[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 162 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13788-S13811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2119. A bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant program through June 30, 2006, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am here to introduce bill to provide a 
6-month extension of the Nation's largely successful welfare program. 
It is known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, or 
TANF.
  Congress enacted the TANF program in 1996, to help welfare recipients 
gain work skills and to help low-income families become economically 
self-sufficient.
  Welfare reform has mostly succeeded. States have adopted creative 
policies to support low-income families making the transition from 
welfare to work. Millions have moved to self-sufficiency.
  But the TANF law expired in 2002. And Congress has failed to 
reauthorize it. Instead, Congress has extended TANF on a short-term 
basis, 12 times. The latest short-term extension expires in just over 2 
weeks.
  This bill is a simple extension of the current welfare program. It 
would provide stability for the States to operate their welfare 
programs. And it would continue our successful partnership with the 
States in supporting needy families as they move from welfare to work.
  Earlier this week, the Senate voted 64-27 to keep the welfare program 
out of the budget cutting reconciliation bill that the House has 
passed. The Senate voted instead to build on the bipartisan Finance 
Committee bill that Chairman Grassley and I worked diligently on this 
year. That bill is called the Personal Responsibility Individual 
Development for Everyone or PRIDE Act. The Finance Committee reported 
it out in March with near unanimous support. The PRIDE Act has been 
awaiting full Senate consideration since then.
  Despite broad support in the Finance Committee, the Senate has not 
taken this measure up for debate. Despite the broad support of 
governors, the Senate has not taken this measure up for debate. The 
Republican Governors Association said that TANF reauthorization ``is 
too important to leave to the limitations of the reconciliation 
process.'' But the Senate has not taken this measure up for debate.
  This vote was a vote to debate this bill on the Senate floor. It was 
a vote to build on the broadly-supported bill from the Finance 
Committee. We are going to need some time to complete that debate.
  The 6-month extension that I offer this afternoon will keep the 
welfare program operating. The 6-month extension will allow us the time 
to debate, pass, and go to conference on a fully considered PRIDE Act.
  I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing. I urge my 
colleagues to support this extension. I urge my colleagues to keep this 
important safety net program operating.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S. 2125. A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of Senator 
Brownback, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine to introduce the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy 
Promotion Act.
  As we try to conclude our business for the year here in the Senate, 
we are in the midst of sharp debates on a large number of issues. In 
the foreign policy arena alone, the Administration and Congress are 
consumed with nurturing a political process and defeating insurgents in 
Iraq, attempting to halt proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and 
trying to end the bloodshed in Darfur, Sudan.
  But there is another country embroiled in conflict that has not yet 
received the high-level attention or resources it needs. It's the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, and right now it is in the midst of a 
humanitarian catastrophe.
  An International Rescue Committee report from 2004 found that 31,000 
people were dying in the Congo each month and 3.8 million--3.8 
million--people had died in the previous 6 years. This means that this 
conflict, which still smolders and burns in some regions, has cost more 
lives than any other conflict since World War II.
  Beyond the humanitarian catastrophe, resolving the problems in the 
Congo will be critical if Africa is to achieve its promise. The 
country, which is the size of Western Europe, lies at the geographic 
heart of Africa and borders every major region across the continent. If 
left untended, Congo's tragedy will continue to infect Africa--from 
North to South; from East to West.
  I believe that the United States can make a profound difference in 
this crisis. According to international aid agencies, there are 
innumerable cost-effective interventions that could be quickly 
undertaken--such as the provision of basic medical care, immunization 
and clean water--that could save thousands of lives. On the political 
front, sustained U.S. leadership could fill a perilous vacuum.
  The bill that we are introducing here today is an important step on 
the long road towards bringing peace and prosperity to the Congo. I am 
proud to be a part of a collaborative, bipartisan effort with some of 
the Senate's leading voices on Africa--Senators Brownback, Durbin and 
DeWine.
  This bill establishes 14 core principles of U.S. policy across a 
range of issues; authorizes a 25 percent increase in U.S. assistance 
for the Democratic Republic of the Congo; calls for a Special Envoy to 
resolve the situation in Eastern Congo; and urges the Administration to 
use its voice and vote at the

[[Page S13789]]

United Nations Security Council to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping 
force that is providing security in parts of the Congo.
  The legislation has been endorsed by a number of faith-based and 
humanitarian nongovernmental organizations, including some with 
extensive field operations in Congo: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, 
Global Witness, International Crisis Group, International Rescue 
Committee, and Oxfam America. I ask unanimous consent that these 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  I want to stress something before closing. We are under no illusion 
that enacting the policies in this bill would be a panacea for Congo's 
many ills. But the one thing we do know is that the one way to ensure 
that a complex problem will not be resolved is to accept the status 
quo.
  The other thing we know is that status quo in the Democratic Republic 
of Congo is unacceptable--unacceptable to the women and children caught 
up in the crossfire, unacceptable to the civilians being felled by 
preventable disease, unacceptable to a continent that is making great 
strides, and unacceptable to our country, the United States, which has 
the financial and diplomatic resources to make a profound difference.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration 
to enacting this bill and working to promote peace and prosperity in 
the Congo.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Catholic Relief Services,

                                  Baltimore, MD, December 2, 2005.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Obama: Catholic Relief Services would like to 
     commend you for your leadership in writing in ``Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy 
     Promotion Act of 2005''. We also want to sincerely thank you 
     and your staff for giving us the opportunity to comment on an 
     early draft of the bill and for incorporating some of our 
     recommendations.
       As an agency active on the ground in the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo (DRC) for many years, we support this 
     legislation as a vehicle for elevating the priority of the 
     DRC among lawmakers and policy makers. The bill advances key 
     U.S. policy objectives for promoting peace, justice, 
     democracy, and development in the DRC, and also allocates 
     much-needed additional funds for the DRC.
       We look forward to working with you and your staff to gain 
     support for the bill and advance its goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ken Hackett,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 December 9, 2005.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Obama: As representatives of humanitarian, 
     civil society and conflict prevention organizations, we are 
     writing to express our support for the Democratic Republic of 
     the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 
     2005, and our appreciation of your efforts to ensure that the 
     longstanding conflict in the region receives the attention it 
     demands.
       As stated in the legislation, the conflict in the eastern 
     Democratic Republic of the Congo touches every major region 
     of the continent and is one of the deadliest since World War 
     II. Some 3.8 million people have lost their lives due to the 
     conflict in the last six years.
       Despite these troubling statistics, the DRC is not without 
     hope. Landmark elections are planned for next year and, with 
     strong support from the international community, they have 
     the potential to help end the longstanding violence and put 
     the country on the path toward peace and stability. Your 
     legislation would ensure the active participation of the 
     United States and authorizes critical funding to address 
     humanitarian and development needs, promote good governance 
     and rule of law, and help ensure transparent management of 
     natural resource revenues.
       We look forward to continuing work with you and your staff 
     on this important issue and in particular, would like to note 
     the effort Mr. Mark Lippert has made to reach out to our 
     community and incorporate our recommendations.
           Sincerely,

                                                     CARE USA,

                              Global Witness, International Rescue
     Committee, Oxfam America.
                                  ____



                                   International Crisis Group,

                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2005.
     Senator Barack Obama,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Obama: The International Crisis Group strongly 
     supports the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, 
     and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005 and your efforts to raise 
     the visibility of and define new policies to respond to this 
     largely overlooked, longstanding, and deadly conflict.
       The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has had 
     far reaching regional consequences and resulted in the loss 
     of an estimated 4 million lives since 1998. The situation in 
     the country, especially in the eastern region where armed 
     groups continue to assault local communities, remains most 
     precarious and in need of urgent action.
       The country is now on the brink of landmark elections 
     scheduled for next year. Crisis Group has advocated 
     comprehensive action to stop the suffering of the Congolese 
     people and ensure the success of the transition by June 2006.
       Your legislation would ensure the active participation of 
     the United States in this effort and help in promoting good 
     governance and justice. It would further authorize critical 
     funding to address development needs and provide life-saving 
     humanitarian assistance to millions of conflict-affected 
     civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
       Your leadership in introducing this legislation is greatly 
     appreciated and we look forward to continue to work with you 
     and your staff on this important issue.
           Yours sincerely,

                                            Mark L. Schneider,

                              Senior Vice President, International
                                                     Crisis Group.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 2126. A bill to limit the exposure of children to violent video 
games; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help 
parents protect their children against violent and sexual media. In 
rising, I stand with the parents and children of New York and of the 
Nation, all of whom are being victimized by a culture of violence.
  As parents, we monitor the kind of people who interact with our 
children. We attend parent night at school. We meet our children's 
teachers. We look over their textbooks to make sure they are installing 
our values and attitudes in our children. We meet our children's 
friends and their parents to make sure they are a positive source of 
influence.
  If somebody is exposing our children to material we find 
inappropriate, we remove our children from that person.
  If you hired a babysitter who exposed your children to violence and 
sexual material that you thought was inappropriate, what would you do? 
If you are like me, you would fire that babysitter and never invite him 
or her to come back.
  Yet our children spend more time consuming media than doing anything 
else but sleeping and attending school. Media culture is like having a 
stranger in your house, and it exerts a major influence over your 
children.
  It is this attack on the sensibilities of our children that is the 
subject of the bill I introduce today. It is a bill that I consider to 
be of tremendous importance to our families.
  This bill would take an important step towards helping parents 
protect their children against influences they often find to be 
inappropriate--violent and sexually explicit video games. Quite simply, 
the bill would put teeth into the video game industry's rating system, 
which specifies which video games are inappropriate for young people 
under 17. By fining retailers who do not abide by the ratings system, 
this bill sends a message that the ratings system is to be taken 
seriously.
  I know many of my colleagues, myself included, don't play video games 
and aren't aware of exactly what is contained in these games. So, I 
hope you will listen as I describe a few scenes so we know what is at 
issue here today.
  Consider the following scenario: You have been captured by a demented 
film-maker who drops you into a gang-infested slum. While the gangs 
think they are hunting you, they don't know the real plot: that you are 
hunting them, while the director records each act of murder on film. 
Since you are outnumbered and could easily be mobbed, you cannot just 
jump in and fight everyone. Rather, you must be silent and patient, 
tracking your prey so that you can strike from behind. You strangle a 
villain with a sharp wire, and a finely rendered mist of blood sprays 
from his severed carotid artery. . . .
  This is just one scene from one game. It happens not to be a game 
that has gotten a tremendous amount of attention lately. Frankly, I 
don't know if it's one of the most popular games out

[[Page S13790]]

there or not. But I do know, if my daughter was still young, I wouldn't 
want her playing it.
  Here is another one: Carl Johnson long ago escaped the hardships of 
street life in San Andreas. Now his mother is murdered, his old buddies 
are in trouble, and Carl must come home to clean up the mess--San 
Andreas style. That means spraying people with uzi bullets, blowing 
them up, or sniper shooting them from the top of buildings. It also 
means killing police officers and visiting prostitutes.
  No one doubts that this material is inappropriate for children. The 
video game industry itself developed and implemented the ratings system 
that parents rely on today. They are responsible for developing the 
``M'' for Mature or ``AO'' for Adults Only labels, which signal to 
parents that the content is too violent and/or sexually explicit for a 
child to play.
  Unfortunately, enforcement has been lax and minors can purchase 
Mature-rated games with relative ease. A 2001 study by the Federal 
Trade Commission showed that 85 percent of unaccompanied minors, ages 
13 to 16, could purchase games rated Mature. A study by the National 
Institute on Media and the Family found that nearly half of children, 
as young as age 9, succeed in buying Mature-rated games. And close to a 
quarter of retailers did not understand the ratings system and half did 
not provide any training to their employees.
  This is a terrible problem that needs to be fixed. And this bill does 
just that.
  I want to be clear--this bill is not an attack on video games. Video 
games are a fun part of the lives of millions of Americans, young and 
old alike. They can teach coordination and strategy. They can introduce 
children to computer technology. They can provide practice in learning 
to problem solve and they can help children hone their fine motor and 
spatial skills.
  This bill is also not an attack on free and creative expression. 
Relying on the growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates a 
causal link between exposure to these games and antisocial behavior in 
our children, this bill was carefully drafted to pass constitutional 
strict scrutiny.
  Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the production or sale of 
these games beyond current practice. If retailers are following the 
rules--established voluntarily by the video game industry--then this 
bill will have absolutely no impact on them.
  And this bill does not overlook or undervalue the critical role 
parents play in protecting their children, and instilling in them, 
their own values. This bill is designed to buoy the efforts of parents, 
who too often feel like they are fighting an uphill battle against the 
violent and sexually explicit messages that are just a trip to the mall 
away.
  The unfortunate truth is there is a darkside to some video games, 
which has lead to a universal agreement--among parents, advocates, 
policymakers, and the gaming industry--that some games are not suitable 
for children. What we are seeking to do today is to ensure that that 
value judgment is meaningful.
  Much of the public concern about the exposure of children to M-rated 
games focuses on sexually explicit content. Parents are rightly worried 
about this content and we should come together to take steps to keep 
these games out of the hands of our kids. But let's not discount the 
awful effect of violence in the media because, frankly, the evidence on 
this point is overwhelming and deserves more of our attention.
  Consider the Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence 
on Children from the Congressional Public Health Summit in July of 
2000. I quote: ``Well over 1,000 studies--including reports from the 
Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and 
numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and 
public health organizations . . . point overwhelmingly to a causal 
connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some 
children,'' states their report.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, in a report entitled Media 
Exposure Feeding Children's Violent Acts, ``Playing violent video games 
is to an adolescent's violent behavior what smoking tobacco is to lung 
cancer.'' I ask to have printed in the Record a resolution adopted by 
the American Psychological Association about the effect of violence in 
video games and interactive media.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media

       Whereas, decades of social science research reveals the 
     strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive 
     behavior of children and youth (APA Task Force On Television 
     and Society; 1992 Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory 
     Committee on Television and Social Behavior, 1972); and
       Whereas, psychological research reveals that the electronic 
     media play an important role in the development of attitude, 
     emotion, social behavior and intellectual functioning of 
     children and youth (APA Task Force On Television and Society, 
     1992; Funk, J. B., et al. 2002; Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L. 
     2005; Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L. 2001); and
       Whereas, there appears to be evidence that exposure to 
     violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about 
     aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and 
     demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential 
     conflict situations (Anderson, C.A., 2000; Anderson, C.A., 
     Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., 
     Valentine, J. C., 2004; Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, 
     J. R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004; Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., 
     Podolski, C. P., & Eron, L. D., 2003; Singer, D. & Singer, 
     J., 2001); and
       Whereas, perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent 
     scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective 
     means of resolving conflict. Only 16% of all programs 
     portrayed negative psychological or financial effects, yet 
     such visual depictions of pain and suffering can actually 
     inhibit aggressive behavior in viewers (National Television 
     Violence Study, 1996); and
       Whereas, comprehensive analysis of violent interactive 
     video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases 
     aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) 
     increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, 
     and, e.) increases physiological arousal (Anderson, C.A., 
     2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., 
     Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004; 
     Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E., 2000; Bushman, B.J., & 
     Anderson, C.A., 2002; Gentile, D. A, Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. 
     R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004); and
       Whereas, studies further suggest that sexualized violence 
     in the media has been linked to increases in violence towards 
     women, rape myth acceptance and anti-women attitudes. 
     Research on interactive video games suggests that the most 
     popular video games contain aggressive and violent content; 
     depict women and girls, men and boys, and minorities in 
     exaggerated stereotypical ways; and reward, glamorize and 
     depict as humorous sexualized aggression against women, 
     including assault, rape and murder (Dietz, T. L., 1998; Dill, 
     K. E., & Dill, J. C., 2004; Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A, 
     Richter, W. A., & Dill, J.C., in press; Mulac, A., Jansma, L. 
     L., & Linz, D. G., 2002; Walsh, D., Gentile, D. A., 
     VanOverbeke, M., & Chasco, E., 2002); and
       Whereas, the characteristics of violence in interactive 
     video games appear to have similar detrimental effects as 
     viewing television violence; however based upon learning 
     theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993), the practice, 
     repetition, and rewards for acts of violence may be more 
     conducive to increasing aggressive behavior among children 
     and youth than passively watching violence on TV and in films 
     (Carll, E. K., 1999a). With the development of more 
     sophisticated interactive media, such as virtual reality, the 
     implications for violent content are of further concern, due 
     to the intensification of more realistic experiences, and may 
     also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than 
     passively watching violence on TV and in films (Calvert, S. 
     L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Ed.) 2002; Carll, E. K., 
     2003; Turkle, S., 2002); and
       Whereas, studies further suggest that videogames influence 
     the learning processes in many ways more than in passively 
     observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant 
     with a violent character while playing video games, b.) 
     actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing 
     entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the 
     sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases 
     learning (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. 
     L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. 
     C., 2004; Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K. E., 2000); and
       Whereas the data dealing with media literacy curricula 
     demonstrate that when children are taught how to view 
     television critically, there is a reduction of TV viewing in 
     general, and a clearer understanding of the messages conveyed 
     by the medium. Studies on media literacy demonstrate when 
     children are taught how to view television critically, 
     children can feel less frightened and sad after discussions 
     about the medium, can learn to differentiate between fantasy 
     and reality, and can identify less with aggressive 
     characters. on TV, and better understand commercial messages 
     (Brown, 2001; Hobbs, R. & Frost, R., 2003; Hortin, J.A., 
     1982; Komaya, M., 2003; Rosenkoetter, L.J., Rosenkoetter, 
     S.E., Ozretich, R.A., & Acock, A.C., 2004; Singer & Singer, 
     1998; Singer & Singer, 1994)
       Therefore be it Resolved that APA advocate for the 
     reduction of all violence in

[[Page S13791]]

     videogames and interactive media marketed to children and 
     youth.
       Be it further Resolved that APA publicize information about 
     research relating to violence in video games and interactive 
     media on children and youth in the Association's publications 
     and communications to the public.
       Be it further Resolved that APA encourage academic, 
     developmental, family, and media psychologists to teach media 
     literacy that meets high standards of effectiveness to 
     children, teachers, parents and caregivers to promote ability 
     to critically evaluate interactive media and make more 
     informed choices.
       Be it further Resolved that APA advocate for funding to 
     support basic and applied research, including special 
     attention to the role of social learning, sexism, negative 
     depiction of minorities, and gender on the effects of 
     violence in video games and interactive media on children, 
     adolescents, and young adults.
       Be it further Resolved that APA engage those responsible 
     for developing violent video games and interactive media in 
     addressing the issue that playing violent video games may 
     increase aggressive thoughts and aggressive behaviors in 
     children, youth, and young adults and that these effects may 
     be greater than the well documented effects of exposure to 
     violent television and movies.
       Be it further Resolved that APA recommend to the 
     entertainment industry that the depiction of the consequences 
     of violent behavior be associated with negative social 
     consequences.
       Be it further Resolved that APA (a) advocate for the 
     development and dissemination of a content based rating 
     system that accurately reflects the content of video games 
     and interactive media, and (b) encourage the distribution and 
     use of the rating system by the industry, the public, 
     parents, caregivers and educational organizations.

