country's heritage and I believe that we should take steps to protect
those rights. This bill will afford all Americans better protection
against inappropriate uses of eminent domain and seizure of property.
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. 1704
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO PROPERTY TAKEN BY
EMINENT DOMAIN.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Private
Property Protection Act of 2005''.
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--No Federal funds may be used relating to
a property that is the subject of a taking by eminent domain.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the
property is being used for public use or a public purpose.
(c) Public Use or Public Purpose .--Economic development,
including an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, or
employment, may not be the primary basis for establishing a
public use or public purpose under subsection (b).
(d) Takings for Use by Private Individual or Entity.--
Subsection (b) shall include to takings of private property
for the use of, or ownership by, any private individual or
entity.
______
Ms. LANDRIEU:
S.J. Res. 24. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relative to the reference to God in
the Pledge of Allegiance and on United States currency; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, a Federal District Court judge in the
Ninth Circuit has once again declared that the reference to God in the
Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Just a couple of years ago,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in the
case of Newdow v. U.S. Congress. I am now, as I was then, surprised and
disappointed with this new ruling by the District Court.
Today I am reintroducing a proposed constitutional amendment that
simply says that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on
our currency do not affect an establishment of religion under the First
Amendment. References to God are found in every
[[Page S10047]]
one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to
the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase
``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public
buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the
Pledge. I firmly believe that the framers of the Constitution and the
First Amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public
discourse when they wrote the Establishment Clause. What they wanted to
prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to
keep the government from getting intimately involved in the
organization of one religion over another.
These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have
meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word
they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people
not to participate in the Pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my
amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
public or in school.
I had hoped that the Supreme Court, which took the Newdow case up on
appeal, would have settled this question once and for all. It did not.
The Court dismissed the case saying Mr. Newdow lacked standing. The
Supreme Court may have the opportunity to hear arguments in this case
later on. If the Supreme Court should decide not to hear the case or to
overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate
balance between church and state that I believe was the intent of the
framers.
I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution and I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows.
S.J. Res. 24
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the
date of its submission by the Congress:
``Article --
``Section 1. A reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance
or on United States currency shall not be construed as
affecting the establishment of religion under the first
article of amendment of this Constitution.
``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.''.
____________________