[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 20 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1415-S1436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2293. A bill to authorize a military construction project for the
construction of an advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army
Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President I am reminded daily of the sacrifice of the
men and women of this country who serve or have loved ones who serve in
our armed forces. As a Tennessean I often think of the courage and
honor displayed by members of the 101st Airborne out of Fort Campbell
and the many Guardsmen and Reservists from my State who have served in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. These soldiers, many of whom call Tennessee
home, make great sacrifices for our Nation. I am saddened to think
about those who have been wounded in recent military operations and in
some cases are so severely injured that they require extensive medical
care, along with years of treatment and rehabilitation. Their future
quality of life and ability to provide for their families depends on
the treatment and rehabilitation they receive from the country they
have served.
As a physician I marvel at the great work of my colleagues in the
Armed Services Medical Commands who treat the most severely injured
military personnel. The use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq has
resulted in many injuries including amputations, head trauma, and in
some cases partial and full paralysis. We must meet the care and
rehabilitation needs of the soldiers who have sacrificed so much for
our country.
With this in mind I have joined with Senator Lieberman to sponsor a
bill to authorize the construction of a world-class state-of-the-art
advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army Medical Center. This
center will not only serve military personnel disabled in operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, but will also provide care to those severely
injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their
duties, both combat and non-combat related.
This center will provide necessary space and facilities for the
rehabilitation needs of the patients and their caregivers. It will be
constructed on a site sufficient in size to meet the needs of the
center's patients and caregivers and will include top of the line
indoor and outdoor facilities, a child care center, and other needed
support facilities. I am proud of the service of our military personnel
both past and present, and this new facility will go a long way in
helping to meet their needs both now and into the future.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2294. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the
coast of the State of California, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, with my friend and colleague from
California, Dianne Feinstein, I introduce the ``California Ocean and
Coastal Protection Act.'' This bill will permanently protect
California's coast from the dangers of new offshore drilling.
In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the
protection of our oceans and coastlines. Many years ago, my State
decided that the potential benefits that might be derived from future
offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying
our priceless coastal treasures. Regular chronic leakage associated
with normal oil and gas operations, as well as catastrophic spills such
as the horrific Santa Barbara rig blowout in 1969, irreparably
contaminate our ocean, beaches, and wetlands.
The beauty of California's coast is so important that California
passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil and gas exploration in
State waters in 1994. This protection is limited, however, to
California's territorial waters--only three nautical miles out from
shore.
The Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond
State waters to 200 nautical miles out, are increasingly at risk of
drilling. Despite years of bipartisan support for the moratoria on new
offshore drilling in Federal waters, recent efforts are threatening our
coasts. Some recent proposals would immediately lift the moratoria and
allow for drilling within 20 miles off our coasts. Last year's energy
bill included provisions to conduct
[[Page S1416]]
an inventory of oil and gas resources on the outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). This inventory would be performed with seismic guns that could
have devastating impacts on marine life.
Because of these threats, I am introducing legislation to provide
permanent protection for California's coast from future drilling. It
would also prohibit the harmful inventory of OCS resources from being
conducted off California's coast.
The people of California agree that we must do everything we can to
protect our coasts. This bill will finally provide the permanent
protection against future drilling that Californians have demanded for
a generation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator
Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil
and gas drilling.
We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil
spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying
ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to
permanently protect this treasure.
California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the
moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.
Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling
and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36
undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer
Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.
The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the
federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California
and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential
deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/
3/05.
That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently
protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.
California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of
California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the
Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing
any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas
leasing activities.
Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean
Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal
legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing
must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium
and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to
Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.
Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore
drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed
thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this
could happen again.
A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of
life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion
to California each year.
Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the
coast of California with the permanent protection needed.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2295. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
survey and monitoring of off-shore sites in the vicinity of the
Hawaiian Islands where chemical munitions were disposed of by the Army
Forces, to support research regarding the public and environmental
health impacts of chemical munitions disposal in the ocean, and to
require the preparation of a report on remediation plans for such
disposal sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed
to address the disposal of chemical weapons by the military from World
War II until 1970. A report titled, Off-Shore Disposal of Chemical
Agents and Weapons Conducted by the United States, lists possible sites
and types of munitions that may be found in Hawaii.
The Department of Defense has made tremendous strides in protecting
the health and welfare of our citizens. However, it still is working on
being better stewards of our environment. I am pleased the Army has
taken preliminary steps to investigate these munition disposal sites in
and around Hawaii. Given the health and safety threats that these
munitions may pose, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Army
will obtain a full accounting of the munitions found and the state of
their condition. Furthermore, it requires the Army to monitor these
areas for any health, safety, and environmental risks that these
weapons may pose. Lastly, and more important, the Army will provide a
report on remediation plans for these areas.
Sadly the issue of disposing hazardous ordnance and waste is not new
to the State of Hawaii. Our citizens are keenly aware of the dangers
that hazardous waste poses to the health and safety of the public and
the environment. In fact, Departments of Defense installations are
responsible for generating half of all hazardous waste in Hawaii. For
these reasons, it is important for Congress to send the right message,
specifically in this case, and ensure that the Army completes its
survey, monitors the sites, and provides a plan for remediation. I urge
my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to
ensure that, if the Department of Defense is responsible for disposing
of hazardous materials, wherever it may be, then it should be held
accountable for monitoring and providing a plan for remediation.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 2296. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration
of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a
document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of
Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the
internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics
lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will
propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all.
The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm
across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an
immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with
Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help
of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese
descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately
2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were
held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in
an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never
set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.
Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin
[[Page S1417]]
America, but some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American
country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to
present a passport.
When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin
Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps
in our country.
The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans.
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate,
intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because
this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to
fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include
in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin
Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would
give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2296
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 ``Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese
Descent Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in
December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
(1) During World War II, the United States--
(A) expanded its internment program and national security
investigations to conduct the program and investigations in
Latin America; and
(B) financed relocation to the United States, and
internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of
Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin
Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held
by Axis countries.
(2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held
in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps
operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from
1941 through 1948.
(3) Those men, women, and children either--
(A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment
by local police, and sent to the United States for
internment; or
(B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily
entered internment camps to remain with their arrested
husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
(4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans
of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the
individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department
of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American
countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior
to departure.
(5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American
internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and
treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal
aliens in United States custody who were subject to
deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United
States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese
descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United
States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin
America, detained in internment camps in the United States,
and in some cases, deported to Axis countries to enable the
United States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to
Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the Secretary
of War to prescribe military areas). Although the United
States program of interning Latin Americans of Japanese
descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive Order 9066,
an examination of that extraordinary program is necessary to
establish a complete account of Federal actions to detain and
intern civilians of enemy or foreign nationality,
particularly of Japanese descent. Although historical
documents relating to the program exist in distant archives,
the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians did not research those documents.
(8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a
group not covered by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50
U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.), which formally apologized and
provided compensation payments to former Japanese Americans
interned pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a
fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission
on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to
investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding
the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941
through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any,
based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and
new discoveries.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese descent (referred to in this Act as the
``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, who shall be appointed not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, of whom--
(1) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
(2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the House of Representatives and the
minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
(3) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro
tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the
Senate.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
(d) Meetings.--
(1) First meeting.--The President shall call the first
meeting of the Commission not later than the later of--
(A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation
making appropriations to carry out this Act.
(2) Subsequent meetings.--Except as provided in paragraph
(1), the Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(e) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall
elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its
members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve for
the life of the Commission.
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians
Act--
(A) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances
surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and
deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese
descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the
impact of those actions by the United States; and
(B) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to
review directives of the United States armed forces and the
Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in
internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries; and
(2) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on
preliminary findings by the original Commission and new
discoveries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
first meeting of the Commission pursuant to section 3(d)(1),
the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress,
which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation
conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations
described in subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the
Commission or such subcommittee or member considers
advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records,
[[Page S1418]]
correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and
materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or member
considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall
bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and
shall be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring such person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court
may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--Section 1821 of title 28,
United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or
subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission. The
per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid
from funds available to pay the expenses of the Commission.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Commission considers necessary to perform
its duties. Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the Commission.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may
be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to classification of positions
and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay
for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V
of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
(1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General
Services to procure necessary financial and administrative
services;
(2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and
property; and
(3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local
agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the
conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports,
and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report to Congress under
section 4(b).
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act for
fiscal year 2007.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2298. A bill to facilitate remediation of perchlorate
contamination in water sources in the State of California, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill
today to help California drinking water providers address the growing
problem of perchlorate contamination.
The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes
funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.
The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation
of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8
million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more
efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.
The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental
Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard
for perchlorate as soon as practicable.
The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel,
missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.
The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s.
Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced
in the country's rocket and missile inventories.
Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly
from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has
allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.
Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a
serious threat to public health.
Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid
gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production,
perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid
helps regulate metabolism.
Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of
perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper
development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate.
Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's
physical and mental development.
Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova,
CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered
perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern
California.
By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the
Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water
supplies of 12 States.
According to the California Department of Health Services at least
350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water
agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.
But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by
Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water
supplies of 35 States.
The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being
defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which
perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.
Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated
drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed
to at least trace levels of perchlorate.
In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the
results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food.
The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken
from 5 different States, including California.
The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken
from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also
contained perchlorate.
Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University
found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The
milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.
With such widespread contamination in my State and across the
country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the
most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant
women, and those with compromised immune systems.
Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are
facing. As the population grows, so do the
[[Page S1419]]
demands on our water supply. During times of drought, these demands are
particularly challenging.
States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are
increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with
perchlorate and other pollutants.
When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from
perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional
water agencies to fix.
These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering
drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these
challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department
activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.
Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of
releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.
I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the
cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a
handful of contaminated sites.
In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken
out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities
and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources,
often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly
perchlorate removal equipment.
This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for
perchlorate remediation projects.
Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35
States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.
I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would
address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that
those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this
issue.
Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In
the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to
establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate
in drinking water.
The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary
guideline for perchlorate.
Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public
Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action
Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18
parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5
parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per
billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part
per billion.
Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory
guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public
about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that
strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.
Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a
national standard for perchlorate.
This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to
remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by
providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.
To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our
water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation
solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for
grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient
perchlorate cleanup technologies.
It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public
health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should
promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the
timeline of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.
Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on
the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking
water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water
sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state
and throughout the West.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2298
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 ``California Perchlorate
Contamination Remediation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) because finite water sources in the United States are
stretched by regional drought conditions and increasing
demand for water supplies, there is increased need for safe
and dependable supplies of fresh water for drinking and
agricultural purposes;
(2) perchlorate, a naturally occurring and manmade compound
with commercial and national defense applications, is used
primarily in military munitions and rocket fuels, and also in
fireworks, road flares, blasting agents, and automobile
airbags;
(3) perchlorate has been detected in fresh water sources
intended for drinking water and agricultural use in 35 States
and the District of Columbia;
(4)(A) perchlorate has been detected in the food supply of
the United States; and
(B) many fruits and vegetables, including lettuce, wheat,
tomato, cucumber, and cantaloupe, contain at least trace
levels of perchlorate, as do wine, whiskey, soy milk, dairy
milk, and human breast milk; and
(5) if ingested in sufficient concentration and for
adequate duration, perchlorate may interfere with thyroid
metabolism, the effects of which may impair normal
development of the brain in fetuses, newborns, and children.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide grants for remediation of perchlorate
contamination of water sources and supplies (including
wellheads) in the State;
(2) to provide grants for research and development of
perchlorate remediation technologies; and
(3) to express the sense of Congress that the Administrator
should establish a national drinking water standard for
perchlorate.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) California water authority.--The term ``California
water authority'' means a public water district, public water
utility, public water planning agency, municipality, or
Indian tribe that is--
(A) located in a region identified under section
4(b)(3)(B); and
(B) in operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the California
Perchlorate Cleanup Fund established by section 4(a)(1).
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
SEC. 4. CALIFORNIA PERCHLORATE REMEDIATION GRANTS.
(a) Perchlorate Cleanup Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``California
Perchlorate Cleanup Fund'', consisting of--
(A) any amount appropriated to the Fund under section 7;
and
(B) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the
Fund under paragraph (3).
(2) Expenditures from fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), on receipt of
a request by the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer to the Administrator such amounts as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to provide grants
under subsections (b) and (c).
(B) Administrative expenses.--An amount not to exceed 0.4
percent of the amounts in the Fund may be used to pay the
administrative expenses necessary to carry out this
subsection.
(3) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(B) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
(C) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
(D) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(E) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
(b) Cleanup Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Administrator shall provide grants to California water
authorities, the total amount of which shall not exceed
$50,000,000, to pay the Federal share of the cost of
activities relating to cleanup of water sources and
[[Page S1420]]
supplies (including wellheads) in the State that are
contaminated by perchlorate.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an
activity described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50
percent.
(3) Eligibility; priority.--
(A) Eligibility.--A California water authority that the
Administrator determines to be responsible for perchlorate
contamination shall not be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection.
(B) Priority.--
(i) Activities.--In providing grants under this subsection,
the Administrator shall give priority to an activity for the
remediation of--
(I) drinking water contaminated with perchlorate;
(II) a water source with a high concentration of
perchlorate; or
(III) a water source that serves a large population that is
directly affected by perchlorate contamination.
(ii) Locations.--In providing grants under this subsection,
the Administrator shall give priority to an activity
described in clause (i) that is carried out in 1 or more of
the following regions in the State:
(I) The Santa Clara Valley.
(II) Regions within the natural watershed of the Santa Ana
River, including areas in Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
(III) The San Gabriel Valley.
(IV) Sacramento County.
(V) Any other region that has a damaged water source as a
result of perchlorate contamination, as determined by the
Administrator.
(c) Research and Development Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide grants,
the total amount of which shall not exceed $8,000,000, to
qualified non-Federal entities (as determined by the
Administrator) for use in carrying out research and
development of perchlorate remediation technologies.
(2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant
provided under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $1,000,000.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF ACT.
Nothing in this Act affects any authority or program of a
Federal or State agency in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator should
establish a national drinking water standard for perchlorate
that reflects all routes of exposure to perchlorate as soon
as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $58,000,000, to remain available until expended.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2299. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to restore Federal aid for the repair,
restoration, and replacement of private nonprofit educational
facilities that are damaged or destroyed by a major disaster; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise provide a bit of background
regarding legislation that I am introducing today. The bill that I am
sending to the desk would provide independent colleges and universities
with direct, immediate aid through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA. Additionally, the bill would assist the recovery of non-
profit education institutions from the extensive damage they sustain
during natural disasters.
During crises, the critical role that small colleges and universities
play in our communities is often overlooked or underestimated. In
Louisiana, many of our colleges and universities are not only important
in educating our students, but also in bolstering our economy.
In my home State, this legislation would benefit Delgado Community
College, Dillard University, Loyola University New Orleans, Nunez
Community College, Our Lady of Holy Cross College, Southern University
at New Orleans, Sowela Technical Community College, Tulane University
of Louisiana, University of New Orleans, McNeese State University and
Xavier University of Louisiana.
Under current law, ``education'' has been omitted from the list of
``critical services'' for which facility repair assistance can be
awarded directly and immediately. Until 2000, when Congress changed the
law, education was always eligible for direct FEMA assistance for
facility damages. This legislation simply restores education to its
rightful position as a recognized critical service.
This is the only place in Federal law governing disaster assistance
that makes this distinction between non-profit and public colleges and
universities. This equity must be restored. This legislation is not a
demand for the start of a new program, but the restoration of these
institutions long-held position under Federal law.
Recent media reports in the New York Times and USA Today have
featured stories depicting the massive backlog of applications for aid
options for those institutions not eligible for immediate, direct FEMA
assistance. When disasters strike these institutions, which often
already have limited resources, they incur an extensive range of costs
for which they cannot secure any immediate Federal reimbursement or
resources. These institutions cannot afford to lose a semester and
neither can their students. They should be able to go directly to FEMA
immediately, just as others do.
Congressman Kendrick Meek introduced a companion bill, H.R. 4517, in
December and I look forward to working with him on this legislation.
Our colleges and universities are something we cannot afford to ignore
and they are vital to rebuilding the State of Louisiana. I hope that my
colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation
to support our colleges and universities in this time of need.
______
Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Lott):
S. 2300. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to market exclusivity for certain drugs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower
PRICED Drugs Act. I want to thank Senator Trent Lott for joining me on
this important legislation, and for his leadership in increasing the
availability of affordable generic drugs.
I am very pleased that our legislation is supported by AARP, General
Motors Corporation, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Families
USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Care
Management Association, PCMA, the National Association of Chain Drug
Stores, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical
Marketplace--an organization including large national employers and
insurers.
We know that greater availability of generic drugs translates into
dramatic savings for consumers, manufacturers, businesses, and
taxpayers. Of the 25 top selling drugs in 2004, the only one that did
not increase in price was a drug available both in generic and over-
the-counter form. And, according to the National Association of Chain
Drug Stores, while the average retail price for a brand drug in 2004
was $96.01 the average retail price for a generic was $28.74, a savings
of nearly 70 percent.
It's a very well known principle of economics: competition lowers
prices.
But we don't need to rely on economic theory; we only have to look at
what is happening with drug prices. Of the top five brand name drugs,
by retail sales, the average price for 1 month's use of the cheapest
among them is just over $76, and the 3rd most popular drug--zocor--is
more than $140 per month. That's $1,680 per year for an important drug
to lower cholesterol levels. The average price of the most popular five
drugs--none of which faces generic competition--is over $114.
There is nothing to hold down the prices of these drugs, and in fact,
even though many of them have been on the market for years and years,
their prices continue to increase. I first checked the prices of these
drugs last November, and then again on Monday of this week. The prices
this week are higher, by several dollars in many cases, than they were
last year.
However, consider the prices consumers pay for drugs for which there
are generic equivalents. The most frequently dispensed generic drugs
are hydrocodone, lisinopril, atenolol, amoxicillin and
hydrocholorothiazide. Not only are these important drugs, used to treat
pain, high blood pressure, and bacterial infections, considerably more
affordable than their brand name equivalents, the average generic price
is $9.34, representing a savings of more than 60 percent from the
average brand price of $24.74, but the presence of competition has
another important effect: The average price of these brand name drugs
is a lot lower than the average price of brand drugs that don't face
competition.
While the generic provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA,
[[Page S1421]]
made important progress, there still isn't timely competition in the
pharmaceutical market.
New loopholes have been found to keep generics off the market, and
keep prices higher than they need to be. In fact, in 2004, a year after
AMA passed, brand name prescription drug prices rose by 7.1 percent,
the biggest single-year price hike in 5 years.
Our bill would close several loopholes that prevent and delay
generics from coming to market. It will increase access to affordable
generic drugs and save consumers, businesses and Federal health
programs billions of dollars annually.
The Lower PRICED Drugs Act would prevent abuse of the current
pediatric exclusivity provision. It would ensure that pediatric
exclusivity is used as intended, to generate information about the use
of drugs in children, and prevent brand drug companies from keeping
more affordable generic alternatives of drugs not suitable for
children, or never studied in children, off the market.
For example, Pravigard PAC contains two widely used medications:
pravastatin, used to lower cholesterol, and aspirin. Despite the fact
that aspirin isn't safe in children, the manufacturer received a six-
month pediatric extension. What sense does that make?
The manufacturer of Pravigard PAC even includes the following warning
in the patient information they put out:
Who should not (manufacturer's emphasis) take PRAVIGARD
PAC?
Do not take PRAVIGARD PAC if you: Are 18 years of age or
younger. Children younger than 18 years should not use any
product with aspirin in it.
Pediatric marketing extensions should not be given for products not
suitable for children, like those containing aspirin.
Using pediatric marketing protections to extend brand name monopolies
should be reserved for studies that help us learn more about drugs for
kids, not to keep lower-cost generic alternatives of drugs for adults
off the market.
Our bill would also remove an arbitrary roadblock to the entry of
generic versions of certain antibiotics, close a loophole that allows
drug companies to use the current complex rules for challenging drug
patents as a delaying tactic against the introduction of generics and
prevent abuses of the citizen petition process.