  Mrs. CLINTON. In June, a groundbreaking study by researchers at the 
University of Indiana School of Medicine, which was published in the 
Journal of Clinical Psychology, concluded that adolescents exposed to 
high levels of violent media were less able to control and to direct 
their thoughts and behavior, to stay focused on a task, to plan, to 
screen out distractions, and to use experience to guide inhibitions.
  A 2004 meta-analysis of over 35 research studies that included over 
4,000 participants, found similar results. It concluded that playing 
violent video games significantly increases aggressive behavior, 
physiological arousal and feelings of anger and hostility, and 
significantly decreases pro-social helping behavior.
  And according to testimony by Craig Andersen before the Commerce 
Committee in 2000, violent video games have been found to increase 
violent adolescent behavior by 13 to 22 percent. Eighty-six percent of 
African American females in the games are victims of violence. And, the 
most common role for women in video games is prostitutes.
  Research also demonstrates the opposite--reducing exposure to 
violence reduces aggressive behavior. A 2001 study by Stanford 
University School of Medicine found that reducing TV and video violence 
consumption to under one hour per day reduces verbal aggression by 50 
percent and physical aggression by 40 percent among 3rd and 4th grade 
children.
  Now, if you don't find the scientists compelling, consider a child 
named Devon Thompson, who shot three police officers after being 
brought in under suspicion of driving a stolen car. He grabbed one of 
the officer's guns, shot three men and then jumped into a police car, a 
scene remarkably like one found in the game Grand Theft Auto. When 
Thompson was apprehended he said ``Life is a video game. You've got to 
die sometime.''
  In the face of this mountain of scientific and anecdotal evidence, 
the same company that developed Grand Theft Auto is coming out with a 
new game called Bully. In Bully, the player is a student who beats up 
other students in school.
  Again, I am not here to argue that these games shouldn't be developed 
or made available. But, I am here to ask, can't we as a society do 
better by our kids? Can't we give parents the tools to make sure they 
know what may fall into the hands of their children?
  That is what this bill is all about and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 2128. A bill to provide greater transparency with respect to 
lobbying activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to provide 
greater transparency into the process of influencing our Government and 
ensure greater accountability among public officials.
  The legislation does a number of things. It provides for faster 
reporting and greater public access to reports filed by lobbyists and 
their employers under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
  It requires greater disclosure of the activities of lobbyists, 
including for the first time grassroots lobbying firms.
  The bill also requires greater disclosure from both lobbyists and 
Members and employees of Congress about travel that is arranged or 
financed by a lobbyist or his client.
  To understand more thoroughly the actions lobbyists take to influence 
elected officials, the bill requires lobbying firms, lobbyists, and 
their political action committees to disclose their campaign 
contributions to Federal candidates and officeholders, their political 
action committees and political party committees. It further mandates 
disclosure of fundraisers hosted, cohosted, or otherwise sponsored by 
these entities, and disclosure of contributions for other events 
involving legislative and executive branch officials.
  To get behind anonymous coalitions and associations and discover who 
actually is seeking to influence Government, the bill requires 
registrants to list as clients those entities that contribute $10,000 
or more to a coalition or association. The bill expressly keeps intact, 
however, existing law governing the disclosure of the identities of 
members and donors to organizations designated as 501(c) groups under 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  To address the problem of the revolving door between Government and 
the private sector, the bill lengthens the period during which senior 
members of the executive, Members of Congress, and senior congressional 
staff are restricted from lobbying.
  The bill also modifies the provision in current law that exempts from 
the revolving door laws former employees who go to work for Indian 
tribes by applying these laws to those employees retained by tribes as 
outside lobbyists and agents.
  To ensure compliance with congressional restrictions on accepting 
gifts, the bill requires registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act 
to report gifts worth $20 or more. I repeat that: The person who gives 
the gift is now responsible for reporting a gift of $20 or more.
  To accurately reflect the true value of benefits received, the bill 
also requires Members of Congress and staff to pay the fair market 
value for travel on private planes and the value of sports and 
entertainment tickets and skyboxes at the cost of the highest priced 
ticket in the arena. The legislation increases the penalty for 
violating the reporting requirements, and it contains other provisions 
on enforcement and oversight.
  This bill is regrettably necessary. Over the past year and a half, 
the Committee on Indian affairs has unearthed a story of excess and 
abuse by former lobbyists of a few Indian tribes. The story is alarming 
in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing. It has spanned across 
the United States, sweeping up tribes throughout Indian country. It has 
taken us from tribal reservations across America to luxury skyboxes in 
town, from a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, DE, to a 
sniper workshop in Israel and beyond. It involves tens of millions of 
dollars that we know about and likely more that we do not.
  Much of what the committee learned was extraordinary. Yet much of 
what we uncovered in the investigation was, unfortunately, the ordinary 
way of doing business in this town.
  The bill I am introducing today seeks to address business as usual in 
the Nation's Capital. How these lobbyists sought to influence policy 
and opinionmakers is a case study in the ways lobbyists seek to curry 
favor with legislators and their aides. For example, they sought to 
ingratiate themselves with public servants with tickets to plush 
skyboxes at the MCI Center, FedEx Field, and Camden Yards for sports 
and entertainment events. They

[[Page S13792]]

arranged extravagant getaways to tropical islands, the famed golfing 
links of St. Andrews and elsewhere. They regularly treated people to 
meals and drinks. Fundraisers and contributions abounded. The bill 
casts some disinfectant on those practices by simply requiring greater 
disclosure. If there is nothing inherently wrong with such activities, 
then there is no good reason to hide them from public scrutiny. The 
American people deserve no less.
  During its investigation, the committee also learned about 
unscrupulous tactics employed to lobby Members and to shape public 
opinion. We found a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, 
DE, established in part to disguise the true identity of clients. We 
saw phony Christian grassroots organizations consisting of a box of 
cell phones and a desk drawer.
  I submit that in the great marketplace of ideas we call public 
discourse, truth is a premium that we cannot sacrifice. Through these 
practices, the lobbyists distorted the truth not only with false 
messages but also with fake messengers.
  I hope by having for the first time disclosure of grassroots 
activities in the financial interests beyond misleading front groups 
that such a fraud on Members and voters can be avoided. Many cast blame 
only on the lobbying industry. But we should not forget that we as 
Members owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way 
that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and 
confidence in Congress.
  The bill thus requires more accurate accounting of the benefits and 
privileges that sometimes come with public office. Requiring lobbyists 
to disclose all gifts over $20 will cause not only the lobbyist but 
also the recipient to more scrupulously adhere to existing gift limits. 
Fair evaluation of tickets to sporting and entertainment events and for 
air travel aboard private planes is another way of giving real effect 
to the gift rules of Congress.
  I have read news reports that the Department of Justice is 
investigating job negotiations that some public officials may have had 
with lobbying firms while still in Government, negotiations that may 
have compromised their job performance. I have long been concerned with 
the revolving door between public service and the private sector, how 
that door is spun to personal gain, and the corrupting influences that 
can creep through that door into Government decisionmaking. To address 
the problem, I am proposing to expand the cooling off period to 2 years 
for Members of Congress and senior staff and certain executive branch 
officials. And to ensure a level playing field, I am seeking to close a 
loophole that has existed in Federal conflict-of-interest laws for 
those who represent Indian tribes.
  Informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy. A democratic 
government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. 
The approach on this bill is thus one of greater disclosure of and 
transparency into the interactions of lobbyists with our public 
officials.
  The bill is intended to balance the right of the public to know with 
its right to petition Government, the ability of lobbyists to advocate 
their clients' cause with a need for truthful public discourse, and the 
ability of Members to legislate with the imperative that our Government 
must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.
  We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the 
public's confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of 
confidence. That is why I would hope my colleagues would carefully 
examine this measure. I have had conversations with numerous other 
Members of this body, and I hope that both Republican and Democrat can 
join together on this issue.
  I noted in today's--Friday, December 16--Congress Daily, there is a 
little chart in the corner, and it says: ``2005 Congressional Approval 
Ratings.'' I notice a very interesting trend. On February 1 of this 
year, approximately 40-some percent--about 44 percent--of the people 
approved, and about 43 percent disapproved. Those numbers have changed 
somewhat dramatically to a disapproval rating, in the last couple of 
days, of 64 percent, with a 26-percent approval rating. I repeat: 64 
percent disapprove, 26 percent approve.
  Now, I am not sure that is divided up between Democrats and 
Republicans. From my travels--and I have been traveling a lot lately in 
the last few weeks around the country--I find that disapproval is 
nonpartisan in nature. I think there are a number of reasons for that 
disapproval, and many of them I will not chronicle here. But one of 
them is that there is a deep perception that we do not act on the 
priorities of the American people, that special interests set our 
agenda here rather than the people's interest.
  Now, I do not pretend that a lobbying reform bill will be the panacea 
for all the ills that I think beset this Capitol of ours, but I do 
believe it is part of an effort we all need to make--and seriously 
make--in order to try to turn these kinds of numbers around, not only 
for our individual well-being but for the well-being of the people of 
the United States because it will be more difficult to act effectively 
if we do not have at least a significant amount of support from the 
people whom we purport to represent.
  I would like to say another word about lobbyists. Lobbying is an 
honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with 
people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and 
priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of 
rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy 
papers, with data, et cetera.
  But, Mr. President--Mr. President--when we have the behavior that we 
highlighted, what actually was brought to our attention during our 
Indian Affairs Committee hearings, it is not believable: luxury sports 
boxes, a sham international think tank in Rehoboth Beach, a sniper 
workshop in Israel, the list goes on and on. And, of course, the way 
the Native Americans were treated was especially insulting.
  Congress, according to the Constitution, has a special obligation in 
regard to Indian affairs. But I will tell you what, I greatly fear that 
these practices we have uncovered concerning Native Americans are far 
more widespread than just lobbying efforts on behalf of Native 
Americans--or exploitation of Native Americans is probably the better 
description.
  I do not think there is any doubt that one of the reasons the 
American people mistrust us is they think there is wrongdoing, if not 
corruption, in this town. We have an obligation to fix this system as 
well as we can, and I believe that one of the measures that needs to be 
taken is to have a lobbying transparency and accountability that can 
give us confidence.
  I note the presence of my friend from Connecticut on the floor whom I 
have had discussions with on this issue. I have had them with my 
colleague, Senator Feingold, and many others. I hope we can, over the 
recess, think about this issue and be prepared to address it as early 
as possible. We have a long way to go to restore accountability, 
transparency, and the confidence of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor to thank my friend from Arizona 
not just for the legislation he has just introduced but for his 
characteristically courageous investigation of the events surrounding a 
particular lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and the way in which they 
demonstrate the extent to which the system has gone out of control.
  The direct victims here, of course, are those whose money was 
essentially taken without cause, who were cheated. But the indirect, 
yet very real, victims of these abuses are the Members of Congress, and 
the extent to which there has been abuse of a classic and very critical 
function of our Government--lobbying--the extent to which there has 
been abuse of that role breaks the public trust in Congress itself.
  Disclosures, investigations such as Senator McCain and his committee 
have been involved in, fearlessly, are critically important, but these 
disclosures and revelations and abuses cry out to us now to take some 
legislative action. I have not had the opportunity yet to review fully 
the provisions of the legislation Senator McCain has introduced. I look 
forward to doing that

[[Page S13793]]

over the recess. I hope that will put me in a position to join him as a 
sponsor of this legislation. It would be an honor and a privilege to 
work with him on this matter, as it has been to work on so many other 
matters.
  For today, I did not want this moment to go by without thanking him 
for coming forward with this legislation. It makes the point we are 
due--perhaps, in fact, overdue--for a review of our lobbying and 
disclosure laws. They need strengthening, and they need strengthening 
because it is right to do so and it is necessary to do so to restore 
the public trust in our Government.
  Mr. President, I am privileged to serve as the ranking member on the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In the normal 
course of the Senate rules, I believe this legislation would be 
referred to our committee, and there I look forward, along with the 
chairman, Senator Collins, to reviewing it. But in a personal sense, I 
want to work with Senator McCain and his staff and mine over the recess 
and hope that I can join him as a cosponsor of this legislation after 
the first of the year.
  I thank my friend, Senator Durbin, for yielding me these few moments. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in echoing the comments of the 
Senator from Connecticut about what we just heard from the Senator from 
Arizona. He has really touched an important issue. There is no doubt in 
my mind there is a crisis in confidence in terms of the integrity of 
Congress. Unless and until we deal with that directly, little else we 
might do will be noticed or believed. I believe he is on the right 
track.
  But I would suggest to him there is something more to the story. It 
is not just a question of lobbyists larding Members of Congress with 
gifts, trips to Scotland for golf outings or lavish meals or whatever 
it happens to be. There is more to the story, and it really goes to the 
heart of the issue about how we get to Congress and how we get to the 
Senate.
  It is no longer ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' if it ever was. It 
is no longer a matter of putting your candidacy before the people of 
the State and asking that they consider you and wait for the 
consequence. It is a money chase. It is a huge money chase. And unless 
you happen to be one of the fortunate few and independently wealthy, 
you have to spend an awful lot of time chasing it, an awful lot of time 
raising money.
  If you come from a State, as I do, like Illinois, you know an 
ordinary Senate campaign in my State is going to cost anywhere from $5 
million to $20 million to $40 million. Now, imagine, if you will, for a 
moment that you had to raise that sum of money, and the largest 
contribution was in the range of $4,000. It takes a lot of time, and it 
takes a lot of contacts, and it takes a lot of commitment. So what you 
find is that as people of the Senate are running for reelection, for 
example, they are spending more and more and more time on the road 
raising money. They are finding precious little time to dedicate to 
their constituents or to the work of Congress because they are out 
raising huge sums of money.
  That is part of the reality of the relationship between Members of 
Congress and lobbyists. Many of these lobbyists also are fundraisers, 
so to have them on your side is to guarantee they will not only buy you 
diner, if that is what you are looking for, but also help you in this 
fundraising effort. I think real, ethical reform, which gets to the 
heart of the issue, has to get to the issue of how we finance these 
campaigns.
  Unless and until we bring campaigns for election and reelection to 
the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to a level where they 
are affordable for common people, I am afraid we are going to continue 
to be enslaved by the current system, which requires us to raise so 
much money from so many people.
  I can recall when the Republican leader Tom DeLay announced he was 
starting something called the K Street project. He was a House leader, 
and he said he was going to set out to make sure that the lobbyists who 
came to see him were all loyal Republicans, loyal contributors. He 
didn't want to see Democratic lobbyists. He prevailed on major 
associations and organizations not to hire anybody other than a 
Republican who had met with his approval.
  For those of us who have been around this Hill for a while, it was 
pretty clear what he was creating. He was creating a very generous 
network of people, who would lobby him on legislation, whom he would 
possibly reward and then find their support in his campaign. It had 
built into it some very perilous opportunities. I won't talk about his 
situation in Texas. Let that be decided in Texas. But unless and until 
we get to the heart of the issue, the financing of campaigns, I am 
afraid we are not going to be able to deal forthrightly with the 
charges of corruption against Congress.
  Let me add why campaigns cost so much money. Certainly in Illinois 
and most other States, it is all about television. It is all about 
millions of dollars which I have to raise to then give to television 
stations in my State. It troubles me because what those television 
stations are selling to me is something I own, something all Americans 
own--the airwaves. So we are paying premium dollars to television 
stations to run our ads for election and reelection. We are raising 
millions of dollars to make sure that we transfer this money as if it 
were a trust fund from our contributors directly to TV stations. It is 
about time we change the fundamentals in America. In changing the 
fundamentals, we can bring real reform.
  I supported McCain-Feingold. Senators McCain and Feingold talked 
about limiting soft money. That is the tip of the iceberg. It is 
insidious, the soft money that came into campaigns, but the real 
problem is the cost of campaigns and the millions you have to raise to 
pay for television. If we said basically that in our country incumbents 
and challengers will have access to a certain amount of television to 
deliver their message at an affordable rate, we would dramatically drop 
the cost of campaigns, dramatically reduce the need to fund raise, and 
dramatically reduce our dependence on the sources of funds, whether 
they are generous individuals, special interest groups, or lobbyists.
  We have to get to the heart of the issue. It isn't an appetite for 
golfing in Scotland; it is an appetite for money you need to run your 
campaign.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 2129. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka 
Project, Idaho; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to 
formally convey title a portion of the American Falls Reservoir 
District from the Bureau of Reclamation to the National Park Service. 
The Minidoka Internment National Monument Draft General Management Plan 
and Environment Impact Statement proposes the transfer of these two 
publicly owned parcels of land, which are both within and adjacent to 
the existing 73-acre NPS boundary, and have been identified as 
important for inclusion as part of the monument. The sites were both 
within the original 33,000-acre Minidoka Relocation Center that was 
operated by the War Relocation Authority, where approximately 13,500 
Japanese and Japanese Americans were held from 1942 through 1945.
  The smaller 2.31-acre parcel is located in the center of the monument 
in the old warehouse area and includes three historical buildings and 
other important cultural features. The Draft General Management Plan 
proposes to use this site for visitor services, including a Visitor 
Contact Station within an original warehouse to greet visitors and 
provide orientation for the monument. The other, a 7.87-acre parcel, is 
on the east end of the monument and was undeveloped during WWII. The 
NPS proposes to use this area for special events and to provide a site 
for the development of a memorial for the Issei, first-generation 
Japanese immigrants. These two publicly-owned properties are critical 
for long-term development, visitor services, and protection and 
preservation of historical structures and features at Minidoka 
Internment National Monument.

[[Page S13794]]

  I would like to add that this legislation was developed with and is 
strongly supported by both the agencies involved and the local 
communities. I ask my colleagues to join me in enacting this small land 
transfer that we might move a step closer toward properly memorializing 
an important, but often forgotten, chapter of our Nation's history.
  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. 2129

       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 ``American Falls Reservoir 
     District Number 2 Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means Agreement No. 
     5-07-10-L1688 between the United States and the District, 
     entitled ``Agreement Between the United States and the 
     American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 to Transfer Title to 
     the Federally Owned Milner-Gooding Canal and Certain Property 
     Rights, Title and Interest to the American Falls Reservoir 
     District No. 2''.
       (2) District.--The term ``District'' means the American 
     Falls Reservoir District No. 2, located in Jerome, Lincoln, 
     and Gooding Counties, Idaho.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO CONVEY TITLE.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with all applicable law and 
     the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the 
     Secretary may convey--
       (1) to the District all right, title, and interest in and 
     to the land and improvements described in Appendix A of the 
     Agreement, subject to valid existing rights;
       (2) to the city of Gooding, located in Gooding County, 
     Idaho, all right, title, and interest in and to the 5.0 acres 
     of land and improvements described in Appendix D of the 
     Agreement; and
       (3) to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game all right, 
     title, and interest in and to the 39.72 acres of land and 
     improvements described in Appendix D of the Agreement.
       (b) Compliance With Agreement.--All parties to the 
     conveyance under subsection (a) shall comply with the terms 
     and conditions of the Agreement, to the extent consistent 
     with this Act.

     SEC. 4. TRANSFER.

       As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall direct the Director of the National 
     Park Service to include in and manage as a part of the 
     Minidoka Internment National Monument the 10.18 acres of land 
     and improvements described in Appendix D of the Agreement.

     SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS.

       (a) In General.--On conveyance of the land and improvements 
     under section 3(a)(1), the District shall comply with all 
     applicable Federal, State, and local laws (including 
     regulations) in the operation of each facility transferred.
       (b) Applicable Authority.--Nothing in this Act modifies or 
     otherwise affects the applicability of Federal reclamation 
     law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), 
     and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
     U.S.C. 371 et seq.)) to project water provided to the 
     District.

     SEC. 6. REVOCATION OF WITHDRAWALS.

       (a) In General.--The portions of the Secretarial Orders 
     dated March 18, 1908, October 7, 1908, September 29, 1919, 
     October 22, 1925, March 29, 1927, July 23, 1927, and May 7, 
     1963, withdrawing the approximately 6,900 acres described in 
     Appendix E of the Agreement for the purpose of the Gooding 
     Division of the Minidoka Project, are revoked.
       (b) Management of Withdrawn Land.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall 
     manage the withdrawn land described in subsection (a) subject 
     to valid existing rights.

     SEC. 7. LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), upon completion 
     of a conveyance under section 3, the United States shall not 
     be liable for damages of any kind for any injury arising out 
     of an act, omission, or occurrence relating to the land 
     (including any improvements to the land) conveyed under the 
     conveyance.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to liability 
     for damages resulting from an injury caused by any act of 
     negligence committed by the United States (or by any officer, 
     employee, or agent of the United States) before the date of 
     completion of the conveyance.
       (c) Federal Tort Claims Act.--Nothing in this section 
     increases the liability of the United States beyond that 
     provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.

     SEC. 8. FUTURE BENEFITS.

       (a) Responsibility of the District.--After completion of 
     the conveyance of land and improvements to the District under 
     section 3(a)(1), and consistent with the Agreement, the 
     District shall assume responsibility for all duties and costs 
     associated with the operation, replacement, maintenance, 
     enhancement, and betterment of the transferred land 
     (including any improvements to the land).
       (b) Eligibility for Federal Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     District shall not be eligible to receive Federal funding to 
     assist in any activity described in subsection (a) relating 
     to land and improvements transferred under section 3(a)(1).
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     funding that would be available to a similarly situated 
     nonreclamation district, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 9. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.

       Before completing any conveyance under this Act, the 
     Secretary shall complete all actions required under--
       (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.);
       (3) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.); and
       (4) all other applicable laws (including regulations).

     SEC. 10. PAYMENT.

       (a) Fair Market Value Requirement.--As a condition of the 
     conveyance under section 3(a)(1), the District shall pay the 
     fair market value for the withdrawn lands to be acquired by 
     them, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
       (b) Grant for Building Replacement.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and in full 
     satisfaction of the Federal obligation to the District for 
     the replacement of the structure in existence on that date of 
     enactment that is to be transferred to the National Park 
     Service for inclusion in the Minidoka Internment National 
     Monument, the Secretary, acting through the Commission of 
     Reclamation, shall provide to the District a grant in the 
     amount of $52,996, in accordance with the terms of the 
     Agreement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
        Hagel):
  S. 2131. A bill to amend title 9, United Stares Code, to provide for 
greater fairness in the arbitration process relating to livestock and 
poultry contracts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the Fair 
Contracts for Growers Act of 2005. This bill would simply give farmers 
a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with agricultural 
contracts. This legislation would not prohibit arbitration. Instead, it 
would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is truly voluntary and that 
the rights and remedies provided for by our judicial system are not 
waived under coercion.
  I certainly recognize that arbitration has tremendous benefits. It 
can often be less costly than other dispute settlement means. It can 
also remove some of the workload from our Nation's overburdened court 
system. For these reasons, arbitration must be an option--but it should 
not be a coerced option.
  Mandatory arbitration clauses are used in a growing number of 
agricultural contracts between individual farmers and processors. These 
provisions limit a farmer's ability to resolve a dispute with the 
company, even when a violation of Federal or State law is suspected. 
Rather than having the option to pursue a claim in court, disputes are 
required to go through an arbitration process that puts the farmer at a 
severe disadvantage. Such disputes often involve instances of 
discrimination, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. The effect of 
these violations for the individual farmer can be bankruptcy and 
financial ruin, and mandatory arbitration clauses make it impossible 
for farmers to seek redress in court.
  When a farmer chooses arbitration, the farmer is waving rights to 
access to the courts and the constitutional right to a jury trial. 
Certain standardized court rules are also waived, such as the right to 
discovery. This is important because the farmer must prove his case, 
the company has the relevant information, and the farmer can not 
prevail unless he can compel disclosure of relevant information.
  Examples of farmers' concerns that have gone unaddressed due to 
limitations on dispute resolution options include; mis-weighed animals, 
bad feed cases, wrongful termination of contracts, diseased swine or 
birds provided by the company, fraud and misrepresentation to induce a 
grower to enter a contract, and retaliation by companies against 
farmers who join producer associations.
  During consideration of the Farm Bill, the Senate passed, by a vote 
of 64-31, the Feingold-Grassley amendment

[[Page S13795]]

to give farmers a choice of venues to resolve disputes associated with 
agricultural contracts.
  I have some letters supporting this legislation and ask unanimous 
consent that they be printed in the Record.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Organization for Competitive


                                                      Markets,

                                   Lincoln, NE, November 15, 2005.
     Re: Fair Contracts for Growers Act.

     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Grassley:
       1. The Organization for Competitive Markets would like to 
     express its support for your Fair Contracts for Growers Act. 
     Arbitration has a role in dispute resolution in the livestock 
     industry, and in other economic sectors. It should not be an 
     abuse tool. Your bill will remedy this.
       2. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment 7 says this: ``. . . 
     the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . .''. The 
     law says citizens can waive this right, but the law also says 
     waivers should be knowing and voluntary.
       3. It is a fact integrators and packers have more 
     information and sophistication, and more power, when 
     contracting with producers. Producers rely on integrator/
     packer representations when making business decisions 
     including contract signing or rejection. Mandatory 
     arbitration clauses are not explained or negotiated, but 
     merely included in boilerplate language.
       4. Producers are unable to knowingly and voluntarily waive 
     their right to a court-resolved future dispute. This is true 
     because they cannot anticipate the type of possible disputes 
     which may arise. The American Medical Assn, American 
     Arbitration Assn, and American Bar Assn have agreed with this 
     principal in the context of consumer health care contracts.
       5. Producers must be provided real, not illusory, choice. 
     Your bill leaves producers free to agree to arbitration once 
     a dispute arises, but prohibits this forced ``choice'' 
     before. Thank you for your efforts for U.S. livestock and 
     poultry producers.
           Respectfully,
                                                       Keith Mudd,
     President.
                                  ____



                                           Iowa Farmers Union,

                                                         Ames, IA.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of Iowa 
     Farmers Union, Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN) and 
     the Iowa Chapter of National Farmers Organization to express 
     our strong support for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act, 
     and to thank you for your leadership in introducing this 
     legislation.
       Contract livestock and poultry producers are being forced 
     to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-
     or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with large, vertically 
     integrated processing firms. These producers forfeit their 
     basic constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must 
     accept an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely 
     limits their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. 
     These clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving 
     farmers little if any ability to seek justice if they become 
     the victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control over the information needed for growers to argue 
     their case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be 
     available to a grower's attorney through discovery. In an 
     arbitration proceeding, the company is not required to 
     provide access to this information, thus placing the farmer/
     grower at an extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal 
     rights that are waived through arbitration are access to 
     mediation and appeal, as well as the right to an explanation 
     of the decision.
       Many assume that arbitration is a less costly way of 
     resolving dispute than going to court, but for the producer, 
     the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is 
     often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front 
     filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of 
     the dispute itself, with farmers being required to pay fees 
     in the thousands of dollars just to start the arbitration 
     process.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon. 
     Independent family farmers all over the U.S. will benefit 
     from a law that stops the abuse of arbitration clauses in 
     livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Chris Petersen,
     President.
                                  ____



                                     Center for Rural Affairs,

                                                        Lyons, NE.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of the Center 
     for Rural Affairs to express our strong support for the Fair 
     Contacts for Growers Act, and to thank you for your 
     leadership in introducing this legislation.
       The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very timely. With the 
     rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of agricultural 
     production, farmers are increasingly producing agricultural 
     products under contract with large processors. Under these 
     contracts, it is common for farmers and growers to be forced 
     to sign mandatory arbitration clauses, as part of a take-it-
     or-leave-it, non-negotiable contract with a large, vertically 
     integrated processing firm. In doing so, the farmer is forced 
     to give up their basic constitutional right to a jury trial, 
     and instead must accept an alternative dispute resolution 
     forum that severely limits their rights and is often 
     prohibitively expensive. These clauses are signed before any 
     dispute arises, leaving farmers little if any ability to seek 
     justice if they become the victim of fraudulent or abusive 
     trade practices.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control of the information needed for a grower to argue their 
     case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available 
     to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration 
     proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to 
     this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an 
     extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are 
     waived through arbitration are access to mediation and 
     appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the 
     decision.
       In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less 
     costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for 
     the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of 
     arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers. 
     The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the 
     magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required 
     to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the 
     arbitration process.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
       The Center for Rural Affairs believes this is important 
     because of the number of small and mid-size farms that enter 
     into contract livestock production. Small and mid-size farms 
     that don't have the capital to invest in starting their own 
     livestock operations often look to contract production as 
     mechanism for diversifying their farming operations as well 
     as their cash flow. However, when these farmers and ranchers 
     are not allowed equal legal protection, their entire farming 
     operations lay at risk.
       Moreover, farmers who enter into contracts with meatpackers 
     and large, corporate livestock producers will never have the 
     power or negotiating position that those companies will enjoy 
     in virtually every contract dispute. Producers often lack the 
     financial and legal resources to challenge vertical 
     integrators when their rights are violated. A legal agreement 
     between smaller farm operations and integrators should, 
     therefore, provide at least as much legal protection for 
     producers as it does for the integrator.
       Although the impetus behind this legislation emanates from 
     the poultry industry, the rights of farmers who raise hogs 
     and other livestock under contract are also threatened. And 
     the increased use of production contracts in these sectors 
     has made this issue that much more important to farmers in 
     the Midwest and Great Plains as well.
       Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these 
     concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense 
     legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the 
     livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Traci Bruckner,
     Associate Director, Rural Policy Program.
                                  ____

                                           Sustainable Agriculture


                                                    Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.
     Senator Chuck Grassley,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in support of the Fair 
     Contract for Growers Act and to thank you for your leadership 
     in introducing this legislation.
       The Fair Contracts for Growers Act is necessary to help 
     level the playing field for our farmers and ranchers who 
     enter into production contracts with packers and processors. 
     The rapid rise of vertically integrated production chains, 
     combined with the high degree of concentration of poultry 
     processors and meatpackers, leave farmers and ranchers in 
     many regions of the country with few choices, or only a 
     single choice, of buyers for their production. Increasingly, 
     farmers and ranchers are confronted with ``take-it-or-leave-
     it,'' non-negotiable contracts, written by the company. These 
     contracts require that farmers and ranchers give up the basic 
     constitutional right of access to the courts and sign 
     mandatory arbitration clauses if they want access to a market 
     for their products. These clauses are signed before any 
     dispute arises, leaving the producers little, if

[[Page S13796]]

     any, ability to seek justice if they become the victim of 
     fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon. Many basic 
     legal processes are not available to farmers and ranchers in 
     arbitration. In most agricultural production contract 
     disputes, the company has control of the information needed 
     for a grower to argue a case. In a civil court case, this 
     evidence would be available to the grower's attorney through 
     discovery. In an arbitration proceeding, however, the company 
     is not required to provide access to this information, thus 
     placing the grower at an extreme disadvantage. In addition, 
     in most arbitration proceedings, a decision is issued without 
     an opinion providing an explanation of the principles and 
     standards or even the facts considered in reaching the 
     decision. The arbitration proceeding is private, closed to 
     effective pubic safeguards, and the arbitration decisions are 
     often confidential and rarely subject to public oversight or 
     judicial review.
       Moreover, there is a growing perception that the 
     arbitration system is biased towards the companies. This 
     private system is basically supported financially by the 
     companies which are involved repeatedly in arbitration cases. 
     The companies also know the history of previous arbitrations, 
     including which arbitrators repeatedly decide in the 
     companies' favor. This arbitration history is rarely 
     available to a farmer or rancher involved in a single 
     arbitration proceeding.
       Arbitration is often assumed to be a less costly way of 
     resolving disputes than litigation. But this assumption must 
     be tested in light of the relative resources of the parties. 
     For most farmers and ranchers, arbitration is a significant 
     expense in relation to their income. One immediate 
     financial barrier is filing fees and case service fees, 
     which in arbitration are usually divided between the 
     parties. A few thousand dollars out of pocket is a 
     miniscule expense for a well-heeled company but can be an 
     insurmountable barrier for a farmer with a modest income, 
     especially when the farmer is conflict with the farmer's 
     chief source of income. This significant cost barrier, 
     when coupled with the disadvantages of the arbitration 
     process, can effectively deny farmers a remedy in contract 
     dispute cases with merit.
       The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition represents family 
     farm, rural development, and conservation and environmental 
     organizations that share a commitment to federal policy 
     reform to promote sustainable agriculture and rural 
     development. Coalition member organizations include the 
     Agriculture and Land Based Training Association, American 
     Natural Heritage Foundation, C.A.S.A. del Llano (Communities 
     Assuring a Sustainable Agriculture), Center for Rural 
     Affairs, Dakota Rural Action, Delta Land and Community, Inc., 
     Future Harvest-CASA (Chesapeake Alliance for Sustainable 
     Agriculture), Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Innovative 
     Farmers of Ohio, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 
     Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, 
     Kansas Rural Center, Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 
     Land Stewardship Project, Michael Fields Agricultural 
     Institute, Michigan Agricultural Stewardship Association, 
     Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, The 
     Minnesota Project, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, 
     National Center for Appropriate Technology, Northern Plains 
     Sustainable Agriculture Society, Ohio Ecological Food and 
     Farm Association, Organic Farming Research Foundation, and 
     the Sierra Club Agriculture Committee. Our member 
     organizations included thousands of farmers and ranchers with 
     small and mid-size operations, a number of whom have entered 
     into agricultural production contracts or are considering 
     whether to sign these contracts. As individuals, these 
     farmers and ranchers do not have the financial power or 
     negotiating position that companies enjoy in virtually every 
     contract dispute. We agree with Senator Grassley that, in the 
     face of such unequal bargaining power, the Fair Contract for 
     Growers Act is a modest and appropriate step which allows 
     growers the choice of entering into arbitration or mediation 
     or choosing to exercise their basic legal right of access to 
     the courts.
       Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these 
     concerns, and your willingness to introduce commonsense 
     legislation to stop the abuse of mandatory arbitration 
     clauses in livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,

                                              Martha L. Noble,

                                          Senior Policy Associate,
     Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
                                  ____