I look forward to working with Senator Lott to create more
competition, more choices, and more savings for American consumers of
prescription drugs, and I urge colleagues to join us in this effort.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill and the letters
of support we have received at this time printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2300
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 ``Lower Prices Reduced with
Increased Competition and Efficient Development of Drugs
Act'' or the ``Lower PRICED Drugs Act''.
SEC. 2. GENERIC DRUG USE CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--Section 505(j)(2)(A) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in clause (viii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'';
(3) by inserting after clause (viii) the following:
``(ix) if with respect to a listed drug product referred to
in clause (i) that contains an antibiotic drug and the
antibiotic drug was the subject of any application for
marketing received by the Secretary under section 507 (as in
effect before the date of enactment of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997) before November 20,
1997, the approved labeling includes a method of use which,
in the opinion of the applicant, is claimed by any patent, a
statement that--
``(I) identifies the relevant patent and the approved use
covered by the patent; and
``(II) the applicant is not seeking approval of such use
under this subsection.''; and
(4) in the last sentence, by striking ``clauses (i) through
(viii)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) through (ix)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any abbreviated new drug application under
section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)) that is submitted on, before, or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE THIRTY-MONTH STAY-OF-
EFFECTIVENESS PERIOD.
(a) In General.--Section 505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) is
amended--
(1) in the second sentence by striking ``may order'' and
inserting ``shall order''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In determining
whether to shorten the thirty-month period under this clause,
the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances,
including whether the plaintiff sought to extend the
discovery schedule, delayed producing discovery, or otherwise
acted in a dilatory manner, and the public interest.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any stay of effectiveness period under section
505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) pending or filed on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ENSURING PROPER USE OF PEDIATRIC EXCLUSIVITY.
(a) Drug Product.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by striking
``drug'' each place it appears and inserting ``drug
product''.
(b) Market Exclusivity for New Drugs.--Section 505A(b) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a(b))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically
meaningful'';
(B) striking ``and'' after ``(which shall include a
timeframe for completing such studies),''; and
(C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies
the Secretary approves labeling for the new drug product that
provides specific, therapeutically meaningful information
about the use of the drug product in pediatric patients''
after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by--
(i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period'';
and
(ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at
the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection
(j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by--
(i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period'';
and
(ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at
the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection
(j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent''
and inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''.
(c) Market Exclusivity for Already-Marketed Drugs.--Section
505A(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 355a(c)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically
meaningful'';
(B) striking ``and'' after ``the studies are completed
within any such timeframe,''; and
(C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies
the Secretary approves labeling for the approved drug product
that provides specific, therapeutically meaningful
information about the use of the drug product in pediatric
patients'' after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any
period''; and
(ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product
at the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection
(j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any
period''; and
(ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product
at the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection
(j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either
[[Page S1422]]
listed when the pediatric study was submitted to the Food and
Drug Administration or listed as a result of the approval by
the Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling
that is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent''
and by inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''.
(d) Three-Month Exclusivity.--Section 505A of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by--
(1) by striking ``six months'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three months'';
(2) by striking ``six-month'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three-month'';
(3) by striking ``6-month'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three-month'';
(4) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
half years, fifty-four months, and eight years,
respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months,
fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months,
respectively''; and
(5) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
half years, fifty-four months, and eight years,
respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months,
fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months,
respectively''.
(e) Definition.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(o) Drug Product.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`drug product' has the same meaning given such term in
section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or
any successor regulation).
``(2) Separate drug products.--For purposes of this
section, each dosage form of a drug product shall constitute
a different drug product.''.
____
Generic Pharmaceutical
Association,
Arlington, VA, February 15, 2006.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Stabenow and Lott: On behalf of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association, I would like to commend you on
your efforts to making life-saving medicines more affordable
and accessible. Your commitment to improving access to
generic drugs will ensure that more patients receive and
utilize the prescription drug treatments they need.
Additionally, generic drugs are an essential cost containment
tool for public health programs such as Medicaid and
Medicare, and your efforts will allow for these programs to
cover more treatments and help more beneficiaries.
As you know, despite continued efforts to close unintended
loopholes that delay generic competition, unnecessary
barriers to market entry remain. These loopholes delay the
timely introduction of affordable medicines, forcing
consumers, insurers, and the government to pay brand prices
for years to come. Your proposed legislation, the Lower
Priced Drugs Act, includes important provisions to facilitate
greater access to generic antibiotics, combat against
frivolous patent abuse by brand companies, provide greater
accountability into the citizen petition process, and bring
meaningful reform to the pediatric exclusivity period.
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association supports the Lower
Priced Drugs Act, and the industry applauds your efforts to
control the rising costs of prescription drugs. We strongly
encourage consideration and passage of this legislation to
bring meaningful reform to the system and increase the
quality and affordability of healthcare for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Jaeger,
President & CEO.
____
AARP,
February 15, 2006.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow: AARP is pleased to endorse the
``Lower Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and
Efficient Development of Drugs Act,'' which we believe will
help bring lower priced generic drugs to the marketplace.
Prescription drug therapies have become more prevalent in
modern medicine. However, the cost of these therapies has
skyrocketed in recent years. Brand name prescription drugs
continue to rise at more than double the rate of inflation.
Consumers, governments, and health care payers cannot
continue to shoulder these costs. More must be done to make
drug therapies more affordable.
Brand name prescription drug manufacturers are rewarded for
their innovation and research in the form of patent
exclusivity. Unfortunately oftentimes some brand name
manufacturers seek to artificially extend the life of their
patents by utilizing legal loopholes or engaging in
unnecessary litigation. AARP believes the legislation
sponsored by you and Senator Lott takes a necessary step
towards closing some of these loopholes.
Generic drugs cost far less than their brand name
equivalents. Your proposal would close an FDA loophole by
allowing a generic drug manufacturer to bring certain
antibiotics to market, thereby providing the ability to take
advantage of these lower-priced drugs. In addition, your
legislation seeks to prevent brand name manufacturers from
abusing the current 30-month stay-of-effectiveness period by
engaging in unnecessary litigation as a means to artificially
extend the life of their patents. Equally important is the
requirement that in order to be granted a patent extension
under the pediatric exclusivity rules, a brand name
manufacturer must engage in meaningful research into
pediatric use. Finally, your legislation would prevent the
filing of citizen petitions solely as a means to halt the
approval of generic drugs.
This bill makes some important strides in helping to make
lower cost drugs available and we look forward to working
with you and your colleagues to advance this initiative. If
there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call me, or have your staff call Anna Schwamlein of our
Federal Affairs staff at (202) 434-3770.
Sincerely,
David P. Sloane,
Sr. Managing Director,
Government Relations and Advocacy.
____
CCPM,
February 15, 2006.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the Coalition
for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market CCPM, we commend you
for your commitment to increase timely access to affordable
generic medications for all Americans. We greatly appreciate
your work and applaud you for the introduction of The Lower
Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and Efficient
Development of Drugs Act The Lower Priced Drugs Act.
CCPM is an organization of employers, insurers, generic
drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers and others
committed to improving consumer access to safe, affordable
pharmaceuticals. CCPM members strongly support public
policies that help manage soaring prescription drug costs,
which have increased by double-digit rates annually and are
unsustainable. Continuing to obtain and provide prescription
drug coverage is a tremendous challenge, with the
skyrocketing costs pressuring reductions in benefits and
undermining the ability of CCPM members to compete in the
global marketplace. The Lower Priced Drug Act will help CCPM
members in this effort.
We have made significant strides working with congress to
close some of the loopholes that keep generic drugs off the
market even after brand drug patents have expired. However,
other abuses and misuses of the Hatch-Waxman law still exist
and need to be fixed. The Lower Priced Drugs Act addresses
several remaining obstacles to generic drugs while ensuring
patient safety. The American people will benefit from this
legislation's efforts to 1) reform the application of
pediatric exclusivity to apply only to those products for
which pediatric exclusivity was intended; 2) provide an
avenue for approval of additional generic antibiotics; 3)
reduce efforts to delay generic entry for other
pharmaceutical products when patents are challenged in court,
and; 4) reform the citizen petition process at the FDA.
Generic drugs are equally safe and effective as brand drugs
and save consumers, employers, and Federal and State
Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, billions
of dollars. CCPM supports your legislation, and we thank you
for continuing the fight to find market driven solutions to
the rising costs of prescription drugs. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that the Lower Priced Drugs Act is
carefully considered and becomes law.
Sincerely,
Annette Guarisco,
Chair, Coalition for a Competitive
Pharmaceutical Market (CCPM).
____
General Motors Corporation,
Washington, DC. February 15, 2006.
The Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Hon. Deborah Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the General
Motors Corporation, I am writing in support of the ``Lower
Prices with Increased Competition and Efficient Development
of Drugs Act,'' the Lower Priced Drugs Act of 2006. GM
believes that the leadership role that you are playing makes
an important contribution toward sound policies that will
help bring more affordable generic drugs to the market and
save consumers billions of dollars.
GM supports ``The Lower Priced Drugs Act'' as it would
increase access to safe, effective and affordable drugs for
our 1.1 million beneficiaries and all other Americans. We
commend you for your leadership and bipartisan efforts to
improve our health care system. We look forward to working
with you to pass this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Ken W. Cole,
Vice President.
[[Page S1423]]
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2303. A bill to ensure that the one half of the National Guard
forces of each State are available to such State at all times, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support one of our Nation's most
important domestic policy issues--national security. I understand that
some would expect me to say competitiveness or health care or farms or
the environment or education, but what is happening with national
security today greatly concerns me.
In the future, I will continue to address different aspects of this
issue of national security. I will address the war on terror and future
threats to our Nation. But today I will focus on the primary point of
failure in keeping the United States safe: how we are meeting our
responsibility to the troops.
The support of our troops is at the core of every national security
issue we face. I urge Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle
to join me in providing our troops with the tools they need to succeed.
We are so fortunate to have such a vast number of Americans who are
committed to fighting for our country, to laying their lives on the
line every day to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The first thing we
must do for our warfighters is to keep them safe.