                               National Family Farm Coalition,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.
     Senator Charles Grassley,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley. I am writing as president of the 
     National Family Farm Coalition to express our strong support 
     for the Fair Contracts for Growers Act, and to thank you for 
     your leadership in introducing this legislation. As you know, 
     the National Family Farm Coalition provides a voice for 
     grassroots groups on farm, food, trade and rural economic 
     issues to ensure fair prices for family farmers, safe and 
     healthy food, and vibrant, environmentally sound rural 
     communities here and around the world. Our organization is 
     committed to promoting food sovereignty, which is stymied by 
     current practices that give farmers unfair and unjust 
     difficulties when they wish to arbitrate a contract dispute.
       Therefore, the Fair Contracts for Growers Act is very 
     timely. With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods 
     of agricultural production, farmers are increasingly 
     producing agricultural products under contract with large 
     processors. Under these contracts, it is common for farmers 
     and growers to be forced to sign mandatory arbitration 
     clauses, as part of a take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable 
     contract with a large, vertically integrated processing firm. 
     In doing so, the farmer is forced to give up their basic 
     constitutional right to a jury trial, and instead must accept 
     an alternative dispute resolution forum that severely limits 
     their rights and is often prohibitively expensive. These 
     clauses are signed before any dispute arises, leaving farmers 
     little if any ability to seek justice if they become the 
     victim of fraudulent or abusive trade practices.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control of the information needed for a grower to argue their 
     case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available 
     to a growers' attorney through discovery. In an arbitration 
     proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to 
     this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an 
     extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are 
     waived through arbitration are access to mediation and 
     appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the 
     decision.
       In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less 
     costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for 
     the farmer, the opposite is usually true. The high cost of 
     arbitration is often a significant barrier to most farmers. 
     The up-front filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the 
     magnitude of the dispute itself, with farmers being required 
     to pay fees in the thousands of dollars just to start the 
     arbitration process.
       Arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute 
     resolution when agreed to voluntarily through negotiation by 
     two parties of similar power, but when used by a dominant 
     party to limit the legal recourse of a weaker party in a non-
     negotiable contract, it becomes an abusive weapon.
       Thank you for your leadership in recognizing these 
     concerns, and your willingness to introduce common sense 
     legislation to stop the abuse of arbitration clauses in the 
     livestock and poultry contracts.
           Sincerely,

                                                George Naylor,

                                                        President,
     National Family Farm Coalition.
                                  ____

                                             Campaign for Contract


                                           Agriculture Reform,

                                                November 18, 2005.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of the Campaign for 
     Contract Agriculture Reform, I would like to thank you for 
     your leadership in introducing the Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act.
       With the rapid rise of vertically integrated methods of 
     agricultural production, farmers are increasingly producing 
     agricultural products under contract with large processors. 
     In many cases, particularly in the livestock and poultry 
     sector, the farmer never actually owns the product they 
     produce, but instead makes large capital investments on their 
     own land to build the facilities necessary to raise animals 
     for an ``integrator.''
       Under such contract arrangements, farmers and growers are 
     often given take-it-or-leave-it, non-negotiable contracts, 
     with language drafted by the integrator in a manner designed 
     to maximize the company's profits and shift risk to the 
     grower. In many cases, the farmer has little choice but to 
     sign the contract presented to them, or accept bankruptcy. 
     The legal term for such contracts is ``contract of 
     adhesion.'' As contracts of adhesion become more commonplace 
     in agriculture, the abuses that often characterize such 
     contracts are also becoming more commonplace and more 
     egregious.
       One practice that has become common in livestock and 
     poultry production contracts is the use of mandatory 
     arbitration clauses, where growers are forced to sign away 
     their constitutional rights to jury trial upon signing a 
     contract with an integrator, and instead accept a dispute 
     resolution forum that denies their basic legal rights and is 
     too costly for most growers to pursue.
       Because basic legal processes such as discovery are waived 
     in arbitration, it becomes very difficult for a farmer or 
     grower to prove their case. In these cases, the company has 
     control of the information needed for a grower to argue their 
     case. In a civil court case, this evidence would be available 
     to a grower's attorney through discovery. In an arbitration 
     proceeding, the company is not required to provide access to 
     this information, thus placing the farmer/grower at an 
     extreme disadvantage. Other standard legal rights that are 
     waived through arbitration are access to mediation and 
     appeal, as well as the right to an explanation of the 
     decision.
       In addition, it is often assumed that arbitration is a less 
     costly way of resolving dispute than going to court. Yet for 
     the farmer,

[[Page S13797]]

     the opposite is usually true. The high cost of arbitration is 
     often a significant barrier to most farmers. The up-front 
     filing fees and arbitrator fees can exceed the magnitude of 
     the dispute itself. For example, in one Mississippi case, 
     filing fees for a poultry grower to begin an arbitration 
     proceeding were $11,000. In contrast, filing fees for a civil 
     court case are $150 to $250. Lawyer fees in a civil case are 
     often paid on a contingent-fee basis.
       In addition, the potential for mandatory arbitration 
     clauses to be used abusively by a dominant party in a 
     contract has also been recognized by Congress with regard to 
     other sectors of our economy. In 2002, legislation was 
     enacted with broad bipartisan support that prohibits the use 
     of pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts 
     between car dealers and car manufacturers and distributors. 
     The Fair Contract for Growers Act is nearly identical in 
     structure to the ``car dealer'' arbitration bill passed by 
     Congress in 2002.
       Thank you again for introducing the Fair Contracts for 
     Growers Act, to assure that arbitration in livestock and 
     poultry contracts is truly voluntary, after mutual agreement 
     of both parties after a dispute arises. If used, arbitration 
     should be a tool for honest dispute resolution, not a weapon 
     used to limit a farmer's right to seek justice for abusive 
     trade practices.
       I look forward to working with you toward enactment of this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Steven D. Etka,
     Legislative Coordinator.
                                  ____


                                S. 2131

       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 ``Fair Contracts for Growers 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTION OF ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 17. Livestock and poultry contracts

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Livestock.--The term `livestock' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards 
     Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(2) Livestock or poultry contract.--The term `livestock 
     or poultry contract' means any growout contract, marketing 
     agreement, or other arrangement under which a livestock or 
     poultry grower raises and cares for livestock or poultry.
       ``(3) Livestock or poultry grower.--The term `livestock or 
     poultry grower' means any person engaged in the business of 
     raising and caring for livestock or poultry in accordance 
     with a livestock or poultry contract, whether the livestock 
     or poultry is owned by the person or by another person.
       ``(4) Poultry.--The term `poultry' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 
     1921 (7 U.S.C. 182(a)).
       ``(b) Consent to Arbitration.--If a livestock or poultry 
     contract provides for the use of arbitration to resolve a 
     controversy under the livestock or poultry contract, 
     arbitration may be used to settle the controversy only if, 
     after the controversy arises, both parties consent in writing 
     to use arbitration to settle the controversy.
       ``(c) Explanation of Basis for Awards.--If arbitration is 
     elected to settle a dispute under a livestock or poultry 
     contract, the arbitrator shall provide to the parties to the 
     contract a written explanation of the factual and legal basis 
     for the award.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``17. Livestock and poultry contracts''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to a contract 
     entered into, amended, altered, modified, renewed, or 
     extended after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Burns and Mr. Craig):
  S. 2132. A bill to Include Idaho and Montana as affected areas for 
purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
(42 U.S.C. 2210 note) based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf 
of myself, Senator Burns of Montana and my Colleague Senator  Craig 
that would include the States of Idaho and Montana as affected areas 
under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA.
  Since our goals of giving affected citizens in our States the 
opportunity to receive compensation under RECA, and the challenges 
faced by our constituents are the same, it is appropriate to combine 
our efforts toward rectifying the problem.
  Nuclear testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released 
radiation into the atmosphere that settled in States far away from the 
original test site. Certain elements of this radiation such as the 
radioactive isotope Iodine-131 settled in States such as Idaho and 
Montana and found their way into the milk supply. After time, in some 
cases 25 to 50 years after the fact, this contamination manifested 
itself as various forms of cancer, leukemia and other illnesses, 
particularly thyroid cancer. Those affected in this way are often 
referred to as ``downwinders,'' to denote their location downwind from 
the fallout.
  In 1990, Congress recognized the need for the Federal Government to 
make amends for the harm caused to innocent citizens by nuclear testing 
and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed into law. 
Unfortunately, the science at the time did not recognize that 
radioactive fallout did not restrict itself by State lines.
  This was highlighted in 1999, when a group of Senators, led by 
Senator Hatch, amended the law to include additional counties in 
Arizona. During debate on this legislation, Senator Hatch said, ``Our 
current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more 
accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to 
radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we 
are considering today.'' Since that time, even greater advances in 
science have been made in the area of radiation exposure.
  When the RECA disparity was first brought to my attention by the 
Idaho downwinders, I met with them to discuss ways to help them. The 
National Academy of Sciences staff came to Idaho in 2004 to hear 
testimony from those affected and ensure that their concerns and 
comments were included in the process.
  Their voices were heard; the NAS report released in April of 2005 
recognized that, among the 25 counties with the highest per capita 
dosage of radiation, 20 of those counties are in Idaho and Montana. In 
fact, Idaho is home to four of the top five counties in this regard. 
The report also stated that, ``To be equitable, any compensation 
program needs to be based on scientific criteria and similar cases must 
be treated alike. The current geographic limitations are not based on 
the latest science.'' Understanding these facts, it is of prime 
importance that we rectify the problem quickly.
  The NAS report recognizes that the RECA program needs to be updated 
and that affected Idahoans and Montanans deserve equal treatment with 
those in other States. The report makes several specific 
recommendations, chief among them that Congress should establish a new 
process for reviewing individual claims, based on probability of 
causation, or ``assigned share,'' a method which is used in the courts 
and for other radiation compensation programs. I am currently working 
with my colleagues to legislatively address the suggestions made by the 
NAS report and work out a long-term solution for the challenges 
currently posed by RECA.
  We all recognize that this problem requires a two-part solution--
expanding the current RECA program to include those left behind while 
at the same time working on the long-term fixes recommended by the NAS. 
These efforts must happen simultaneously and I am pleased that my 
colleagues are partnering with me on this course.
  Tragically, for some, it is already too late. A long-time advocate 
for the downwinders, and personal friend, Sheri Garmon, passed away 
from cancer this summer. Others preceded her and some are sick right 
now. There are still a number of those affected who are still waiting 
for the Government to do the right thing and make them eligible for 
compensation for their injuries. The facts are in and the science shows 
that they should not have to wait any longer for their rightful 
opportunity to seek appropriate redress. Let's fix this while we still 
have some of those who are sick because of Government actions with us.
  I would exhort my colleagues to join with me and Senators Burns and 
Craig to take up this legislation we have introduced today and bring 
needed fairness to those in Idaho and Montana and extend them 
eligibility under the current Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S13798]]

                                S. 2132

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

     SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF IDAHO AND MONTANA IN RADIATION 
                   EXPOSURE COMPENSATION.

       Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) the State of Idaho; and
       ``(E) the State of Montana; and''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2133. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to include foreseeable catastrophic events as 
major disasters, to permit States affected by an event occurring 
elsewhere to receive assistance, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the massive devastation inflicted 
upon our southern States by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma 
reminded all Americans how important it is that the Federal Government 
be able to respond quickly and effectively when disaster strikes. We 
also learned from those tragedies that we must assist in ways few of us 
had imagined--for example, to meet the needs of evacuees who were 
dispersed far from the disaster.
  Other events of the past few years, both here at home and abroad, 
have taught us that we must prepare for more than just natural 
disasters. Accidents, acts of terrorism, and pandemic illnesses also 
threaten us with death, injury, and destruction. And while we work to 
minimize the threats, we must assume that such disasters will really 
happen.
  I have concluded that the President's current statuary authority to 
respond to disasters is not sufficient to meet the threats that we all 
now recognize as real, though once they were unimaginable. Today, I am 
introducing the Disaster Relief Act 2005 to modernize our disaster 
response capability for the 21st century.
  One of the principal authorities we have given the President for 
disaster management is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act. This is the law that authorizes the 
President, at the request of a Governor, to declare an ``Emergency'' or 
a ``Major Disaster,'' which then enables various types of Federal 
assistance. Emergency is the lower level declaration. The President is 
given great latitude in the types of events that can be declared 
emergencies, but relief is generally limited to $5 million per 
declaration. A major disaster declaration allows much greater 
assistance, but can be made only for natural disasters or, from any 
cause, fire, flood, or explosion.
  The Department of Homeland Security uses 15 disaster scenarios to 
guide planning for the types of catastrophes it has concluded threaten 
our country. Besides natural disasters, the list includes various types 
of terrorist attacks--chemical, biological, radiological, cyber--as 
well as major health disasters. Though the President could respond to 
any of these scenarios by issuing an Emergency declaration, only seven 
of the fifteen would currently qualify under the Stafford Act to be 
declared a major disaster.
  This bill will modify the definition of a major disaster in the 
Stafford Act to direct the President to focus on the impacts of an 
event in determining whether to issue a declaration. It is indeed the 
suffering--deaths, injuries, destruction--and not the cause of that 
suffering, which should determine our response. Catastrophic events, 
foreseeable and yet unimagined, will be covered if the suffering 
exceeds the capacity of the State to respond.
  Furthermore, under the Stafford Act it is not clear whether States 
affected indirectly by a disaster occurring elsewhere--for example, by 
receiving evacuees or by the spread of nuclear, toxic, or infectious 
agents--could receive a major disaster declaration. It became clear in 
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that meeting the needs of evacuees 
can be a difficult challenge. Four States received major disaster 
declarations following Katrina. Forty-four others received emergency 
declarations to assist evacuees, but not even Texas, which hosted over 
200,000 evacuees, received a major disaster declaration to assist them. 
Even if it were possible to declare a major disaster in a State 
receiving evacuees, assistance to meet some of their needs--education, 
healthcare, long-term housing and resettlement--is not adequately 
authorized under the Stafford Act.
  Being able to meet the needs of evacuees is an important issue for 
West Virginia. We hosted several hundred evacuees from Hurricane 
Katrina, just enough to understand the special needs of people who have 
lost their homes and livelihoods, have been moved to unfamiliar places 
without resources, have been separated from their families, and 
suffered in many other ways. A disaster in the Washington-Baltimore 
region, or in Pennsylvania or Ohio, could bring far more evacuees to 
West Virginia than we could assist with presently available resources.
  This bill acknowledges the fact that the impacts of a major disaster 
can extend far beyond the location of the event, and enables the 
President to make major disaster declarations in affected States, 
wherever they may be located. Additional forms of assistance to 
evacuees, found necessary after hurricane Katrina--for education, 
healthcare, long-term housing, and resettlement--will be made 
available.
  Several other aspects of the Stafford Act require our attention, and 
are addressed in the bill. Authorization for Predisaster Hazard 
Mitigation under Title II, set to expire at the end of this year, will 
be extended to 2010. The modest levels of direct assistance to 
individuals, though indexed to inflation, will be increased because of 
rapid increases in housing costs in recent years. The duration of 
assistance that can be provided by the Department of Defense, for the 
preservation of life and property, will be increased from 10 to 30 
days, to meet needs following extreme disasters. It will be clarified 
that events occurring within the waters surrounding the United States 
are eligible for emergency and major disaster declarations, Efforts to 
recover costs of assistance when emergencies or major disasters are 
caused by gross negligence will be authorized. The process for 
appropriating funds for disaster relief will be improved. And other 
minor improvements will be made.
  I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me to pass this bill and 
improve our preparedness for disasters in the 21st century.
  I ask unanimous consent that 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. 2133

       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 ``Disaster Relief Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the current definition of a major disaster in section 
     102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) is insufficient to enable the 
     President to respond quickly and efficiently to foreseeable 
     catastrophic events, including many types of potential 
     terrorists attacks, accidents, and health emergencies;
       (2) more than \1/2\ of the disaster planning scenarios used 
     by the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate 
     preparedness would not be covered by that present definition;
       (3) States affected by a event occurring elsewhere, such as 
     through mass evacuations, the propagation of radioactive or 
     toxic substances, or the transmission of infectious agents, 
     may not be eligible for the declaration of a major disaster 
     or for certain types of assistance;
       (4) emergency declarations, widely used to provide 
     assistance to evacuees following Hurricane Katrina, may not 
     adequate;
       (5) some types of assistance found to be necessary 
     following the evacuations associated with Hurricane Katrina, 
     notably assistance for providing public services such as 
     education, healthcare, long-term housing, and resettlement, 
     are not authorized to be provided under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
       (6) the process for appropriating funds for disaster 
     assistance is inefficient and often requires supplemental 
     appropriations and certain assistance programs have been 
     delayed by insufficient funds;
       (7) authorization for the Predisaster Hazard Mitigation 
     program, under title II of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131 et seq.) 
     will expire on December 31, 2005;

[[Page S13799]]

       (8) while the Federal Government is authorized to recover 
     the cost of providing assistance in the event of major 
     disasters or emergencies caused by deliberate actions, costs 
     resulting from negligent actions cannot be recovered;
       (9) limits on assistance provided to individuals for repair 
     or replacement of housing and total assistance, though 
     indexed for inflation, do not adequately reflect increases in 
     the costs of housing that have occurred in recent years; and
       (10) the duration of assistance by the Department of 
     Defense authorized under section 403(c) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170b(c)) for activities ``essential for the 
     preservation of life and property'' may be insufficient to 
     meet needs following major disasters that are particularly 
     severe or for which the period of recovery is lengthy.
       (b) Purposes.--
       (1) In general.--The purpose of this Act is to expand and 
     enhance the authority and capacity of the President of the 
     United States to alleviate suffering and loss resulting from 
     large catastrophic events by appropriately amending the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       (2) Major disasters.--In amending the definition of the 
     term major disaster in section 102(2) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122(2)), Congress intends to expand the types of 
     events that constitute a major disaster and does not intend 
     to exclude any type of event that would have constituted a 
     major disaster prior to the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Major Disaster.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Major disaster.--The term `major disaster' means a 
     catastrophic event that--
       ``(A) involves or results in--
       ``(i) a large number of human deaths, injuries, or 
     illnesses;
       ``(ii) substantial property damage or loss; or
       ``(iii) extensive disruption of public services; and
       ``(B) in the determination of the President, is of such 
     severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the 
     capabilities of the affected State or local government.''.
       (b) United States.--Section 102(3) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ```United States''' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) United states.--The term `United States' '';
       (2) by striking ``and'' after ``Samoa,''; and
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and the exclusive economic zone and 
     continental shelf (as those terms are defined in the United 
     Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay 
     December 10, 1982) surrounding those areas.''.
       (c) Affected State.--Section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) Affected state.--The term `affected State' means any 
     State--
       ``(A) that suffers damage, loss, or hardship as a result of 
     an occasion or instance satisfying the criteria of paragraph 
     (1) or a catastrophic event satisfying the criteria of 
     paragraph (2);
       ``(B) regardless of location, that suffers indirect 
     consequences due to an emergency or major disaster declared 
     in another part of the United States, to the extent that, in 
     the determination of the President, assistance provided for 
     under this Act is required; or
       ``(C) that is included in a Presidential declaration of an 
     Incident of National Significance under the National Response 
     Plan (developed under Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive 5).''.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF PREDISASTER HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM.

       Section 203(m) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(m)) is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 2005'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2010''.

     SEC. 5. COORDINATING OFFICERS.

       Section 302(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5143(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Immediately''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In the event the President declares an emergency or 
     major disaster in more than 1 State as a result of an 
     occasion, instance, or catastrophic event, the President may, 
     as appropriate and efficient, appoint 1 or more regional 
     coordinating officers, without regard to State borders. A 
     regional coordinating officer shall report to the Federal 
     coordinating officer appointed under paragraph (1) and the 
     Principal Federal Official for the emergency or major 
     disaster designated under the National Response Plan 
     (developed under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 
     5).''.

     SEC. 6. RECOVERY OF ASSISTANCE.

       Section 317 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5160) is amended by 
     inserting ``, or through gross negligence,'' after ``Any 
     person who intentionally''.

     SEC. 7. UTILIZATION OF DOD RESOURCES.

       Section 403(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``an incident which may ultimately qualify 
     for assistance under this title or title V of this Act'' and 
     inserting the following: ``a catastrophic event that the 
     President has declared a major disaster''; and
       (B) by striking ``the State in which such incident 
     occurred'' and inserting the following: ``any State in the 
     area for which the President has declared a major disaster''; 
     and
       (2) in the third sentence, by striking ``10 days'' and 
     inserting ``30 days''.

     SEC. 8. HAZARD MITIGATION.

       Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) is amended 
     in the first sentence, by striking ``any area affected by a 
     major disaster'' and inserting ``any area in which the 
     President has declared a major disaster''.

     SEC. 9. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.

       Section 406(a)(4) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(4) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and the Committee 
     on Homeland Security'' after ``Infrastructure''

     SEC. 10. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS.

       Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5173) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``in the State who, 
     as a direct result of a major disaster,'' and inserting the 
     following: ``in an area in which the President has declared a 
     major disaster who'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(1), by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000''.

     SEC. 11. EMERGENCY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 419 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5186) is amended by 
     striking ``an area affected by a major disaster to meet 
     emergency needs'' and inserting the following: ``an area in 
     which the President has declared a major disaster to meet 
     emergency needs, including evacuation,''.

     SEC. 12. EVACUEES.

       Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 425. ASSISTANCE IN AREAS RECEIVING EVACUEES.

       ``If the President determines that other statutory 
     authorities are insufficient, the President may award grants 
     or other assistance to an affected State or local government 
     to be used to meet the temporary health, education, food, and 
     housing needs of evacuees.''.

     SEC. 13. DISASTER RELIEF FUND.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5141 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 326. DISASTER RELIEF FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States, under the Office of the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, a Disaster Relief Fund (referred to in this 
     section as the `Fund'). The Fund shall be available to 
     provide financial resources to respond to domestic disasters 
     and emergencies described in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Fund shall consist of such sums as 
     are appropriated in accordance with this subsection and such 
     sums as are transferred from the Department of Homeland 
     Security Disaster Relief Fund.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `operating expenditures' means an amount equal to the 
     average amount expended from the Fund, or any predecessor of 
     the Fund, for the preceding 5 years, excluding the years 
     during that 5-year period in which the greatest amount and 
     least amount were expended from the Fund.
       ``(3) Deposits into fund.--On October 1 of each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make a cash deposit 
     into the Fund of an amount sufficient to bring the Fund 
     balance up the amount of operating expenditures as of that 
     date.
       ``(4) Replenishment.--There shall be appropriated, for each 
     fiscal year, sufficient amounts to restore the Fund to 
     balance required under paragraph (3).
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts in the Fund shall only be 
     available to meet the emergency funding requirements for--
       ``(1) particular domestic disasters and security 
     emergencies designated by a Joint Resolution of Congress; or
       ``(2) an emergency or major disaster declared by the 
     President under this Act.
       ``(d) Reporting.--Not later than November 30, 2006, and 
     annually thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall submit to Congress a report that lists the 
     amounts expended from the Fund for the prior fiscal year for 
     each disaster or emergency under subsection (c).''.
       (b) Abolition of Existing Fund.--

[[Page S13800]]

       (1) Transfer of funds.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall transfer any funds in Department of Homeland Security 
     Disaster Relief Fund to the Disaster Relief Fund established 
     in the Treasury of the United States by section 326 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (as added by this Act).
       (2) Abolition.--After all funds are transferred to the 
     Disaster Relief Fund in the Treasury of the United States 
     under paragraph (1), the Department of Homeland Security 
     Disaster Relief Fund is abolished.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Permanent appropriation.--Section 1305 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(11) Emergency reserve fund.--To make payments into the 
     Disaster Relief Fund established by section 326 of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
       (d) Congressional Budget Process.--Section 301(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8) respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) total new budget authority and total budget outlays 
     for emergency funding requirements for domestic disasters and 
     emergencies, which shall be transferred to the Disaster 
     Relief Fund established by section 326 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH:
  S. 2134. A bill to strengthen existing programs to assist 
manufacturing innovation and education, to expand outreach programs for 
small and medium-sized manufacturers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Kohl and DeWine 
to introduce the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
  The manufacturing sector is a critical component of our economy and 
an engine of job creation for millions of Americans. Investment and 
continued growth in this industry is vital in order to strengthen 
manufacturing in the United States and increase our global 
competitiveness.
  Through a number of measures, my legislation is aimed at further 
improving productivity, advancing technology and increasing the 
competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing industry.
  My bill authorizes funding through fiscal year 2008 for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST).
  MEP is a nationwide network with centers in all 50 states that 
provide assistance to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers 
succeed by providing expertise and services customized to meet their 
critical needs.
  Small and medium sized manufacturers in my home State of Oregon have 
benefited from the efforts of the Oregon MEP resulting in increased 
jobs, investment and overall productivity. In 2004, the Oregon MEP 
helped manufacturers generate new or retain sales of $6,835,400 and a 
save costs of $18,736,000. MEP's assistance has yielded similar success 
for countless manufacturers in states across the country.
  In addition to authorizing funding for MEP, this bill will amend 
partnership to include a mechanism for review and re-competition of MEP 
Centers and establish an additional competitive grant program from 
which these centers can obtain supplemental funding for manufacturing-
related projects.
  The National Institute of Standards and Technology with its expertise 
in technology, measurement and standards helps U.S. industry 
manufacture leading products and deliver high quality services. NIST 
has aided U.S. companies in competing in domestic and foreign markets 
through technology-based innovations in areas such as biotechnology, 
information technology and advanced manufacturing. NIST's capabilities 
will allow them to make further valuable contributions with emerging 
technologies in the future.
  My bill establishes programs aimed at enhancing research and 
advancements in the manufacturing industry including a fellowship 
program and a manufacturing research pilot program, which involves 
cost-sharing collaborations aimed at developing new processes and 
materials to improve manufacturing performance and productivity.
  The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) which supports research and 
development of high-risk, cutting edge technologies is authorized 
funding in this legislation. ATP partners with private sector entities 
to invest in early stage, innovative technologies that enable U.S. 
companies to develop next generation products and services that improve 
the quality of life for all of us. These public-private partnerships 
lead to innovations that otherwise could not be developed by a single 
entity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Manufacturing Technology 
Competitiveness Act of 2005 and 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. 2134

       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 ``Manufacturing Technology 
     Competitiveness Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first section 32 (15 U.S.C. 271 
     note; as redesignated by Public Law 105-309) as section 34; 
     and
       (2) by inserting before the section redesignated by 
     paragraph (1) the following:

     ``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a 
     Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants program to make awards to 
     partnerships consisting of participants described in 
     paragraph (2) for the purposes described in paragraph (3). 
     Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
       ``(2) Participants.--The partnerships described in this 
     paragraph shall include at least--
       ``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
       ``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program established 
     under this section is to foster cost-shared collaborations 
     among firms, educational institutions, research institutions, 
     State agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the 
     development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing 
     technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this 
     section shall conduct applied research to develop new 
     manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and the 
     manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, and build 
     lasting alliances among collaborators.
       ``(b) Program Contribution.--An award made under this 
     section shall provide for not more than one-third of the 
     costs of the partnership. Not more than an additional one-
     third of such costs may be obtained directly or indirectly 
     from other Federal sources.
       ``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and 
     containing such information as the Director shall require. 
     Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
       ``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and 
     carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
       ``(2) the research that the grant will fund; and
       ``(3) how the research to be funded with the award will 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and the 
     manufacturing competitiveness of the United States.
       ``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for 
     awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a 
     minimum--
       ``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact 
     on manufacturing;
       ``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the 
     proposed projects; and
       ``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to 
     successfully carry out the proposed research.
       ``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this 
     section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, 
     a distribution of overall awards among a variety of 
     manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
       ``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director 
     shall conduct a single pilot competition to solicit and make 
     awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.

     SEC. 3. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Director is authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a 
     robust research community working at the leading edge of 
     manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a 
     program to award--
       ``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute 
     for research activities related to manufacturing sciences; 
     and
       ``(B) senior research fellowships to established 
     researchers in industry or at institutions of higher 
     education who wish to pursue studies related to the 
     manufacturing sciences at the Institute.

[[Page S13801]]

       ``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this 
     subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this section, the Director 
     shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships 
     at a level consistent with the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship 
     Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent 
     with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical 
     position.''.

     SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION.

       (a) Manufacturing Center Evaluation.--Section 25(c)(5) of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``A Center that 
     has not received a positive evaluation by the evaluation 
     panel shall be notified by the panel of the deficiencies in 
     its performance and may be placed on probation for one year, 
     after which time the panel may reevaluate the Center. If the 
     Center has not addressed the deficiencies identified by the 
     panel, or shown a significant improvement in its performance, 
     the Director may conduct a new competition to select an 
     operator for the Center or may close the Center.'' after 
     ``sixth year at declining levels.''.
       (b) Federal Share.--Section 25(d) of the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(d)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--In addition to such sums as may 
     be appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the 
     Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept 
     funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under 
     section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of 
     strengthening United States manufacturing. Such funds, if 
     allocated to a Center, shall not be considered in the 
     calculation of the Federal share of capital and annual 
     operating and maintenance costs under subsection (c).''.
       (c) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant 
     Program.--Section 25 of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Competitive Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within 
     the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program under this 
     section and section 26 of this Act, a program of competitive 
     awards among participants described in paragraph (2) for the 
     purposes described in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under 
     this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such 
     Centers.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
     subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging 
     manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     National Advisory Board, and small and medium-sized 
     manufacturers. One or more themes for the competition may be 
     identified, which may vary from year to year, depending on 
     the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous 
     competitions. These themes shall be related to projects 
     associated with manufacturing extension activities, including 
     supply chain integration and quality management, or extend 
     beyond the traditional areas.
       ``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, 
     and containing such information as the Director shall 
     require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership National Advisory Board.
       ``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be 
     peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall 
     select proposals to receive awards--
       ``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches 
     to solving the problem described in the competition;
       ``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries 
     in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
       ``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic 
     stability of that region.
       ``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under 
     this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching 
     contribution.
       ``(f) Audits.--A center that receives assistance under this 
     section shall submit annual audits to the Secretary in 
     accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     133 and shall make such audits available to the public on 
     request.''.
       (d) Programmatic and Operational Plan.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a 3-year programmatic and 
     operational plan for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     program under sections 25 and 26 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l). The 
     plan shall include comments on the plan from the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership State partners and the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MANUFACTURING 
                   SUPPORT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce, 
     or other appropriate Federal agencies, for the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     278k and 278l)--
       (1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more 
     than $1,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e));
       (2) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more 
     than $4,000,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)); and
       (3) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more 
     than $4,100,000 shall be for the competitive grant program 
     under section 25(e) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(e)).
       (b) Collaborative Manufacturing Research Pilot Grants 
     Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Commerce for the Collaborative Manufacturing 
     Research Pilot Grants program under section 33 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (c) Fellowships.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing Fellowships at 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology under 
     section 18(b) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act, as added by section 3 of this Act--
       (1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Director of the National Science Foundation, from sums 
     otherwise authorized to be appropriated, for the programs 
     established under section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-
     Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i)--
       (A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification;
       (B) $57,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification; and
       (C) $60,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000 of which 
     may be used to support the education and preparation of 
     manufacturing technicians for certification.
       (2) Distribution.--Funds appropriated under this subsection 
     shall be made available, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     to diverse institutions, including historically Black 
     colleges and universities and other minority-serving 
     institutions.
       (b) Amendments.--Section 3 of the Scientific and Advanced-
     Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (a)(1) and (c)(2), by inserting ``, 
     including manufacturing,'' after ``advanced-technology 
     fields''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, including manufacturing'' after 
     ``advanced-technology fields'' each place the term appears, 
     other than in subsections (a)(1) and (c)(2).

     SEC. 7. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES.

       (a) Laboratory Activities.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific 
     and technical research and services laboratory activities of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $426,267,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which--
       (A) $50,833,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical 
     Engineering;
       (B) $28,023,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
       (C) $52,433,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
     Technology;
       (D) $46,706,000 shall be for Physics;
       (E) $33,500,000 shall be for Material Science and 
     Engineering;
       (F) $24,321,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
       (G) $68,423,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied 
     Mathematics;
       (H) $20,134,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
       (I) $48,326,000 shall be for Research Support Activities;
       (J) $29,369,000 shall be for the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research; and
       (K) $18,543,000 shall be for the National Nanomanufacturing 
     and Nanometrology Facility;
       (2) $447,580,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $456,979,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (b) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 
     program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a)--
       (1) $5,654,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $5,795,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $5,939,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (c) Construction and Maintenance.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction 
     and maintenance of facilities of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology--
       (1) $58,898,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $61,843,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $63,389,000 for fiscal year 2008.

[[Page S13802]]

     SEC. 8. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
     Advanced Technology Program under section 28 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) 
     $140,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
       (b) Report on Elimination.--Not later than 3 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a report detailing the impacts of the possible 
     elimination of the Advanced Technology Program on the 
     laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards 
     Technology.
       (c) Loss of Funding.--At the time of the President's budget 
     request for fiscal year 2007, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on how the Department of Commerce plans to 
     absorb the loss of Advanced Technology Program funds to the 
     laboratory programs at the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, or otherwise mitigate the effects of this 
     loss on its programs and personnel.

     SEC. 9. STANDARDS EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Authorized.--(1) As part of the Teacher Science 
     and Technology Enhancement Institute Program, the Director of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall 
     carry out a Standards Education program to award grants to 
     institutions of higher education to support efforts by such 
     institutions to develop curricula on the role of standards in 
     the fields of engineering, business, science, and economics. 
     The curricula should address topics such as--
       (A) development of technical standards;
       (B) demonstrating conformity to standards;
       (C) intellectual property and antitrust issues;
       (D) standardization as a key element of business strategy;
       (E) survey of organizations that develop standards;
       (F) the standards life cycle;
       (G) case studies in effective standardization;
       (H) managing standardization activities; and
       (I) managing organizations that develop standards.
       (2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a 
     competitive, merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost-
     sharing from non-Federal sources.
       (b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher 
     education seeking funding under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Director may require. The 
     application shall include at a minimum--
       (A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption 
     of the proposed curricula in the courses of study offered by 
     the applicant; and
       (B) a description of the source and amount of cost-sharing 
     to be provided.
       (2) In evaluating the applications submitted under 
     paragraph (1) the Director shall consider, at a minimum--
       (A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant 
     in carrying out and sustaining lasting curricula changes in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) the amount of cost-sharing provided.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
     Teacher Science and Technology Enhancement Institute program 
     of the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $773,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $796,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (3) $820,000 for fiscal year 2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2137. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make 
all uninsured children eligible for the State children's health 
insurance program, to encourage States to increase the number of 
children enrolled in the medicaid and State children's health insurance 
programs by simplifying the enrollment and renewal procedures for those 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 2137

       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 ``All Kids Health Insurance 
     Coverage Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Senate finds the following:
       (1) There are more than 9,000,000 children in the United 
     States with no health insurance coverage.
       (2) Uninsured children, when compared to privately insured 
     children, are --
       (A) 3.5 times more likely to have gone without needed 
     medical, dental, or other health care;
       (B) 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical 
     care;
       (C) 5 times more likely to go without needed prescription 
     drugs; and
       (D) 6.5 times less likely to have a regular source of care.
       (3) Children without health insurance coverage are at a 
     disadvantage in the classroom, as shown by the following 
     studies:
       (A) The Florida Healthy Kids Annual Report published in 
     1997, found that children who do not have health care 
     coverage are 25 percent more likely to miss school.
       (B) A study of the California Health Families program found 
     that children enrolled in public health coverage experienced 
     a 68 percent improvement in school performance and school 
     attendance.
       (C) A 2002 Building Bridges to Healthy Kids and Better 
     Students study conducted by the Council of Chief State School 
     Officers in Vermont concluded that children who started out 
     without health insurance saw their reading scores more than 
     double after obtaining health care coverage.
       (4) More than half of uninsured children in the United 
     States are eligible for coverage under either the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or Medicaid, but 
     are not enrolled in those safety net programs.
       (5) Some States, seeing that the Federal Government is not 
     providing assistance to middle class families who are unable 
     to afford health insurance, are trying to extend health care 
     coverage to some or all children in the State.
       (6) State efforts to cover all children may not be 
     successful without financial assistance from the Federal 
     Government.

     SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN FOR SCHIP.

       (a) In General.--Section 2110(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``include'' and all that follows through 
     ``a child who is an'' and inserting ``include a child who is 
     an''; and
       (B) by striking the semicolon and all that follows through 
     the period and inserting a period; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4).
       (b) No Exclusion of Children With Access to High-Cost 
     Coverage.--Section 2110(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397jj(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``rule'' and 
     inserting ``rules'';
       (2) by striking ``A child shall not be considered to be 
     described in paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Certain non federally funded coverage.--A child shall 
     not be considered to be described in paragraph (1)(C)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) No exclusion of children with access to high-cost 
     coverage.--A State may include a child as a targeted 
     vulnerable child if the child has access to coverage under a 
     group health plan or health insurance coverage and the total 
     annual aggregate cost for premiums, deductibles, cost 
     sharing, and similar charges imposed under the group health 
     plan or health insurance coverage with respect to all 
     targeted vulnerable children in the child's family exceeds 5 
     percent of such family's income for the year involved.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.; 1397aa et. seq.) are amended by striking 
     ``targeted low-income'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``targeted vulnerable''.
       (2) Section 2101(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``uninsured, low-income'' and inserting 
     ``low-income''.
       (3) Section 2102(b)(3)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397bb(b)(3)(C)) is amended by inserting ``, particularly 
     with respect to children whose family income exceeds 200 
     percent of the poverty line'' before the semicolon.
       (4) Section 2102(b)(3)(E), section 2105(a)(1)(D)(ii), 
     paragraphs (1)(C) and (2) of section 2107, and subsections 
     (a)(1) and (d)(1)(B) of section 2108 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397bb(b)(3)(E); 1397ee(a)(1)(D)(ii); 1397gg; 1397hh) are 
     amended by striking ``low-income'' each place it appears.
       (5) Section 2110(a)(27) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397jj(a)(27)) is amended by striking ``eligible low-income 
     individuals'' and inserting ``targeted vulnerable 
     individuals''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2006.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION UNDER 
                   SCHIP AND MEDICAID FOR STATES WITH SIMPLIFIED 
                   ENROLLMENT AND RENEWAL PROCEDURES FOR CHILDREN.

       (a) SCHIP.--Section 2105(c)(2) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Nonapplication of limitation and increase in federal 
     payment for states with simplified enrollment and renewal 
     procedures.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) and 
     subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) the limitation under subparagraph (A) on expenditures 
     for items described in subsection (a)(1)(D) shall not apply 
     with respect to expenditures incurred to carry out any of the 
     outreach strategies described in clause (ii), but only if the 
     State carries out the same outreach strategies for children 
     under title XIX; and

[[Page S13803]]

       ``(II) the enhanced FMAP for a State for a fiscal year 
     otherwise determined under subsection (b) shall be increased 
     by 5 percentage points (without regard to the application of 
     the 85 percent limitation under that subsection) with respect 
     to such expenditures.

       ``(ii) Outreach strategies described.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the outreach strategies described in this clause 
     are the following:

       ``(I) Presumptive eligibility.--The State provides for 
     presumptive eligibility for children under this title and 
     under title XIX.
       ``(II) Adoption of 12-month continuous eligibility.--The 
     State provides that eligibility for children shall not be 
     redetermined more often than once every year under this title 
     or under title XIX.
       ``(III) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not 
     apply any asset test for eligibility under this title or 
     title XIX with respect to children.
       ``(IV) Passive renewal.--The State provides for the 
     automatic renewal of the eligibility of children for 
     assistance under this title and under title XIX if the family 
     of which such a child is a member does not report any changes 
     to family income or other relevant circumstances, subject to 
     verification of information from State databases.''.

       (b) Medicaid.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1902(l) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(l)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``subject to paragraph 
     (5)'', after ``Notwithstanding subsection (a)(17),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5)(A) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 
     1905(b), with respect to expenditures incurred to carry out 
     any of the outreach strategies described in subparagraph (B) 
     for individuals under 19 years of age who are eligible for 
     medical assistance under subsection (a)(10)(A), the Federal 
     medical assistance percentage is equal to the enhanced FMAP 
     described in section 2105(b) and increased under section 
     2105(c)(2)(C)(i)(II), but only if the State carries out the 
     same outreach strategies for children under title XXI.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the outreach 
     strategies described in this subparagraph are the following:
       ``(i) Presumptive eligibility.--The State provides for 
     presumptive eligibility for such individuals under this title 
     and title XXI.
       ``(ii) Adoption of 12-month continuous eligibility.--The 
     State provides that eligibility for such individuals shall 
     not be redetermined more often than once every year under 
     this title or under title XXI.
       ``(iii) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not 
     apply any asset test for eligibility under this title or 
     title XXI with respect to such individuals.
       ``(iv) Passive renewal.--The State provides for the 
     automatic renewal of the eligibility of such individuals for 
     assistance under this title and under title XXI if the family 
     of which such an individual is a member does not report any 
     changes to family income or other relevant circumstances, 
     subject to verification of information from State 
     databases.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The first sentence of section 
     1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 1933(d)'' and inserting 
     ``sections 1902(l)(5) and 1933(d)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2006.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES THAT HAVE AN 
                   ENROLLMENT CAP BUT HAVE NOT EXHAUSTED THE 
                   STATE'S AVAILABLE ALLOTMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2105 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397ee) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Limitation on Payments to States That Have an 
     Enrollment Cap but Have Not Exhausted the State's Available 
     Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, payment shall not be made to a State under this 
     section if the State has an enrollment freeze, enrollment 
     cap, procedures to delay consideration of, or not to 
     consider, submitted applications for child health assistance, 
     or a waiting list for the submission or consideration of such 
     applications or for such assistance, and the State has not 
     fully expended the amount of all allotments available with 
     respect to a fiscal year for expenditure by the State, 
     including allotments for prior fiscal years that remain 
     available for expenditure during the fiscal year under 
     subsection (c) or (g) of section 2104 or that were 
     redistributed to the State under subsection (f) or (g) of 
     section 2104.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as prohibiting a State from establishing regular 
     open enrollment periods for the submission of applications 
     for child health assistance.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2006.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO FMAP TO PROMOTE EXPANSION 
                   OF COVERAGE TO ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN UNDER 
                   MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       (a) In General.--Title XXI (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2111. ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO FMAP TO PROMOTE 
                   EXPANSION OF COVERAGE TO ALL UNINSURED CHILDREN 
                   UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of 
     section 2105 (and without regard to the application of the 85 
     percent limitation under that subsection), the enhanced FMAP 
     with respect to expenditures in a quarter for providing child 
     health assistance to uninsured children whose family income 
     exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line, shall be increased 
     by 5 percentage points.
       ``(b) Uninsured Child Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), subject 
     to paragraph (2), the term `uninsured child' means an 
     uncovered child who has been without creditable coverage for 
     a period determined by the Secretary, except that such period 
     shall not be less than 6 months.
       ``(2) Special rule for newborn children.--In the case of a 
     child 12 months old or younger, the period determined under 
     paragraph (1) shall be 0 months and such child shall be 
     considered uninsured upon birth.
       ``(3) Special rule for children losing medicaid or schip 
     coverage due to increased family income.--In the case of a 
     child who, due to an increase in family income, becomes 
     ineligible for coverage under title XIX or this title during 
     the period beginning on the date that is 12 months prior to 
     the date of enactment of the All Kids Health Insurance 
     Coverage Act of 2005 and ending on the date of enactment of 
     such Act, the period determined under paragraph (1) shall be 
     0 months and such child shall be considered uninsured upon 
     the date of enactment of the All Kids Health Insurance 
     Coverage Act of 2005.
       ``(4) Monitoring and adjustment of period required to be 
     uninsured.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) monitor the availability and retention of employer-
     sponsored health insurance coverage of dependent children; 
     and
       ``(B) adjust the period determined under paragraph (1) as 
     needed for the purpose of promoting the retention of private 
     or employer-sponsored health insurance coverage of dependent 
     children and timely access to health care services for such 
     children.''.
       (b) Cost-Sharing for Children in Families With High Family 
     Income.--Section 2103(e)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397cc(e)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Children in families with high family income.--
       ``(i) In general.--For children not described in 
     subparagraph (A) whose family income exceeds 400 percent of 
     the poverty line for a family of the size involved, subject 
     to paragraphs (1)(B) and (2), the State shall impose a 
     premium that is not less than the cost of providing child 
     health assistance to children in such families, and 
     deductibles, cost sharing, or similar charges shall be 
     imposed under the State child health plan (without regard to 
     a sliding scale based on income), except that the total 
     annual aggregate cost-sharing with respect to all such 
     children in a family under this title may not exceed 5 
     percent of such family's income for the year involved.
       ``(ii) Inflation adjustment.--The dollar amount specified 
     in clause (i) shall be increased, beginning with fiscal year 
     2008, from year to year based on the percentage increase in 
     the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all items; 
     United States city average). Any dollar amount established 
     under this clause that is not a multiple of $100 shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
       (c) Additional Allotments for States Providing Coverage to 
     All Uninsured Children in the State.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2104 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (c) the following:
       ``(d) Additional Allotments for States Providing Coverage 
     to All Uninsured Children in the State.--
       ``(1) Appropriation; total allotment.--For the purpose of 
     providing additional allotments to States to provide coverage 
     of all uninsured children (as defined in section 2111(b)) in 
     the State under the State child health plan, there is 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated--
       ``(A) for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009, 
     $3,000,000,000;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2010, $5,000,000,000; and
       ``(C) for fiscal year 2011, $7,000,000,000.
       ``(2) State and territorial allotments.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to the allotments provided 
     under subsections (b) and (c), subject to subparagraph (B) 
     and paragraphs (3) and (4), of the amount available for the 
     additional allotments under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall allot to each State with a State child 
     health plan that provides coverage of all uninsured children 
     (as so defined) in the State approved under this title--
       ``(i) in the case of such a State other than a commonwealth 
     or territory described in subsection (ii), the same 
     proportion as the proportion of the State's allotment under 
     subsection (b) (determined without regard to subsection (f)) 
     to 98.95 percent of the total amount of the allotments under 
     such section for such States eligible for an allotment under 
     this subparagraph for such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a commonwealth or territory described 
     in subsection (c)(3), the same proportion as the proportion 
     of the commonwealth's or territory's allotment

[[Page S13804]]

     under subsection (c) (determined without regard to subsection 
     (f)) to 1.05 percent of the total amount of the allotments 
     under such section for commonwealths and territories eligible 
     for an allotment under this subparagraph for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(B) Minimum allotment.--
       ``(i) In general.--No allotment to a State for a fiscal 
     year under this subsection shall be less than 50 percent of 
     the amount of the allotment to the State determined under 
     subsections (b) and (c) for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Pro rata reductions.--The Secretary shall make such 
     pro rata reductions to the allotments determined under this 
     subsection as are necessary to comply with the requirements 
     of clause (i).
       ``(C) Availability and redistribution of unused 
     allotments.--In applying subsections (e) and (f) with respect 
     to additional allotments made available under this 
     subsection, the procedures established under such subsections 
     shall ensure such additional allotments are only made 
     available to States which have elected to provide coverage 
     under section 2111.
       ``(3) Use of additional allotment.--Additional allotments 
     provided under this subsection are not available for amounts 
     expended before October 1, 2005. Such amounts are available 
     for amounts expended on or after such date for child health 
     assistance for uninsured children (as defined in section 
     2111(b)).
       ``(4) Requiring election to provide coverage.--No payments 
     may be made to a State under this title from an allotment 
     provided under this subsection unless the State has made an 
     election to provide child health assistance for all uninsured 
     children (as so defined) in the State, including such 
     children whose family income exceeds 200 percent of the 
     poverty line.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 2104 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``subject to subsection 
     (d),'' after ``under this section,'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``and subsection 
     (d)'' after ``Subject to paragraph (4)''; and
       (C) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``subject to 
     subsection (d),'' after ``for a fiscal year,''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2006.

     SEC. 7. REPEAL OF THE SCHEDULED PHASEOUT OF THE LIMITATIONS 
                   ON PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS AND ITEMIZED DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 
     151(d)(3), and
       (2) by striking subsections (f) and (g) of section 68.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.
       (c) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--The amendments made by 
     this section shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as the provision of such Act to 
     which such amendment relates.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 2138. A bill to prohibit racial profiling; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial 
Profiling Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined again by my friend from 
New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and a number of other cosponsors. It is 
fitting that this bill will be introduced in one of the final days of 
Senator Corzine's service in this body. He has been a major force in 
efforts to advance this legislation from the day he joined the Senate 4 
years ago.
  Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for 
many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on racial 
profiling. In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President 
Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we 
will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a 
policy to end racial profiling.
  The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance 
addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is 
wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in 
our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end 
racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, 
more than 4 years after the President's ringing endorsement of our 
goal, racial profiling has not ended in this country.
  I am proud today, therefore, to introduce the End Racial Profiling 
Act of 2005. This bill will do what the President promised; it will 
help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. 
This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State and local 
law enforcement officers to take steps to end it.
  Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents 
routinely stop African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab 
Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national 
origin, or perceived religion. Reports in States from New Jersey to 
Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, 
Hispanics, and members of other minority groups are being stopped by 
some police far more often than their share of the population and the 
crime rates for those racial categories.
  Passing this bill is even more urgent after September 11, as we have 
seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or 
Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The September 11 attacks were 
horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding 
those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's 
top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. 
But we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making 
assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not 
protect our nation from crime and future terrorist attacks.
  Numerous Government studies have shown that racial profiling is 
entirely ineffective. Some police departments around the country have 
recognized the many problems with racial profiling. In response, those 
departments have developed programs and policies to prevent racial 
profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. 
In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken 
steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish 
model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with 
our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law 
enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread 
recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ 
policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind 
them. The Federal Government must step up, as President Bush promised. 
The Government must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and 
acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.
  Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste 
precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating 
discriminatory practices. It is past time for Congress and the 
President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end 
racial profiling once and for all.
  In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2005 bans racial 
profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent 
with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does 
more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law 
enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the 
harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2005 
is a pro-law enforcement bill.
  This bill will allow the Justice Department or individuals the 
ability to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive 
relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, 
implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor 
programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in 
the practice, and collect data on stops. In addition, it requires the 
Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American 
people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent 
and end racial profiling have been effective.
  Like the bills introduced in past Congresses, this bill also 
authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law 
enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to 
conduct training of police officers or purchase in-car video cameras.
  This year's bill makes one significant improvement to ERPA. In past 
proposals, DOJ grants for State, local, and

[[Page S13805]]

tribal law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some 
kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. This 
year, at the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill requires law 
enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint 
procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ 
grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out 
the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We 
believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many 
local law enforcement agencies. And such programs have proven to be an 
effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, under this year's 
bill, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year 
demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data 
collection.
  Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement 
agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and 
protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law 
enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and 
without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and 
dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of 
those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us every day. 
Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or 
national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic 
stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong 
and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking 
persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin 
to a crime.
  The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and 
confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to 
serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in 
stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act 
of 2005 is good for law enforcement and good for America.
  I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial 
profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End 
Racial Profiling Act of 2005.
  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. 2138

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``End Racial 
     Profiling Act of 2005'' or ``ERPA''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings, purposes, and intent.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

Sec. 101. Prohibition.
Sec. 102. Enforcement.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 201. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.

TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND 
                 INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Sec. 301. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 302. Administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor 
              program required for grants.
Sec. 303. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 304. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 305. Best practices development grants.
Sec. 306. Authorization of appropriations.

                       TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION

Sec. 401. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 402. Publication of data.
Sec. 403. Limitations on publication of data.

   TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                     PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 501. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Savings clause.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND INTENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal, State, and local law enforcement agents play a 
     vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting 
     the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law 
     enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties 
     professionally and without bias.
       (2) The use by police officers of race, ethnicity, national 
     origin, or religion in deciding which persons should be 
     subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, 
     searches, and seizures is improper.
       (3) In his address to a joint session of Congress on 
     February 27, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that 
     ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.''. 
     He directed the Attorney General to implement this policy.
       (4) In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued a Policy 
     Guidance regarding racial profiling by Federal law 
     enforcement agencies which stated: ``Racial profiling in law 
     enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-
     based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative 
     racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse 
     democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a 
     fair and just society.''.
       (5) The Department of Justice Guidance is a useful first 
     step, but does not achieve the President's stated goal of 
     ending racial profiling in America, as--
       (A) it does not apply to State and local law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (B) it does not contain a meaningful enforcement mechanism;
       (C) it does not require data collection; and
       (D) it contains an overbroad exception for immigration and 
     national security matters.
       (6) Current efforts by State and local governments to 
     eradicate racial profiling and redress the harms it causes, 
     while also laudable, have been limited in scope and 
     insufficient to address this national problem. Therefore, 
     Federal legislation is needed.
       (7) Statistical evidence from across the country 
     demonstrates that racial profiling is a real and measurable 
     phenomenon.
       (8) As of November 15, 2000, the Department of Justice had 
     14 publicly noticed, ongoing, pattern or practice 
     investigations involving allegations of racial profiling and 
     had filed 5 pattern or practice lawsuits involving 
     allegations of racial profiling, with 4 of those cases 
     resolved through consent decrees.
       (9) A large majority of individuals subjected to stops and 
     other enforcement activities based on race, ethnicity, 
     national origin, or religion are found to be law abiding and 
     therefore racial profiling is not an effective means to 
     uncover criminal activity.
       (10) A 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police 
     contacts that occurred in 1999, found that, although Blacks 
     and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, 
     they were less likely to be in possession of contraband. On 
     average, searches and seizures of Black drivers yielded 
     evidence only 8 percent of the time, searches and seizures of 
     Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 percent of the 
     time, and searches and seizures of White drivers yielded 
     evidence 17 percent of the time.
       (11) A 2000 General Accounting Office report on the 
     activities of the United States Customs Service during fiscal 
     year 1998 found that--
       (A) Black women who were United States citizens were 9 
     times more likely than White women who were United States 
     citizens to be x-rayed after being frisked or patted down;
       (B) Black women who were United States citizens were less 
     than half as likely as White women who were United States 
     citizens to be found carrying contraband; and
       (C) in general, the patterns used to select passengers for 
     more intrusive searches resulted in women and minorities 
     being selected at rates that were not consistent with the 
     rates of finding contraband.
       (12) A 2005 report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 
     the Department of Justice on citizen-police contacts that 
     occurred in 2002, found that, although Whites, Blacks, and 
     Hispanics were stopped by the police at the same rate--
       (A) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be 
     arrested than Whites;
       (B) Hispanics were much more likely to be ticketed than 
     Blacks or Whites;
       (C) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to report 
     the use or threatened use of force by a police officer;
       (D) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to be 
     handcuffed than Whites; and
       (E) Blacks and Hispanics were much more likely to have 
     their vehicles searched than Whites.
       (13) In some jurisdictions, local law enforcement 
     practices, such as ticket and arrest quotas and similar 
     management practices, may have the unintended effect of 
     encouraging law enforcement agents to engage in racial 
     profiling.
       (14) Racial profiling harms individuals subjected to it 
     because they experience fear, anxiety, humiliation, anger, 
     resentment, and cynicism when they are unjustifiably treated 
     as criminal suspects. By discouraging individuals from 
     traveling freely, racial profiling impairs both interstate 
     and intrastate commerce.
       (15) Racial profiling damages law enforcement and the 
     criminal justice system as a whole by undermining public 
     confidence and trust in the police, the courts, and the 
     criminal law.
       (16) In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
     attacks, many Arabs, Muslims, Central and South Asians, and 
     Sikhs, as well as other immigrants and Americans of foreign 
     descent, were treated with generalized

[[Page S13806]]

     suspicion and subjected to searches and seizures based upon 
     religion and national origin, without trustworthy information 
     linking specific individuals to criminal conduct. Such 
     profiling has failed to produce tangible benefits, yet has 
     created a fear and mistrust of law enforcement agencies in 
     these communities.
       (17) Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause 
     of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States. Using race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin 
     as a proxy for criminal suspicion violates the constitutional 
     requirement that police and other government officials accord 
     to all citizens the equal protection of the law. Batson v. 
     Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 
     (1984).
       (18) Racial profiling is not adequately addressed through 
     suppression motions in criminal cases for 2 reasons. First, 
     the Supreme Court held, in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 
     806 (1996), that the racially discriminatory motive of a 
     police officer in making an otherwise valid traffic stop does 
     not warrant the suppression of evidence under the fourth 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Second, 
     since most stops do not result in the discovery of 
     contraband, there is no criminal prosecution and no evidence 
     to suppress.
       (19) A comprehensive national solution is needed to address 
     racial profiling at the Federal, State, and local levels. 
     Federal support is needed to combat racial profiling through 
     specialized training of law enforcement agents, improved 
     management systems, and the acquisition of technology such as 
     in-car video cameras.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to enforce the constitutional right to equal protection 
     of the laws, pursuant to the fifth amendment and section 5 of 
     the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States;
       (2) to enforce the constitutional right to protection 
     against unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the 
     fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States;
       (3) to enforce the constitutional right to interstate 
     travel, pursuant to section 2 of article IV of the 
     Constitution of the United States; and
       (4) to regulate interstate commerce, pursuant to clause 3 
     of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (c) Intent.--This Act is not intended to and should not 
     impede the ability of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement to protect the country and its people from any 
     threat, be it foreign or domestic.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means 
     any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds 
     made available under--
       (A) the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Program (part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3750 et seq.));
       (B) the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
     Program, as described in appropriations Acts; and
       (C) the ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), but not including any program, 
     project, or other activity specified in section 1701(d)(8) of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)(8)).
       (2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body'' 
     means any department, agency, special purpose district, or 
     other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian 
     tribal government.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603)).
       (4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or 
     investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws.
       (5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agent'' means any Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal 
     official responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or 
     customs laws, including police officers and other agents of a 
     law enforcement agency.
       (6) Racial profiling.--The term ``racial profiling'' means 
     the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to 
     any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion 
     in selecting which individual to subject to routine or 
     spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the 
     scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the 
     initial investigatory procedure, except when there is 
     trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and 
     timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified 
     criminal incident or scheme.
       (7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The 
     term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities'' 
     means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
       (A) Interviews.
       (B) Traffic stops.
       (C) Pedestrian stops.
       (D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
       (E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons or 
     possessions (including vehicles) of motorists or pedestrians.
       (F) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United 
     States that are more extensive than those customarily carried 
     out.
       (G) Immigration related workplace investigations.
       (H) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled 
     by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice 
     Departments Bureau of Justice Statistics.
       (8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request'' 
     means all requests for information, except for those that--
       (A) are immaterial to the investigation;
       (B) would result in the unnecessary exposure of personal 
     information; or
       (C) would place a severe burden on the resources of the law 
     enforcement agency given its size.
       (9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means--
       (A) any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, 
     village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a 
     State;
       (B) any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement 
     district that--
       (i) is established under applicable State law; and
       (ii) has the authority to, in a manner independent of other 
     State entities, establish a budget and impose taxes;
       (C) any Indian tribe that performs law enforcement 
     functions, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or
       (D) for the purposes of assistance eligibility, any agency 
     of the government of the District of Columbia or the Federal 
     Government that performs law enforcement functions in and 
     for--
       (i) the District of Columbia; or
       (ii) any Trust Territory of the United States.

                TITLE I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION.

       No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall 
     engage in racial profiling.

     SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by 
     racial profiling, may enforce this title in a civil action 
     for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State 
     court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the 
     United States.
       (b) Parties.--In any action brought under this title, 
     relief may be obtained against--
       (1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement 
     agent who engaged in racial profiling;
       (2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling; 
     and
       (3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
       (c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous 
     investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a 
     jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on racial, ethnic, 
     or religious minorities shall constitute prima facie evidence 
     of a violation of this title.
       (d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to 
     enforce this title against any governmental unit, the court 
     may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United 
     States, reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and 
     may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.

    TITLE II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW 
                          ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 201. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.

       (a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
       (1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--
       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal 
     law enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
       (4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law 
     enforcement agents;
       (5) policies requiring that appropriate action be taken 
     when law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in 
     racial profiling; and
       (6) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.

TITLE III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE, LOCAL, AND 
                 INDIAN TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

     SEC. 301. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--An application by a State, a unit of local 
     government, or a State, local, or Indian tribal law 
     enforcement agency for funding under a covered program shall 
     include a certification that such State, unit of local 
     government, or law enforcement agency, and any law 
     enforcement agency to which it will distribute funds--
       (1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to 
     eliminate racial profiling; and
       (2) does not engage in any existing practices that permit 
     racial profiling.
       (b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall include--

[[Page S13807]]

       (1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
       (2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law 
     enforcement training;
       (3) the collection of data in accordance with the 
     regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 401;
       (4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law 
     enforcement agents, including procedures that allow a 
     complaint to be made through any of the methods described in 
     section 302(b)(2);
       (5) mechanisms for providing information to the public 
     relating to the administrative complaint procedure or 
     independent auditor program established under section 302;
       (6) policies requiring that appropriate action be taken 
     when law enforcement agents are determined to have engaged in 
     racial profiling; and
       (7) such other policies or procedures that the Attorney 
     General deems necessary to eliminate racial profiling.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OR INDEPENDENT 
                   AUDITOR PROGRAM REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.

       (a) Establishment of Administrative Complaint Procedure or 
     Independent Auditor Program.--An application by a State or 
     unit of local government for funding under a covered program 
     shall include a certification that the applicant has 
     established and is maintaining, for each law enforcement 
     agency of the applicant, either--
       (1) an administrative complaint procedure that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (b); or
       (2) an independent auditor program that meets the 
     requirements of subsection (c).
       (b) Requirements for Administrative Complaint Procedure.--
     To meet the requirements of this subsection, an 
     administrative complaint procedure shall--
       (1) allow any person who believes there has been a 
     violation of section 101 to file a complaint;
       (2) allow a complaint to be made--
       (A) in writing or orally;
       (B) in person or by mail, telephone, facsimile, or 
     electronic mail; and
       (C) anonymously or through a third party;
       (3) require that the complaint be investigated and heard by 
     an independent review board that--
       (A) is located outside of any law enforcement agency or the 
     law office of the State or unit of local government;
       (B) includes, as at least a majority of its members, 
     individuals who are not employees of the State or unit of 
     local government;
       (C) does not include as a member any individual who is then 
     serving as a law enforcement agent;
       (D) possesses the power to request all relevant information 
     from a law enforcement agency; and
       (E) possesses staff and resources sufficient to perform the 
     duties assigned to the independent review board under this 
     subsection;
       (4) provide that the law enforcement agency shall comply 
     with all reasonable requests for information in a timely 
     manner;
       (5) require the review board to inform the Attorney General 
     when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a request 
     for information under this subsection;
       (6) provide that a hearing be held, on the record, at the 
     request of the complainant;
       (7) provide for an appropriate remedy, and publication of 
     the results of the inquiry by the review board, if the review 
     board determines that a violation of section 101 has 
     occurred;
       (8) provide that the review board shall dismiss the 
     complaint and publish the results of the inquiry by the 
     review board, if the review board determines that no 
     violation has occurred;
       (9) provide that the review board shall make a final 
     determination with respect to a complaint in a reasonably 
     timely manner;
       (10) provide that a record of all complaints and 
     proceedings be sent to the Civil Rights Division and the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
       (11) provide that no published information shall reveal the 
     identity of the law enforcement officer, the complainant, or 
     any other individual who is involved in a detention; and
       (12) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with 
     regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section 
     303.
       (c) Requirements for Independent Auditor Program.--To meet 
     the requirements of this subsection, an independent auditor 
     program shall--
       (1) provide for the appointment of an independent auditor 
     who is not a sworn officer or employee of a law enforcement 
     agency;
       (2) provide that the independent auditor be given staff and 
     resources sufficient to perform the duties of the independent 
     auditor program under this section;
       (3) provide that the independent auditor be given full 
     access to all relevant documents and data of a law 
     enforcement agency;
       (4) require the independent auditor to inform the Attorney 
     General when a law enforcement agency fails to comply with a 
     request for information under this subsection;
       (5) require the independent auditor to issue a public 
     report each year that--
       (A) addresses the efforts of each law enforcement agency of 
     the State or unit of local government to combat racial 
     profiling; and
       (B) recommends any necessary changes to the policies and 
     procedures of any law enforcement agency;
       (6) require that each law enforcement agency issue a public 
     response to each report issued by the auditor under paragraph 
     (5);
       (7) provide that the independent auditor, upon determining 
     that a law enforcement agency is not in compliance with this 
     Act, shall forward the public report directly to the Attorney 
     General;
       (8) provide that the independent auditor shall engage in 
     community outreach on racial profiling issues; and
       (9) otherwise operate in a manner consistent with 
     regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under section 
     303.
       (d) Local Use of State Complaint Procedure or Independent 
     Auditor Program.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall permit a unit of local 
     government within its borders to use the administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program it 
     establishes under this section.
       (2) Effect of use.--A unit of local government shall be 
     deemed to have established and maintained an administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program for 
     purposes of this section if the unit of local government uses 
     the administrative complaint procedure or independent auditor 
     program of either the State in which it is located, or 
     another unit of local government in the State in which it is 
     located.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall go into effect 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 303. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders, 
     including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies 
     and community, professional, research, and civil rights 
     organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations 
     for the operation of the administrative complaint procedures 
     and independent auditor programs required under subsections 
     (b) and (c) of section 302.
       (2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness, 
     effectiveness, and independence of the administrative 
     complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.
       (b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that 
     the recipient of any covered grant is not in compliance with 
     the requirements of section 301 or 302 or the regulations 
     issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall 
     withhold, in whole or in part, funds for 1 or more covered 
     grants, until the grantee establishes compliance.
       (c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     notice and an opportunity for private parties to present 
     evidence to the Attorney General that a grantee is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of this title.

     SEC. 304. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, through 
     competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year 
     demonstration project for the purpose of developing and 
     implementing data collection on hit rates for stops and 
     searches. The data shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, 
     national origin, and religion.
       (b) Competitive Awards.--The Attorney General shall provide 
     not more than 5 grants or contracts to police departments 
     that--
       (1) are not already collecting data voluntarily or 
     otherwise; and
       (2) serve communities where there is a significant 
     concentration of racial or ethnic minorities.
       (c) Required Activities.--Activities carried out under 
     subsection (b) shall include--
       (1) developing a data collection tool;
       (2) training of law enforcement personnel on data 
     collection;
       (3) collecting data on hit rates for stops and searches; 
     and
       (4) reporting the compiled data to the Attorney General.
       (d) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into 
     a contract with an institution of higher education to analyze 
     the data collected by each of the 5 sites funded under this 
     section.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out activities under this 
     section--
       (1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period for a demonstration 
     project on 5 sites; and
       (2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation in subsection (d).

     SEC. 305. BEST PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General, through the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance, may make grants to States, law 
     enforcement agencies, and units of local government to 
     develop and implement best practice devices and systems to 
     eliminate racial profiling.
       (b) Use of Funds.--The funds provided under subsection (a) 
     may be used for--
       (1) the development and implementation of training to 
     prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful 
     interaction with the public;
       (2) the acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the 
     collection of data regarding routine investigatory activities 
     sufficient to permit an analysis of these activities by race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, and religion;
       (3) the analysis of data collected by law enforcement 
     agencies to determine whether

[[Page S13808]]

     the data indicate the existence of racial profiling;
       (4) the acquisition and use of technology to verify the 
     accuracy of data collection, including in-car video cameras 
     and portable computer systems;
       (5) the development and acquisition of early warning 
     systems and other feedback systems that help identify 
     officers or units of officers engaged in, or at risk of 
     engaging in, racial profiling or other misconduct, including 
     the technology to support such systems;
       (6) the establishment or improvement of systems and 
     procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding 
     meaningfully to complaints alleging racial, ethnic, or 
     religious bias by law enforcement agents;
       (7) the establishment or improvement of management systems 
     to ensure that supervisors are held accountable for the 
     conduct of their subordinates; and
       (8) the establishment and maintenance of an administrative 
     complaint procedure or independent auditor program under 
     section 302.
       (c) Equitable Distribution.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure that grants under this section are awarded in a manner 
     that reserves an equitable share of funding for small and 
     rural law enforcement agencies.
       (d) Application.--Each State, local law enforcement agency, 
     or unit of local government desiring a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this title.

                       TITLE IV--DATA COLLECTION

     SEC. 401. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies and community, professional, research, 
     and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for 
     the collection and compilation of data under sections 201 and 
     301.
       (b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) provide for the collection of data on all routine or 
     spontaneous investigatory activities;
       (2) provide that the data collected shall--
       (A) be collected by race, ethnicity, national origin, 
     gender, and religion, as perceived by the law enforcement 
     officer;
       (B) include the date, time, and location of the 
     investigatory activities; and
       (C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of 
     whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial 
     profiling;
       (3) provide that a standardized form shall be made 
     available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of 
     collected data to the Department of Justice;
       (4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile 
     data on the standardized form created under paragraph (3), 
     and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice;
       (5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain 
     all data collected under this Act for not less than 4 years;
       (6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks, 
     consistent with best practices, against which collected data 
     shall be measured; and
       (7) provide that the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall--
       (A) analyze the data for any statistically significant 
     disparities, including--
       (i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians 
     stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing 
     through the neighborhood;
       (ii) disparities in the percentage of false stops relative 
     to the percentage of drivers or pedestrians stopped; and
       (iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on 
     minority drivers and the frequency of searches performed on 
     non-minority drivers; and
       (B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, prepare a report regarding 
     the findings of the analysis conducted under subparagraph (A) 
     and provide the report to Congress and make the report 
     available to the public, including on a website of the 
     Department of Justice.

     SEC. 402. PUBLICATION OF DATA.

       The Bureau of Justice Statistics shall provide to Congress 
     and make available to the public, together with each annual 
     report described in section 401, the data collected pursuant 
     to this Act.

     SEC. 403. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.

       The name or identifying information of a law enforcement 
     officer, complainant, or any other individual involved in any 
     activity for which data is collected and compiled under this 
     Act shall not be--
       (1) released to the public;
       (2) disclosed to any person, except for such disclosures as 
     are necessary to comply with this Act;
       (3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code (commonly know as the Freedom of 
     Information Act).

   TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL 
                     PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES

     SEC. 501. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.