I want to know why, after 4 years of fighting the war on terror, our
soldiers do not have the very best that they need to get the job done.
Last week, President Bush presented his fiscal year 2007 budget to
the Congress. Even though the defense budget accounts for most of the
discretionary budget, we still have service members without the
equipment they need.
Last month, a Pentagon study revealed that dozens of American lives,
soldiers' lives, would not have been lost in Iraq if soldiers had the
proper side body armor. To make matters worse, the military is already
operating with an equipment shortage. When troops deploy overseas,
often most of their equipment is left behind, left in the theater and
not replaced at armories and air wings. This leaves us vulnerable at
home and dangerously affects national security. How will we be
protected if our soldiers are not?
The administration proposes to spend $439 billion on national
security this year. That is 45 percent more Pentagon funding than when
President Bush took office 5 years ago.
There is a war supplemental on the way--more money. Let me make it
clear that I do not oppose the defense budget. I respect that it is the
job of the Secretary of Defense to assess the needs of the military in
the coming year. I commend him. For example, I commend him on
increasing the funding for special operations. But despite this vast
budget, our troops are still taking a hit.
The funding for high-tech weapons systems doubled in current dollars
from $42 billion in 1996 to $84 billion in 2007. In order to pay for
these big-ticket items, the 2007 budget reins in personnel costs.
The military pay raise is only 2.2 percent. Previous years, it has
been between 3 and 4 percent. During the Clinton administration, we saw
military pay raises as high as 4.8 percent. It is unacceptable to me
that the President proposes an increase in pay for our military that is
less than the current rate of inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Our
military personnel are losing ground with this so-called increase, and
this at a time when we are asking so much of them--a time when we are
at war. Troops have had multiple and lengthy deployments.
Haven't we all heard the stories of 18-year-olds swiftly driving
humvees down the roads of Iraq, praying that they will avoid roadside
bombs and shoulder-fired missiles? Some of these young men and women
joined the military after 9/11 seeking retribution; others joined
intent on finding a way to college. They are all patriots who should be
honored.
I am concerned that we are in a fight right now between force
structure and weapons systems. Our troops are caught in the crossfire.
If they lose, we lose--at a time when we desperately need boots on the
ground, particularly here at home.
We are well aware that our National Guard has risen to the challenges
of the war on terror in an unprecedented way. Our national security,
however, is compromised on the homefront. Our States do not have the
ability to respond with sufficient combat structure to domestic
security missions, natural emergencies, and disasters.
Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird noted last week:
When you call out Guard and Reserve units, you call out
America.
Our Active-Duty Forces have fought bravely on our behalf, and the
Guard has fought with them.
Montana is just one of the States with an infantry battalion that is
facing major changes due to the Army's proposal to reduce 34 combat
brigades to 28. We have based much of our State's military strategy on
the capabilities and equipment our infantry battalion provides.
The combat brigades provide a balance of combat force structure to
the combat service support units already in the State. This balance is
essential to ensure that we have the full spectrum of capabilities
within Montana for homeland defense and national security.
I am introducing a bill today which will ensure that each adjutant
general will have the resources of 50 percent of their National Guard
troops available to them at all times in the State. Deployments
overseas will not be allowed to exceed that number. This bill
recognizes the national security contribution of the Air National Guard
and the Army National Guard, in particular the brigade combat teams and
their subordinate units. This will help the country to achieve a
standard level of emergency preparedness.
When those troops come home, Active and Reserve, they must come home
to jobs and veterans' benefits. That is the only right thing to do. In
its 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
administration calls for a 6-percent increase in total veterans
spending to $36 billion. Much of this increase, however, depends on the
adoption of new health care fees. For example, the budget proposes a
$250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug copayments to
$15, from $8, for higher income, less disabled veterans. If these new
fees are adopted, they would dissuade 200,000 veterans from even
enrolling in the VA health care system. The veterans themselves are
paying for the increase to the veterans budget. That is what is
happening.
I frequently hear that questioning issues of national security
undermines the missions of our troops and that some Members of Congress
just criticize and do not have a plan. Well, here is the plan: It is
imperative that we provide everything possible for our troops in order
to keep the United States safe. We have a responsibility to speak up on
their behalf because I firmly believe that when we neglect our troops--
including our National Guard men and women--we are gambling with the
national security of our Nation.
We have the best soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors in the world.
I have tremendous respect for all of them, and I am committed to
helping them succeed. We are engaged in a war now, and we must give our
troops the tools to win overseas while simultaneously protecting our
homefront.
I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to this bill I am
introducing. I hope that at the appropriate time, we can get it
enacted, basically get some more balance to our force structure, and
also make sure our National Guard and Army and Air Guard have the
support they need, not only for themselves but to keep our country safe
and secure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for raising this
important issue which affects every State in the Union. Of our National
Guard in Illinois, 80 percent have been deployed overseas, and more
this year. At this point, they have come home to empty parking lots
where they used to have vehicles and equipment which they trained on
and would use at times of national emergency.
We cannot allow this Guard to become a hollow Army. It must be a
viable force. I look forward to reviewing the bill the Senator
introduced to see if I can join him in this effort to strengthen our
Guard nationwide.
[[Page S1424]]
______
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lott, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 2304. A bill to recognize the right of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico to call a constitutional convention through which the people of
Puerto Rico would exercise their right to self-determination, and to
establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Burr and
other colleagues in supporting the Puerto Rico self-determination act.
Puerto Rico and its four million residents have enjoyed a positive
relationship with the United States since the island's commonwealth
status was established over 50 years ago. But it's important for all of
us to protect the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-
determination, and this legislation will do so.
Our bill calls for a constitutional assembly in Puerto Rico composed
of delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. The delegates will
determine the appropriate options for inclusion in a referendum to
enable the Puerto Rican people to decide the future status of the
island.
Congress will have the final say on the referendum, but the process
should start with the people of Puerto Rico and not in Washington. A
constitutional assembly will best serve their interest by letting us
know their wishes.
The people of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, and many of them have
served our Nation with great courage and sacrifice in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At the very least we owe them a fair and democratic
process in determining their future.
The recommendations in the report released in December by the White
House task force on the status of Puerto Rico do not adequately address
this basic issue, since the options suggested in the report do not give
Puerto Ricans the fair choice they deserve.
The possibility of change in the current status has stirred intense
debate in recent years, and this bill is intended to allow a fair
solution that respects the views of all sides in the debate. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation as the most effective way to
resolve this issue and give the people of Puerto Rico the respect they
deserve.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2305. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
repeal the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationally as a
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a
provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people
applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a
U.S. passport or birth certificate. I thank my cosponsors of this
legislation, Senators Obama, Bingaman, Inouye, Lautenberg, Jeffords,
Kerry, and Lieberman for their support.
This provision must be repealed before it goes into effect July 1,
2006. We have arrived at this conclusion because it will create
barriers to health care, and from information we have gathered from
agencies, it is unnecessary and will be an administrative burden to
implement. These are reasons for this legislation. The Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 51 million individuals
in this country would be burdened by having to produce additional
documentation. In 16 States--Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington--more
than a million Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to submit the
additional documents to receive or stay on Medicaid. In Hawaii, an
estimated 392,000 people who are enrolled in Medicaid will be required
to produce the additional documentation.
The requirements will disproportionately impact low-income, racial
and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, and individuals born in rural
areas without access to hospitals. Due to discriminatory hospital
admission policies, a significant number of African-Americans were
prevented from being born in hospitals. One in five African Americans
born during 1939-1940 do not have birth certificates.
We need to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not discriminated
against and do not lose access to care, simply because they do not have
a passport or birth certificate. Data from a survey commissioned by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is helpful in trying to
determine the impact of the legislation. One in 12 U.S.-born adults,
who earn incomes less than $25,000, report they do not have a U.S.
passport or birth certificate in their possession. Also, more than 10
percent of U.S.-born parents, who have incomes below $25,000, do not
have a birth certificate or passport for at least one of their
children. An estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million U.S. born citizens may have
their Medicaid coverage threatened simply because they do not have a
passport or birth certificate readily available.
Some groups are at a greater risk for losing their Medicaid coverage.
Nine percent of African-American adults reported they did not have the
needed documents. Seven percent of people over age 65 also report that
they do not have birth certificates. Many others will also have
difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born
in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless
individuals.
It is difficult enough to get access to health care, let alone
acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment.
Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time
investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport.
The Hawaii Department of Health charges $10 for duplicate birth
certificates. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get
a birth certificate or $87 to $97 for a passport. Taking the time and
obtaining the necessary transportation to acquire the birth certificate
or a passport, particularly in rural areas where public transportation
may not exist, creates a hardship for Medicaid beneficiaries. Failure
to produce the documents quickly may result in a loss of Medicaid
eligibility.
Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an
exemption for individuals suffering from mental or physical
disabilities from the new requirements. I am really afraid that those
suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's may lose their Medicaid
coverage because they may not have or be able to easily obtain a
passport or birth certificate.
It is likely these documentation requirements will prevent
beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the
program. This will result in more uninsured Americans, an increased
burden on our healthcare providers, and the delay of treatment for
needed health care.
The hardships that will be imposed are unnecessary due to existing
requirements that check immigration status. A 2005 study by the Health
and Human Services Office of the Inspector General concluded there is
no substantial evidence indicating that illegal immigrants claiming to
be U.S. citizens are successfully enrolling in Medicaid.
Twenty-eight of 47 Medicaid directors, surveyed by the Health and
Human Services Inspector General, indicated that requiring documentary
evidence of citizenship would delay eligibility determination. Twenty-
five believe that providing additional evidence would result in
increased eligibility personnel costs. State Medicaid Agencies would
likely have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased
workload with significant, additional administrative and financial
costs. Twenty-one believe that it would be burdensome or expensive for
applicants to obtain a birth certificate or other documentation.
In my home State, the Hawaii Primary Care Association estimates the
administrative costs for our Department of Human Services will result
in an increased cost of $640,000. Mr. John McComas, the Chief Executive
Officer, of AlohaCare, stated, ``We anticipate that there will be
significant administrative costs added to our already overburdened
Medicaid programs. These
[[Page S1425]]
provisions are absolutely unnecessary and place an undue burden on the
Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire Medicaid program, and ultimately to
our entire state.''
I am frequently frustrated by the inability of the Congress to enact
measures to improve health care for Americans. A misconceived provision
to mandate these additional documentation requirements will cause real
people real pain, and create public health and administrative
difficulties. The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act will force
every current and future Medicaid beneficiary to produce a passport or
birth certificate. I look forward to my colleagues working with me to
repeal this provision. I am hopeful that as my friends in the Senate go
home during recess, they talk with their constituents at health
centers, State Medicaid offices, and social service organizations, and
hear how important it is to them for this legislation to be enacted to
protect access to Medicaid.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record, as well as letters of support and concern
from AlohaCare, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health
Organizations, Maternal and Child Health Access, the Hawaii Primary
Care Association, and Siren.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2305
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCING
CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY AS A CONDITION FOR
RECEIPT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE
MEDICAID PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b), as added by
section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, are each
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b) is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)--
(i) in paragraph (20), by adding ``or'' after the semicolon
at the end; and
(ii) in paragraph (21), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a period;
(B) by redesignating subsection (y), as added by section
6043(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection
(x); and
(C) by redesignating subsection (z), as added by section
6081(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection
(y).
(2) Subsection (c) of section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 is repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by
this section shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
____
Maternal and Child Health Access,
Los Angeles, CA, February 16, 2006.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I am pleased to write a letter of
support for your bill to amend title XIX of the Social
Security Act to repeal the amendments made by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 requiring documentation of citizenship
or nationality as a condition for receipt of medical
assistance under the Medicaid program.
Maternal and Child Health Access has provided assistance to
thousands of families seeking medical coverage since the
early 1990s. In addition to the families we serve, we educate
and train other social service agencies and clinics about
health coverage programs and thus have the opportunity to
hear their experiences in assisting low-income people to
apply for Medicaid. In California, we are ecstatic that
nearly 90% of the children eligible have been enrolled in
Medicaid or our S-CHIP program, Healthy Families. We have
celebrated the fact that with few exceptions, the process of
obtaining health care coverage for low-income families
presents fewer barriers than in prior years. The requirement
that Medicaid applicants provide birth certificates would be
an unfortunate reversal of that trend.
Even now, even with no requirement for such documentation,
Eligibility Workers mistakenly demand birth certificates as
part of the Medicaid application process. We see that the
need to provide such documentation causes untoward delays in
obtaining health care. For example, my office recently
assisted the family of a two-year-old child who had never had
Medi-Cal due to the Los Angeles County Eligibility Worker's
erroneous demand for a birth certificate from the client's
home state, which had been impossible to obtain. The child's
health care visits were delayed and inferior to what a two-
year-old should have had.
In California, birth certificates cost $17 and require a
notarized application, or sworn statement under penalty of
perjury. In addition to the added expense of notarizing, an
additional $25-$50 depending on the ability of often-
unscrupulous notaries to charge, making people swear under
penalty of perjury is intimidating and will discourage people
from applying. It takes four to six months to obtain birth
certificates for newborns and if obtained in person, require
travel to a different office than for duplicate copies that
might be needed for adults or other children who need them. I
see no flexibility in the amendments as passed to allow for
families with no disposable income to obtain the birth
certificates timely.
There is absolutely no need for a drastic measure of this
sort. A comprehensive study conducted last year by the Health
and Human Services Inspector General, ``Self-Declaration of
U.S. Citizenship Requirements for Medicaid,'' July 2005,
failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal
immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by
claiming they are citizens. Notably, the Inspector General
did not recommend requiring that documentation of citizenship
be required. State officials interviewed by the Inspector
General's office also noted that such a requirement would add
significant administrative costs and burdens. Half of the
state officials interviewed said they would have to hire more
eligibility personnel to handle the increased workload.
Requiring a birth certificate will cause delays in
obtaining needed medical coverage and care and unnecessary
costs for applicants, states and counties. If we truly care
about ensuring that children, pregnant women, disabled
people, seniors and others in need obtain the health care
that may enable them to continue to be productive citizens or
ensure their readiness for school, we should not be putting
unnecessary costly barriers in their way.
I thank you on behalf of the low income people my agency
serves daily.
Sincerely,
Lynn Kersey,
MA, MPH, Executive Director.
____
Hawai`i Primary Care Association,
Honolulu, HI, January 25, 2006.
Hon. Senator Daniel Akaka,
Re Proposed birth certificate or passport requirement for
Medicaid application.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Hawai`i Primary Care Association
would like to register our strong opposition to recently
proposed federal legislation that would require a birth
certificate or passport for each Medicaid applicant, and to
ask for your assistance to avert this mandate. We object to
this change because it is completely unnecessary to prevent
application fraud but would be a considerable barrier to
legitimate applicants and add to the cost incurred by public
and private agencies to complete and process applications.
Unnecessary barrier. In the ample experience of community
health centers in Hawai`i and the Primary Care Association's
Hawai`i Covering Kids Project, immigrants, fearful of
jeopardizing their immigration status, are hesitant to apply
for programs for which they are clearly eligible.
Undocumented immigrants are even less likely to call
attention to themselves, for obvious reasons. The Hawai`i
State Department of Human Services, which monitors and checks
into self-declared eligibility status, has found no evidence
of fraud in this area.
The following are some of the ways this proposed
requirement would deter legitimate applicants: Some people do
not have birth certificates because they were born at home or
in areas with no official registries (e.g., on plantations).
People who are mentally ill or homeless may be unable to
produce original or duplicate birth certificates. In the
event of a hurricane or other disaster, many people will be
unable to find documents, and public agencies may be in
disarray so that they can't provide duplicates. In an
emergency medical situation, an uninsured person may not be
able to find a birth certificate. The Hawai`i Department of
Health (DOH) charges $10 for duplicate birth certificates.
Procuring one for each family member that is applying or
renewing not only takes the applicant away from work or other
activities to stand in line at DOH, but also can be
prohibitively expensive. The application and enrollment
procedure will take longer and result in delays in coverage
that might cause serious health problems and put the health
care provider and individual at financial risk.
Processing costs. If this regulation is implemented it will
result in more administrative costs for DHS and for agencies
that assist applicants. All current Medicaid customers must
also be asked to submit a birth certificate or passport. This
requires paper, envelopes, and mailing costs. When documents
arrive at a Medicaid office, they must be matched to a
record, noted in the electronic case file, and stored in the
customer's case file. If the customer does not produce the
required document, the case will be closed. However, this
person is otherwise eligible for benefits, therefore when
she/he locates a birth certificate a new application will not
only be submitted, but also the Medicaid office must review
it and open a new case. Hawai`i's Medicaid offices receive
approximately 66,000 applications annually. New applications
without birth certificates or passports attached will be sent
ten-day pending notices. This requires paper, envelopes, and
mailing costs. If the document is not received in the time
allotted, the application will be denied. If mailing notices
and updating or closing each current Medicaid file takes at
least 10 minutes of public workers' time, the current Med-
QUEST enrollment of over 200,000 customers will take 33,333
hours and cost $640,000.
Assumptions: 15 minutes to send notices and update or close
files. 2,080 is the number
[[Page S1426]]
of work hours per year. Salary plus operating costs per
worker is $40,000 per year.
Cost: 16 eligibility workers will work full-time for a year
at a cost of $640,000.
In summary, we believe there is no good reason to implement
the proposed regulations and ample reasons to maintain the
current procedure that allows self-declaration. We ask for
your help in this matter to make sure Medicaid continues to
serve the most vulnerable members of our communities.
Sincerely,
Beth Giesting,
Executive Director.
____
Dear Senator Akaka: I have just been informed about your
bill to repeal the citizenship documentation requirements
contained in the reconciliation bill. On behalf of the
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), I
write to express our support for Senator Akaka's bill.
SIREN is a leading organization in Silicon Valley dedicated
to providing immigrant rights advocacy, community education
and naturalization assistance to Santa Clara County's diverse
immigrant communities. We believe that a requirement to check
citizenship status for Medicaid recipients will be costly and
an additional barrier to accessing this much needed program.
In addition, it is unnecessary and continues the stereotype
that immigrants are in this country to access social
services, which we know to be false. Immigrants come to this
country to create a better life for themselves and their
families. They contribute to the social and economic fabric
of our country every day.
Thank you for your efforts to protect immigrants and to
save our country from a needless expense.
Warmly,
Larisa Casillas.
____
Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations,
Oakland CA, February 10, 2006.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations, AAPCHO, a national non-profit
association of community health centers, is writing to
support your efforts to repeal an amendment requiring
individuals to provide evidence of citizenship when applying
for Medicaid benefits.
We believe that these amendments, which are introduced in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, will not only raise the
ranks of the uninsured, but more importantly, that they will
leaves scores of our most vulnerable citizens without
critically needed health care services.
As you well know, there are currently over 45 million
people without health insurance, many of whom are Asian
American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Requiring
Medicaid beneficiaries to provide a birth certificate or
passport to prove their citizenship could lead to millions of
low-income Americans either losing Medicaid coverage and
becoming uninsured, or being delayed coverage for necessary
medical care. At AAPCHO's member community health centers
across the country, this regulation would instantly put the
lives and health of a significant number of low-income
adults, children, elderly, and disabled individuals at risk.
We thank you for continuing your fight to provide health
care for our most vulnerable populations, and we appreciate
your introduction of this important bill.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey B. Caballero, MPH,
Executive Director.
____
AlohaCare,
Honolulu, HI, February 6, 2006.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: We applaud your concerns about the
proposed changes in Medicaid. We wish to lend our support to
the Amendment that you are proposing that will remove one of
the most draconian aspects of the proposal in Section 6037 of
the Budget Reconciliation Bill that will require that
everyone who is applying for Medicaid, whether current or
new, to provide proof of their citizenship.
The primary forms of documentation acceptable would be
either a passport or a birth certificate presented in
conjunction with proof of identity such as a drivers'
license. For people who are naturalized citizens
naturalization papers would be accepted. This essentially
means that native-born citizens would have to produce birth
certificates or passports.
The new requirements, which a recent study by the Inspector
General of the Department of Health and Human Services shows
to be unnecessary, would almost certainly create significant
enrollment barriers to millions of low-income citizens who
would otherwise meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements.