       (a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required 
     under sections 303 and 401, the Attorney General shall issue 
     such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are 
     necessary to implement this Act.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling 
     by law enforcement agencies.
       (2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a summary of data collected under sections 201(b)(3) 
     and 301(b)(1)(C) and from any other reliable source of 
     information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
       (B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report 
     prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics under section 
     401(a)(8);
       (C) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies 
     under section 201;
       (D) the status of the adoption and implementation of 
     policies and procedures by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies under sections 301 and 302; and
       (E) a description of any other policies and procedures that 
     the Attorney General believes would facilitate the 
     elimination of racial profiling.

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the 
     application of the provisions of this Act to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 602. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit legal or 
     administrative remedies under section 1979 of the Revised 
     Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983), section 
     210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), and title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to in support of the End Racial 
Profiling Act a bill being introduced today by Senators Feingold, Obama 
and myself. This bill addresses an issue that is critical to the people 
of my home State of New Jersey and to all Americans.
  I start by recognizing two of my colleagues with whom I have been 
working to address the problem of racial profiling. Senator Russ 
Feingold has been a tremendous leader on this issue he held the first 
Senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001, and he and his staff have 
worked tirelessly to elevate the importance of this issue as a matter 
of civil rights. I also want to recognize Senator Obama he has been a 
constant champion of efforts to combat racial profiling. Senator Obama 
took the lead in writing one of the Nation's most innovative pieces of 
legislation on the collection of racial profiling data when he was in 
the Illinois State Senate, and he has been equally committed to the 
issue since joining the U.S. Senate. Both Senators Feingold and Obama 
have worked tirelessly to make the bill we are introducing today a 
reality.
  Racial profiling is anathema to the principles on which our Nation 
was founded, sowing division within our communities and striking at the 
heart of our democratic values.
  Stopping people on our highways, our streets, and at our borders 
because of the color of their skin is simply wrong, and it is 
incompatible with the fundamental American belief in fairness, justice, 
and equal protection under the law.
  Every American is entitled to equal protection under the law. Our 
Constitution tolerates nothing less, and we should demand nothing less.
  There is no equal protection there is no equal justice if law 
enforcement agencies engage in policies and practices that are premised 
on a theory that the way to stop crime is to go after minorities on the 
hunch that they are more likely to be criminals.
  Let me add that not only is racial profiling wrong, it is simply not 
an effective law enforcement tool. There is no evidence that stopping 
people of color adds up to catching the ``bad guys.''
  In fact, empirical evidence shows that singling out Black motorists 
or Hispanic motorists for stops and searches doesn't lead to a higher 
percentage of arrests because minority motorists are no more likely to 
break the law than white motorists.
  What is more, the practice of racial profiling actually undermines 
public

[[Page S13809]]

safety, by contributing to the perception in minority neighborhoods 
that the criminal justice system is unfair, and eroding the trust 
between communities and the police that is so essential to effective 
law enforcement.
  Nonetheless, racial profiling persists.
  Unfortunately, the practice is real and widespread throughout the 
Nation.
  A 2005 report of the Department of Justice found that Blacks and 
Hispanics throughout the Nation were much more likely to be handcuffed 
and have their cars searched by law enforcement during traffic stops, 
even though they were less likely to be harboring contraband.
  A Government Accountability Office report on the U.S. Customs Service 
released in March 2000 found that Black, Asian, and Hispanic women were 
four to nine times more likely than White women to be subjected to 
xrays after being frisked or patted down.
  But on the basis of the xray results, Black women were less than half 
as likely as White women to be found carrying contraband.
  This is law enforcement by hunch. No warrants. No probable cause.
  And what is the hunch based on?
  Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion plain and simple. And 
that is plain wrong.
  Now--we know that many law enforcement agencies, including some from 
my home state, have acknowledged the danger of the practice and have 
taken steps to combat it. I commend them for their efforts.
  That said, it is clear that this is a national problem that requires 
a Federal response applicable to all.
  Our legislation is a strong but measured response to the destructive 
problem of racial profiling.
  First, it defines racial profiling and bans it.
  Racial profiling is defined in the bill to include routine or 
spontaneous investigatory stops based on race, ethnicity, national 
origin, or religion. This conduct is wrong and must be stopped. The 
President and the Attorney General have said just that. The legislation 
would be the first Federal statute to prohibit this practice at the 
Federal, State, and local level.
  To guarantee that the statute does not impede legitimate and 
responsible policing, the statute is careful to exclude from the ban on 
racial profiling those cases where there is trustworthy information 
that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, 
or religion to a particular crime.
  Our bill also gives the ban on racial profiling teeth by allowing the 
Department of Justice or an individual harmed by racial profiling to 
obtain declaratory or injunctive relief from a court if the Government 
does not take steps to end racial profiling.
  Next, the statute will require the collection of statistical data to 
measure whether progress is being made. By collecting this data we will 
get a fair and honest picture of law enforcement at work. And we will 
provide law enforcement agencies with the information they need to 
detect problems early on.
  Our bill directs the Attorney General to develop standards for data 
collection and instructs the Attorney General to consult with law 
enforcement and other stakeholders in developing those standards. It 
also specifically directs the Attorney General to establish standards 
for setting benchmarks against which the collected data should be 
measured so that no data is taken out of context, as some in law 
enforcement rightly fear. Finally, we will require the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics in the Department of Justice to analyze these 
statistics on an annual basis so that the Nation can gauge the success 
of its efforts to combat this corrosive practice.
  Finally, we will encourage a change in law enforcement culture 
through the use of the carrot and the stick.
  First, the carrot: We recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be 
expected to do this alone. So this bill says that if you do the job 
right fairly and equitably you are eligible to receive development 
grants to help pay for the following: Advanced training programs; 
computer technology to help collect data and statistics; video cameras 
and recorders for patrol cars; establishing or improving systems for 
handling complaints alleging ethnic or racial profiling; and 
establishing management systems to ensure that supervisors are held 
accountable for the conduct of subordinates.
  Further, we will direct the Attorney General to conduct a 
demonstration project that will give grants to police departments to 
help them collect racial profiling data and then work with an 
institution of higher learning to analyze the collect data.
  But if law enforcement agencies don't do the job right, there is also 
the stick. Our bill will require law enforcement agencies to put in 
place procedures to receive and investigate complaints alleging racial 
profiling. The bill gives the law enforcement agencies the flexibility 
and the options to adopt the procedures that best fit the needs of 
their local communities. Further, the bill permits localities to 
cooperate with other communities and with the State in which they are 
located to develop shared procedures to invest racial profiling 
problems in the community.
  If State and local law enforcement agencies refuse to implement 
procedures to end and prevent profiling, they will be subject to a loss 
of Federal law enforcement funds.
  Let me be clear this bill is not about blaming law enforcement. Most 
law enforcement officers discharge their duties responsibly. But 
stopping people based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or 
religion will be outlawed.
  We have introduced two bills in the last 5 years to eliminate racial 
profiling. The President of the United States has condemned racial 
profiling in his State of the Union address. There is a broad and 
bipartisan consensus that it is an unfair and destructive practice. And 
yet we have failed to act.
  In the meantime, racial profiling has continued to breed humiliation, 
anger, resentment, and cynicism throughout this country.
  It has weakened respect for the law by everyone, not just those 
offended.
  Simply put it is wrong and we must finally end it. Today we pledge to 
do just that to define it, to ban it, and to enforce this ban.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 2139. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
simplify the earned income tax credit eligibility requirements 
regarding filing status, presence of children, investment income, and 
work and immigrant status; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act. This legislation will 
greatly improve one of our Nation's most important antipoverty programs 
and streamline one of the most complicated sections of our income tax 
code. And I am extremely pleased that my good friend from Maine, 
Senator Olympia Snowe, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this 
bill. I look forward to working with her, as members of the Senate 
Finance Committee, to enact this important tax simplification proposal.
  In 2003, almost 21 million hard-working Americans benefited from the 
earned income tax credit, including 141,707 in my own State of West 
Virginia. Many of those serving in our Armed Forces benefit from the 
EITC. The EITC rewards hard work and helps these families make ends 
meet. However, the eligibility criteria for claiming the credit are so 
complicated that many people legitimately entitled to benefit from the 
credit do not even realize it. And unfortunately, too many erroneous 
claims occur. The tax credit should not be so complicated that cash-
strapped families need the help of an accountant to file their taxes.
  The Earned Income Tax Credit Simplification Act would make four 
important changes to the eligibility requirements of the credit. First, 
it would simplify the ``abandoned spouse'' rule so that custodial 
parents who are separated but not divorced would be able to claim the 
credit. Second, it would allow a taxpayer living in the same house with 
a qualifying child but not claiming that child for the EITC benefit to 
qualify for EITC benefits available to taxpayers without children. 
Third, the bill would eliminate the qualifying investment income test 
for EITC claimants. Finally, the bill would make sure that only 
immigrants who comply with all of the immigration rules would qualify 
for the EITC, preventing people who are not allowed to

[[Page S13810]]

work in the United States from claiming the credit.
  These are commonsense reforms based on recommendations in the budget 
submitted to Congress by the Bush administration. I hope that they can 
be enacted quickly so that taxpayers whom Congress intended to help 
with the EITC will be able to claim the benefits without unnecessary 
and intimidating paperwork. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to enact this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      BY Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 2140. A bill to enhance protection of children from sexual 
exploitation by strengthening section 2257 of title 18, United States 
Code, requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep and 
permit inspection of records regarding the age of performers, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, joined by my friend from Kansas, Senator 
Brownback, I am today introducing the Protecting Children from Sexual 
Exploitation Act of 2005.
  This bill will strengthen an important tool for protecting children 
from the exploitation of child pornography.
  Pornography is devastating communities, families, and individual 
lives.
  On November 10, the Senator from Kansas chaired a hearing in the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution titled ``Why the Government 
Should Care About Pornography.''
  Witnesses at that hearing included authors and researchers 
documenting the devastation wrought by pornography.
  Children are pornography's most vulnerable and most devastated 
victims.
  Abusing children through early exposure to pornography has lifelong 
effects.
  Even worse, however, is the actual use of children to make sexually 
explicit material.
  This is perhaps the worst form of sexual exploitation because the 
abuse only begins with its production.
  Children lack the maturity to choose participation in that activity 
and to accept its aftermath.
  Everyone who intentionally copies, distributes, advertises, 
purchases, or consumes sexually explicit material involving children 
should be held responsible as part of the ongoing chain of 
exploitation.
  For this compelling reason, Federal law prohibits using children to 
produce visual depictions of either actual or simulated sexually 
explicit conduct.
  As an additional deterrent to this abhorrent practice, Federal law 
also requires those who produce sexually explicit material to keep 
records regarding the age of performers and to make those records 
available for inspection.
  That recordkeeping statute is found in the United States Code in 
section 2257 of title 18.
  Section 2257 is inadequate for its crucial task and the bill I 
introduce today strengthens it in four ways.
  First, section 2257 defines actual sexually explicit conduct too 
narrowly, incorporating only four of the five. part definition found 
right next door in the definitional section 2256.
  Our bill makes these definitions consistent.
  Second, and more importantly, while Federal law prohibits using 
children to make depictions of either actual or simulated sexually 
explicit conduct, section 2257 applies only to those who produce 
depictions of actual conduct.
  Our bill applies the same recordkeeping requirements to those who 
produce depictions of simulated conduct.
  The purpose is obvious.
  If you produce sexually explicit material, you have to keep age-
related records.
  Period.
  Third, while section 2257 requires maintaining records and making 
them available for inspection, it only makes unlawful failure to 
maintain the records.
  This implies that while making these important records available for 
inspection is a duty, refusing to do so is not a crime.
  Our bill corrects that error by explicitly stating that refusal to 
permit inspection of these records is also a crime.
  Eliminating such ambiguity is very important.
  Maintaining records is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that 
children are not being exploited.
  Because inspection of those records makes the circle of protection 
complete, we must make crystal clear that refusal to permit inspections 
is a crime.
  Fourth, the definition in section 2257 of what it means to produce 
sexually explicit material is inadequate.
  That definition must be guided by the nature of the harm that flows 
from this kind of sexual exploitation.
  Filming or taking a picture of a child engaged in sexually explicit 
conduct is certainly sexual exploitation by itself.
  But the abuse does not end there.
  Those whose actions constitute links in the chain of exploitation 
must be covered by this recordkeeping statute if it is to be an 
effective tool to protect children.
  My friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback, graciously allowed me to 
participate in the latest hearing in his subcommittee on the effects of 
pornography.
  Witnesses highlighted how new technology can magnify those effects.
  While the Internet can be a powerful tool for good, it can also be an 
insidious tool for evil.
  It can compound the sexual exploitation of children by disseminating 
and commercializing child pornography.
  And while we all know how difficult it is for sound public policy to 
keep pace with developing and changing technology, failing to do so in 
this area leaves children even more exposed to ongoing victimization 
and exploitation.
  For that reason, our bill provides both a substantive definition of 
that important term, ``produces,'' and lists five targeted exceptions, 
five specific categories of those who are not included in this 
definition.
  The definition includes obvious activities such as filming or 
photographing someone but also activities such as duplicating or 
reissuing images for commercial distribution.
  It also includes managing the sexually explicit content of a computer 
site.
  At the same time, our bill does not include in the definition of the 
term ``produces'' activities that do not involve the hiring, managing, 
or arranging for the performers' participation.
  It exempts provision of Web-hosting services when the provider does 
not manage sexually explicit content.
  In strengthening section 2257, the bill we are introducing today 
meets three important objectives.
  First and foremost, this bill will make the recordkeeping statute a 
more effective tool for protecting children from sexual exploitation.
  Second, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute while 
minimizing unintended consequences.
  I mentioned the care with which our bill defines key terms such as 
``produces.''
  Our bill also places the extension of recordkeeping requirements 
regarding depictions of simulated material in a separate section 2257A.
  This step responded to a legitimate concern by the motion picture 
industry.
  Third, our bill strengthens the recordkeeping statute in ways that 
make it a more workable and practical tool for the prosecutors who have 
to use it.
  I believe that as the Congress deals with this difficult issue, we 
must keep all three of these objectives in mind.
  Some might want to create a draconian statute that sweeps too 
broadly.
  Others may want to water down the statute in ways that create 
obstacles for prosecutors and make the statute ineffective.
  My bill strengthens this important tool for protecting children 
without sweeping too broadly and without needlessly hobbling 
prosecutors.
  Finally, let me say just a few things about the process leading up to 
introduction of this bill today.
  Two versions of this bill have been introduced in the other body, 
most recently last week as title VI of H.R.4472, the Children's Safety 
and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005.
  Representatives of the motion picture industry and Internet companies 
have been working with us to refine this legislation.
  I also commend my colleagues in the House, Representative Mike Pence 
and Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, for their leadership on this issue.
  In addition, the Department of Justice has provided valuable input in 
this

[[Page S13811]]

process. I applaud Attorney General Gonzales for making the prosecution 
of obscenity, child pornography, and other forms of child exploitation 
a real priority.
  I understand that the Attorney General today announced arrests in 
several States as part of its Innocence Lost initiative against child 
prostitution.
  I want to be very clear here.
  Those who produce either actual or simulated sexually explicit 
material are breaking the law if that material depicts children.
  The primary goal of protecting those children from such exploitation 
requires that all producers of sexually explicit material must keep 
age-related records, make those records available for inspection, and 
face criminal penalties if they refuse.
  We have taken several concrete steps to respond to legitimate 
concerns from the motion picture industry and Internet companies.
  We have already modified our bill several times and in several ways 
as a response to our meetings with the Department of Justice and 
affected parties.
  We remain open to making further refinements in this language if it 
will strengthen the bill.
  But that process of compromise must stop if it undermines the primary 
objective of protecting children from sexual exploitation or begins to 
make the statute unenforceable or feckless.
  I hope that those who are affected by this legislation and have 
participated in helping us craft this bill will demonstrate their 
concern for protecting children by supporting this straighforward and 
commonsense bill.
  Again, I want to thank my friend from Kansas for joining me in 
cosponsoring this bill and for his efforts in this area.
  I hope all my colleagues will join us in strengthening this tool for 
protecting children.
                                  ____

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Utah for 
helping lead the fight against child pornography. This is an issue upon 
which all Senators can unite, and it is a battle we must not lose.
  Pornography is no longer isolated to a small segment of society. It 
has pervaded our culture. As we learned in a recent hearing I chaired 
in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 
Property Rights, pornography has infiltrated homes and families and is 
having devastating effects. According to recent reports, 1 in 5 
children between the ages of 10 and 17 have received a sexual 
solicitation over the Internet, and 9 out of 10 children between the 
ages of 8 and 16 who have Internet access have viewed porn Web sites, 
usually in the course of looking up information for homework.
  Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the pornography epidemic is child 
pornography. Children as young as 5 years old are being used for profit 
in this fast-growing industry. We have a duty to protect the weakest 
members of our society from exploitation and abuse. I believe this bill 
is the first step in that fight.
  First, this bill will expand recordkeeping requirements to those who 
produce soft-core, or simulated, pornography. Current law only requires 
that records be kept by producers of hardcore, or actual, pornography. 
Under this language, producers will now be required to verify the ages 
of their actors and keep records of such information, regardless of 
whether the material they produce contains actual sexual activity or 
only a simulation of such activity. Further, this bill will require 
producers of such materials to disclose such records to the Attorney 
General for inspection. It will make refusal to permit inspection of 
such records a crime. This will be effective not only as a tool in 
prosecutions as a means of deterrence. Producers will be less likely to 
use child actors if they know they may be required to disclose the ages 
of their actors.
  Today, recordkeeping requirements apply only to ``actual'' sexual 
conduct, leaving a loophole for soft-core pornography. Such material is 
no less damaging to children than hardcore pornography and 
recordkeeping and disclosure requirements must apply to this material 
as well. This bill will close the current loophole.
  Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch, and I hope my 
colleagues will join us passing this legislation to protect children 
from victimization and abuse.

                          ____________________