Because of Hawaii's demographics we believe that we would be
heavily impacted.
On July 1, 2006 these new requirements will apply to all
applications or redeterminations of Medicaid eligibility that
occurred after that date, without exceptions, even for people
who are extremely old or have severe physical or mental
impairments, such as Alzheimer's disease.
A major concern is that many people on Medicaid do not
travel or have not had a need for a passport. Others no
longer live near where they were born or have long since lost
their birth certificate. Many of the elderly in Hawaii were
born outside of hospitals or places where birth certificates
were not commonly issued.
We anticipate that there will be significant administrative
costs added to our already overburdened Medicaid programs.
These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and will place an
undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire
Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.
Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
assistance to you in your efforts to protect the Medicaid
beneficiaries in Hawaii.
Sincerely yours,
John McComas,
Chief Executive Officer, AlohaCare.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare
costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap
between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital
importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The
Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million
Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled.
As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this
year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility
to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to
question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the
Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for
individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy
children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not
deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would
do just that.
Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the
costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some
believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail
alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a
study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any
substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting
Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not
recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship.
If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal
immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we
must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement?
Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the
difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let
alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the
families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all
their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the
children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other
relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required
documents.
About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million
Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have
a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition,
studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible
children without such documentation.
These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7
percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth
certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for
senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African
American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living
in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups
who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such
as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents,
Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The
documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current
beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even
for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as
Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or
a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by
the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation
requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for
Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of
[[Page S1427]]
state officials have reported that they would have to hire additional
personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional
administrative and financial costs. The National Association for Public
Health Statistics and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent
increase in the volume of birth certificate requests if requirements
for birth certificates or passports for Medicaid applications are
imposed, resulting in significant delays in processing all birth
certificate applications. State resources are already stretched too
thin, and we should not impose additional and unnecessary burdens.
At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks,
which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that
members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable
members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and
productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program.
Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to
eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and
I urge all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bond):
S. 2306. A bill to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify
that kidney paired donation and kidney list donation do not involve the
transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators
DeWine, Dorgan and Bond in introducing legislation that will save lives
by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Our
bill addresses relatively new procedures that did not exist when the
National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA--was passed more than two decades
ago. No Federal dollars will be needed to implement it. More
importantly, it will make it possible for thousands of people who wish
to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that
they are medically incompatible, still to become living kidney donors.
Kidney paired donations involve two living donors and two
recipients--the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with
the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the
arrangement. For example, person A wants to donate her kidney to her
husband, person B, but cannot because of a biological incompatibility.
Likewise, person C wants to donate to his wife, person D, and cannot
because of a biological incompatibility. However, testing reveals that
A and D are biologically compatible, and C and B are biologically
compatible. Therefore, a paired kidney donation can be made whereby A
donates to D and C donates to B. Every paired donation transplant
avoids burdening the kidney waiting list and increases access to organs
for all kidney transplant candidates.
Kidney list donations involve three individuals: a living donor; the
recipient of the living donor's kidney, who is allocated the organ
through the waiting list; and the donor's intended recipient who
receives an allocation priority on the kidney waiting list. In this
circumstance, a person intends to donate a kidney to a recipient but is
found to be medically incompatible, and there are no other donor-
recipient pairs available for a simultaneous paired donation. The
person donates his or her kidney, and the kidney is allocated to a
medically suitable patient on the national Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network--OPTN--waiting list according to OPTN organ
allocation policy. The donor's originally intended recipient then
receives allocation priority through the national system to receive a
deceased donor kidney, thus fulfilling the donor's original intent to
donate to a particular person. It is estimated that clearing the way
for these procedures will not only save lives, it would save Medicare
tens of millions of dollars each year in avoided costs for renal
dialyses of these patients. By permitting living paired donations, this
bill will also have the effect of increasing the number of kidneys
available to patients already on the kidney waiting list.
The legislation we are introducing removes an unintended impediment
to kidney donations by clarifying ambiguous language in Section 301 of
the National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA. That section has been
interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such
donations. In Section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and
selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ
purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly
acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable
consideration. . . . '' The legislation we are introducing does not
remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line
to Section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it.
When we originally enacted NOTA we expressly exempted several other
actions from the valuable consideration provision, such as expressly
permitting reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs for living
donors, and for reimbursement of their lost wages. We did not know to
include paired kidney donation events with these exceptions because
they were not being performed then.
Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements
that permit either a kidney paired donation or a kidney list donation
be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. A number of
transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living
kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief
that these arrangements do not violate Section 301 of NOTA, and they
are being performed in many states already. This legislation is
necessary because some have questioned whether these paired donation
situations might somehow involve valuable consideration in that the
mutual promises to donate could be considered a thing of value being
given in exchange for an organ. We do not believe that this is the
case. Certainly, Congress never intended to impede paired donation when
it outlawed buying and selling of organs.
There is no known opposition to this legislation. It is supported by
numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ
Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American
Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.
It is important that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that
transplant centers which have hesitated to implement paired donation
programs can feel free to do so; and in order that the Organ
Procurement and Transplant Network, which is operated by UNOS under
contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, may
implement a national registry of pairs who need to find other
compatible pairs so that their loved ones can get the transplant they
so desperately need.
The experts in the field of organ donation and transplantation
estimate that our legislation will result in well over 2,000 additional
transplants annually and that Medicare would save millions in kidney
dialysis costs. By its own estimate, Medicare spends more than $55,000
annually for each dialysis patient, which equates to more than $3.6
billion per year. Savings to Medicare due to removal of an additional
2,000 patients from the dialysis program through living kidney donation
would exceed $110 million. Since the median waiting time for each
patient is four years, removal of each patient translates into a total
Medicare savings of $220,000.
It is our hope that the Senate will promptly act on this necessary
legislation.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues,
Senators Levin, Dorgan, and Bond, to introduce the Living Kidney Organ
Donation Clarification Act.
This important legislation would clarify Section 301 of the National
Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Section 301 makes it a felony ``for any
person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human
organ for valuable consideration for use in organ transplantation.''
This provision simply makes it illegal to buy and sell human organs.
The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing would clarify that
paired donations do not violate Section 301.
[[Page S1428]]
When NOTA was first enacted, the only living organ donations took
place between a single biologically compatible living donor and
recipient. In the past decade, a new type of living donation procedure
has developed. It's called the paired organ donation. The best way to
describe a paired donation is through an example: Patient A is on the
waiting list for a kidney transplant. Various family and friends have
offered to donate a kidney to Patient A, but none of the potential
donors are compatible. However, one of Patient A's potential donors is
compatible with Patient B, who is also on the waiting list for a
kidney. Patient B has a potential donor who is compatible with Patient
A. Patient A and B could exchange donors and both get transplants.
With the development of paired donations, concerns have arisen that
the mutual promises to donate organs could be considered ``valuable
consideration'' under Section 301 of NOTA. It is important to note that
while paired donations were not conceived at the time NOTA was written
over 20 years ago, they are in keeping with all of NOTA's provisions
and protections and should be permitted. Paired donors may not receive
a monetary payment, except for reimbursement for expenses. I don't
think that Congress would have intended to prohibit the practice of
paired donations with the enactment of NOTA.
The benefits of paired donations are tremendous. Successful kidney
transplants eliminate the need for dialysis for the recipient, as well
as decrease costs to Medicare. And, the practice of paired donations
has the potential to increase the number of living donor transplants
dramatically, as there are a large number of potential living donors
who are biologically incompatible with their intended recipients.
My own State of Ohio has the first state-sponsored program that
arranges paired kidney donations. There have been at least four paired
kidney donations in Ohio during the last two years arranged through the
Paired Donation Kidney Consortium. With over 62,000 men, women, and
children waiting for a kidney donation, we cannot afford to turn our
back on the paired donation procedure.
That is why it is critically important that Section 301 of NOTA be
clarified to permit these donations. Clarification of the intent of
Congress would encourage transplant centers throughout the country to
implement their own paired donation programs. It also would enable the
Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to create a national list of
pairs of incompatible donors so that as many recipients can be matched
up as possible.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Levin,
DeWine and Bond to introduce the Kidney Transplant Clarification Act of
2006. This legislation will help save lives by increasing the number of
kidney donations made by living donors.
There are currently 90,608 people in the United States who are on the
national organ transplant waiting list. More than two-thirds of those
on the waiting list suffer from end stage renal disease and are in need
of a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, the number of people on the
waiting list continues to grow far faster than the number of organ
donors. In North Dakota alone, there are currently 91 patients who are
waiting for a kidney transplant.
The good news is that patients with end stage renal disease who
require a kidney transplant no longer need to wait for a kidney from a
deceased donor or from a blood relative. Advances in medical science
now make it possible for friends and spouses to donate a kidney to a
patient in need. Of the 16,004 kidney transplants in 2004, 6,647 were
from living donors.
The bad news is outdated Federal laws inappropriately stand in the
way of widely adopting several innovative approaches that would
increase the number of kidney donations from the living.
One of these strategies is called a paired kidney donation. Here is
how it works: Joe wants to donate a kidney to his wife Kathleen but
can't because of incompatibility. Likewise, Suzy wants to donate a
kidney to her husband Scott but can't because of incompatibility. A
paired donation helps match up these couples so Joe can donate a kidney
to Scott and Suzy can donate a kidney to Kathleen.
The other approach is called a kidney list donation. Here is how it
works: Rebecca wants to donate a kidney to her husband Grant but can't
because of incompatibility. In this case, she decides to donate a
kidney to someone who is already on the national waiting list. Once the
donation is made, Grant is added to the waiting list but is given
allocation priority for a kidney that becomes available in the future.
The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will clarify that paired and
list kidney donations are allowed under the National Organ Transplant
Act, removing a barrier that has prevented more kidney donations from
living donors from occurring.
The National Organ Transplant Act, which was enacted in 1984,
prohibits any person to acquire, receive or donate any human organ for
anything of value. The purpose of this law is to prohibit the buying
and selling of human organs. I agree with this law. The last thing that
we want to do is sanction organ trafficking. Yet, when this law was
enacted, paired and list kidney donations did not exist. It is
important that we clarify that these innovative strategies to increase
the number of kidney donations from living donors are allowed under
current law.
The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will not only save lives, it
will save the federal government and taxpayers money. Patients with end
stage renal disease require dialysis, which is covered by Medicare.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare
spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. On average,
patients with end stage renal disease wait 4 years before receiving a
kidney transplant. This means that every kidney donation made from a
living donor has the potential to reduce the number of people on the
waiting list and save the government as much as $220,000.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 2307. A bill to enhance fair and open competition in the
production and sale of agricultural commodities; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr.
Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets
Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for
agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and
Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967
and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA.
A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are
no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100
years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking
and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass
several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace
for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as
lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the
Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors
from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive
practices.
Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a
negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation.
Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful
that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely
critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The
statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84
percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement
of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40
percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline.
Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms
can exert tremendous power over the industry.
The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have
expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed
hardly
[[Page S1429]]
any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to
enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts
whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned
by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to
investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a
report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described
widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from
conducting investigations into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme
to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of
investigations conducted.
The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement
by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level
officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems
within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the
structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This
legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition
matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of
the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on
competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed
by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some
would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given
that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the
recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to
remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making
changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector
General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in
1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar
recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations
were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition,
no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have
any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was
sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA
was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed.
In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation
also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards
Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the
market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive
practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go
through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly.
For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving
an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition.
The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair
treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very
difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and
Stockyards Act.
This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and
Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement
protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a
livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair,
unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have
the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the
enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry.
This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better
reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation
also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry
growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who
raise broilers.
The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to
ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to
strengthen their position in the marketplace without being
discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed
with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law.
The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and
producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it
does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of
producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any
reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain
producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to
an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses
on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for
having done so.
I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide
new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned
earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the
number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many
require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no
choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face
leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.
This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that
contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the
producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving
producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to
help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It
prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without
notice when producers have made large capital investments as a
condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory
arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in
writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with
arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy
in the courts.
History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is
even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded
market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of
unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact
legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago.
This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will
strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more
fairly.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 2308. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 to improve mine safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the
safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in
Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a
miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made
in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of
the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a
mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine,
unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners.
Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from
the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky.
A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of
the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be
other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the
families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV,
for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the
investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the
people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago
will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may
never be answered.''
Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine
accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10,
when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another
on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at
[[Page S1430]]
the Alma mine in Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on
February 1, 2006, where a miner was killed at an underground mine when
a wall support popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer
struck a gas line at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the
operator. Last year, the safest year on record, there were 22
fatalities in underground coal mines, in 20 separate accidents with 4
men killed in my home State of Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in
Kentucky and 7 in other States.
The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against
it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant
and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as
``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of
the mine until problems were corrected.
While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42
percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with
inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by
183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final
appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4
million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across-
the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget
resolution ceiling.
I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from
Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business,
and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my
legislation.
Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the
Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the
internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and
Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of
completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish
formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing
procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from
$60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated
failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a
standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could
have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and
prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge
for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine
less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could
cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be
assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could
significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health
hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than
24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans
are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject
to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed
of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may
waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused
by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine
representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews
with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of
wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar
year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and
conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise,
unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be
strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12.
MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which
includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live
operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply
to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and
operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis--
provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That
wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by
the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an
accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless
communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by
underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to
communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary
telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood
that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the
surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed
oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the
section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be
increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a
violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to
situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully
violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines
increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives
advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from
not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person
makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine
will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000.
All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the
Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty
assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to
augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the
following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training,
research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner
safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical
support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and
information activities.
These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health
Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions
set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for
miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners
working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue
operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be
repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2309. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the definition of agri-biodiesel; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest
scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the
existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that
only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are
eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of
the highest quality.
Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country
off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural
areas while enhancing our environment and public health.
In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production,
there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line.
Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding
communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities.
The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago.
It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading
proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has
recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I
am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a
good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it
comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a
goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union
address.
It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has
sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental
quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found
itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the
biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of
feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service
has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined
that biodiesel produced from a variety
[[Page S1431]]
of feedstocks, even those not listed in statute, are eligible for the
credit.
So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope.
The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from
any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit.
In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that
only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been
reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it
should in certain situations, and this provision should help address
that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies
that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is
eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel
such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My
understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best
quality indicator for satisfactory performance.
The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our
international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization
(WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S.
and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts
consulted by my staff.
I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance
Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this
legislation forward.
In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic
energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way
that is compliant with our international trading obligations.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 2310. A bill to repeal the requirement for 12 operational aircraft
carriers within the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
piece of legislation related to our Navy and National Security.
The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on
the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware,
in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review.
The global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on
our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented
fundamental changes to fleet maintenance and deployment practices that
have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in
ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided
appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.
These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and
dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to
the added dimension of international terror while providing for the
security of our Nation.
However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in
decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the
Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security,
requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.
The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires
that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further
in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force with
21st century capabilities, to increase our expeditionary capability, to
maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to
penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the
open seas.
The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical
requirements against the backdrop of the national defense strategy and
concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. The Navy, in its
evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of
313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required
to maintain decisive maritime superiority.
These findings are in whole agreement with previous concerns raised
by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15
years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so
we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force
structure.
The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike
group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier
capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11
carrier strike groups provide the decisively superior combat capability
required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this
conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12
to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the
naval force.
Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service
life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The
compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy
(CV-67) is not deployable without a significant investment of
resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval
aviation, there are real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the
Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea. In
the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to make
the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the
future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to
invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the
surface combatant force.
We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men
and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where
called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the
world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force
structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on
operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base
that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am
encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger,
modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant
seapower through the 21st century.
However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources,
it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have
served this country for so long. To this end, Mr. President, I offer
this legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United
States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of
the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 2311. A bill to establish a demonstration project to develop a
national network of economically sustainable transportation providers
and qualified transportation providers, to provide transportation
services to older individuals, and individuals who are blind, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in recent years, we have become
increasingly aware of the great challenges facing our Nation as our
population ages. While much discussion revolves around health care,
social security, and pension systems, there is another daunting
challenge that is rarely addressed in a comprehensive way.
I am referring to the challenge of senior transportation.
We Americans love our automobiles. From the time most of us were old
enough to drive, we have been behind the wheel. Cars mean freedom--not
in some grand philosophical sense--but in the real and practical sense
that matters to us in our everyday lives. Having a car, and being able
to drive it, means the freedom to go where we want, when we want.
But as we age, we will find it harder and harder to use the freedom
given to us by automobiles. Because as we age, our abilities decline,
and driving becomes less and less simple. And then the day comes when
we wonder whether we should keep driving at all, and if we don't, how
we will get about our daily lives.
That day has already come for millions of our senior citizens.
All around the Nation, older Americans are struggling to stay active
and independent while their ability to drive themselves declines. A few
live in communities with well-developed public transportation services
geared to our senior citizens, but most do not. Many seniors drive as
long as they can, perhaps longer than they think they should, simply
because they feel they have no alternative.
That is why I am today introducing the Older Americans Sustainable
Mobility Act of 2006. Despite its rather
[[Page S1432]]
awkward name, this legislation has a great purpose. It would create a
5-year demonstration project, overseen by the Administration on Aging,
to establish a national, nonprofit senior transportation network to
help provide some transportation alternatives to our aging population.
The goal of this network is to build upon creative, successful models
that are already showing how the transportation needs of older
Americans can be met in a manner that is economically sustainable.
This last point is important. Senior transportation is a complex and
expensive logistical problem. We cannot expect to address this problem
by creating a brand new, expansive, Federal Government program that
requires the commitment of vast sums year after year in order to
succeed. We can't afford that, and that really isn't what older
Americans want.
What older Americans want is what most of us have and take for
granted--the freedom and mobility that our automobiles provide.
My legislation would build upon models that have demonstrated how
senior citizens can stay active and mobile even after they stop
driving. One such model is ITNAmerica, which has been operating in my
home State of Maine since the mid-1990s and has since branched out to
communities across the Nation. ITNAmerica uses private automobiles to
provide rides to senior citizens whenever they want, almost like a taxi
service. Riders open an account which is automatically charged when the
service is used. Riders can get credits for rides through volunteer
services, through donations--and this is what I think is most
intriguing--by donating their private car to the program after they
have decided that they should no longer drive.
Kathy Freund, the founder of ITNAmerica, sees this as a way of taking
something people see as a liability, and turning it into an asset.
Through Kathy's extraordinary vision and hard work, ITNAmerica has
developed a model that works because it allows older Americans to make
the transition away from driving themselves without asking them to
sacrifice their independence, or to learn at an older age how to
navigate public transportation systems that may simply be inappropriate
for their needs, or widely unavailable in many parts of the country.
They can still be mobile, they can still go where they want and when
they want, and they can go by car.
Senior citizens will often keep their vehicles long after they have
stopped driving. I am sure you have seen these vehicles in your State
as I have in mine. You will see them sitting in driveways--unattended
and poorly maintained, sometimes not driven for many months at a time.
In this form, these cars are ``wasting'' assets. But ITNAmerica has
found that the value of these cars can be unlocked by allowing seniors
to exchange them for rides. That is why my bill calls for the creation
of a once-in-a-lifetime tax benefit for seniors who exchange their cars
for rides, valued at the amount of the ride-credit they are provided.
One of my senior citizen constituents, June Snow from Falmouth, ME,
has been using the system that I described--the ITNAmerica system--
since 1995, when her eyesight began to fail. At first, she used the
program only to get into the city, Portland, and only after dark, when
she found it more difficult to drive. But more recently she has traded
her car for rides, and now she depends on the system to go everywhere
she needs to go. She finds that the program allows her to get around
town, to run errands, and do the things she has to do and wants to do
without worrying about whether she will be able to get safely from one
place to another. She told me: It's not like riding a bus, where you
have to work with their schedules, and they won't stop and help you
with your groceries. They won't make you get your feet wet walking
through the snow to the bus stop.
But what she loves most is the personal attention she gets from the
drivers, most of whom are volunteers. ``They help you to the door, and
they even carry your bundles and put them in the trunk,'' she says.
My bill also creates a limited-time matching grant program to help
communities establish sustainable transportation alternatives for
seniors as part of a national network. Programs that wish to compete
for these matching grants must be able to show that they can become
self-sustaining after 5 years, and that they can operate after that
period without reliance on public funds. So what I am proposing, is
that we just provide some seed money as a catalyst, to get these
programs going, with the full expectation--indeed the requirement--that
they become self-sustaining without any public funds after the initial
period. My bill also provides smaller grants to help transportation
providers acquire the technology they need to connect to this network,
and grants to encourage efforts to get the baby boomers more involved
in supporting transportation alternatives in their communities. The
total cost of these grant programs would be only $25 million over the
full 5 year period. Then the program sunsets, and these wonderful
transportation programs that would be created all over the country
would be sustainable on their own without public funding.
The challenge of providing transportation alternatives to our
Nation's senior citizens is literally growing by the day. The bill I am
offering is one step toward a reasonable, practical, solution to this
important challenge. I think all of us know of neighbors and family
members who reach their senior years and really shouldn't be driving
anymore but are very reluctant to give up those car keys because there
are simply no workable alternatives for them. This bill would provide
those alternatives, and I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2312. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to change the numerical identifier used to identify Medicare
beneficiaries under the Medicare program; 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 text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2312
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 ``Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
TO CHANGE THE NUMERICAL IDENTIFIER USED TO
IDENTIFY MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish and implement procedures to change
the numerical identifier used to identify individuals
entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title so
that such an individual's social security account number is
not displayed on the identification card issued to the
individual under the Medicare program under such title or on
any explanation of Medicare benefits mailed to the
individual.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2313. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to
permit medicare beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug plans and
MA-PD plans that change their formalities or increase drug prices to
enroll in other plans; 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 text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2313
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 ``Medicare Drug Honest Pricing
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PERMITTING MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES ENROLLED IN
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD PLANS THAT
CHANGE THEIR FORMULARIES OR INCREASE DRUG
PRICES TO ENROLL IN OTHER PLANS.
(a) Special Enrollment Period.--
(1) In general.--Section 1860D-1(b)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(3)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(F) Enrollment under plans that change their
formularies.--In the case of a
[[Page S1433]]
part D eligible individual who is enrolled in a prescription
drug plan that uses a formulary, if the plan removes a
covered part D drug from its formulary or changes the
preferred or tiered cost-sharing status of such a drug and
the individual is adversely affected by such change, there
shall be a 60-day special enrollment period for the
individual beginning on the date on which the individual
receives a notice of such removal or change.
``(G) Enrollment under plans that increase negotiated
prices.--In the case of a part D eligible individual who is
enrolled in a prescription drug plan in which the negotiated
price used for payment for any covered part D drug increases
by 10 percent or more from the negotiated price used for
payment for the drug as of January 1 of the year (as
disclosed to the Secretary pursuant to section 1860D-
2(d)(4)(A)).''.
(2) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--Section
1860D-2(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
102(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--
``(A) Requiring plans to disclose negotiated prices to the
secretary.--Not later than November 8 of each year (beginning
with 2006), each sponsor of a prescription drug plan shall
disclose to the Secretary (in a manner specified by the
Secretary) the negotiated price used for payment for each
covered part D drug covered under the plan that will apply
under the plan on January 1 of the subsequent year.
``(B) Secretary to make negotiated prices available on the
cms website.--Not later than November 15 of each year
(beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall make information
disclosed under subparagraph (A) available to the public
through the Internet website of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
``(C) Requiring plans to inform beneficiaries of january 1
negotiated price.--Not later than January 10 of each year
(beginning with 2007), each sponsor of a prescription drug
plan shall appropriately inform (as determined by the
Secretary) part D eligible individuals enrolled in the plan
for the year of the negotiated price used for payment for
each covered part D drug that is covered under the plan that
was disclosed to the Secretary under subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate regulations to carry out the
amendments made by this section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2007.
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2315. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
federally-supported education and awareness campaign for the prevention
of methamphetamine use; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is
particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems
associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just
beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in
the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no
guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth
just once.
The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant.
The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this
devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family
relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health
needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with
meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth
labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed
toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today.
With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat
Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an
emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a
topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as
there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers.
My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for
any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A
100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the
community organization or local government applying for funds has a
stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the
difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian
reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack
the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in
half.
I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public
health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the
Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last
year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we
realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States--
now it's time to act.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2316. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to
protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and
gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or
COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey
shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North
Carolina.
This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the
Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer
Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of
Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means
drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS
may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a
certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy-
five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New
Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's
critical tourist economy.
According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission,
tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for
more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State.
To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the
Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential
reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it.
The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas
in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds
up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves,
and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply.
And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State
will be a small fraction of that.
This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or
making the United States more energy independent. This is about
protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about
protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and
play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring
States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches
are protected for generations to come.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2327. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to require the United
States Trade Representative to identify trade enforcement priorities
and to take action with respect to priority foreign country trade
practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I--along with Senator Hatch and
Senator Stabenow--introduce the Trade Competitiveness Act of 2006, a
bill that will provide the administration with additional tools,
resources, and accountability to enforce international trade
agreements.
This bill is the first in a comprehensive package of legislation that
I will introduce during the next few weeks to bolster American
competitiveness.
The United States is still a world leader in almost every way
imaginable. But we need a bold agenda to maintain America's economic
leadership and preserve high-wage American jobs here at home.
I just got back from China and India, and that trip only underscored
the challenges we face in the global economy. To rise to this
challenge, my bills
[[Page S1434]]
will address trade and all other keystones of America's
competitiveness--education, energy, health, savings, research, and tax
policy.
But today, we start with international trade. Trade and investment in
international markets is a challenge that I have asked U.S. companies
to embrace.
I want American companies to get aggressive about getting their
products and their people into foreign markets to bolster the U.S.
presence around the world and bring jobs and dollars back home.
But when American companies embrace these new market opportunities,
they need to know that the American government will back them up. They
need to know that we will do all that we can to make sure our trading
partners play by the rules.
That is why trade enforcement is critical. And this bill will step up
trade enforcement in five ways.
Number one: Under my legislation, every year, the USTR will be
required to identify the biggest trade barriers hurting the U.S.
economically. The USTR will have to get Congress's input. And the USTR
will be required to act, through the WTO or in some other way, to break
those barriers down.
Number two: My bill will create a ``Chief Trade Enforcement Officer''
at the USTR. This person will be confirmed by the Senate. His or her
entire job will be to investigate enforcement concerns and recommend
action to the USTR. This person will also answer to Congress when it
has concerns about enforcement.
Number three: This new Trade Enforcement Officer is going to have
some backup. My bill will create a ``Trade Enforcement Working Group''
in the Executive Branch. It will be chaired by the USTR, and include
representatives of the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, and
Treasury. They will help the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer get the
job done.
Number four: This new Trade Enforcement Officer will need resources
to get the job done. My bill provides $5 million additional to the USTR
for enforcement. Right now, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget
effectively cuts enforcement funds.
Number five: This bill will send a strong message to the
International Monetary Fund. It will urge our Administration to tell
the IMF to get aggressive with countries that manipulate their own
currency to obtain a trade advantage. It will also urge the IMF to
undertake reforms so it becomes more transparent and more
representative of the emerging economies in Asia.
Senator Hatch wanted to make sure that the Federal Government does
not lose sight of Federal and State sovereignty when negotiating,
implementing, and enforcing trade agreements. That's an important issue
to consider, and I'm glad it's in this bill.
The bottom line is that improving enforcement of our trade agreements
will allow American companies to play hard and win big in the global
marketplace. A level playing field is the foundation of American
competitiveness on trade. This bill will help to provide it.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2318. A bill to provide driver safety grants to States with
graduated driver licensing laws that meet certain minimum requirements;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia,
Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform
Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation
that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage
drivers in our country.
We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative
stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and
adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a
person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The
teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a
time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and
girls transition successfully into young men and women.
As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk-
taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National
Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the
brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age
of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach
teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we
have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive
risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from
negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and
the well-being of others.
Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in
teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all
too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a
teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road.
And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when
irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle
causes severe harm and death.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans
between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young
Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes--
an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a
fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate
for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16
years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times
the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.
A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation
for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly
more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which
they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those
crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that
the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is
doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with
three or more peers in the vehicle.
Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high-
profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken
together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem
clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It
is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers,
and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle.
Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative
methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities
that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.
One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated
driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a
teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before
earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's
license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver
fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety.
Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on
nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure
the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other
motorists.
First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now
exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted
at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several
studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction
measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of
teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year
that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent
reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage
drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were
implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in
each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in
California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in
crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40
percent between
[[Page S1435]]
1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was
in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving teenage
drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are
taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem
concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no
uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and
other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong
initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others
have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are
killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how
many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and
I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national
minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State
the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific
needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner
and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative.
There are four principal components of this legislation which I would
like to briefly discuss.
First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national
minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core
requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.
These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system,
implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a
restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and
implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications
devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.
Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to
issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that
encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety
of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring
that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each,
requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice
driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed
driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the
learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed
driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is
operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an
unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice
driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a
motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated,
misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or
driving without a fastened seatbelt.
Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come
into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's
annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be
used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State
agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational
materials on the GDL law.
Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States
that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill
withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the
first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second
fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does
allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into
compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non-
compliance.
There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on
States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the
national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of
the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists
in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths
and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to
address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.
The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well-
known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in
2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to
50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans
support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans
support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with
a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or
restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly,
these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends
party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of
Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner
and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting
this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that text of this legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2318
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 ``Safe Teen and Novice Driver
Uniform Protection Act of 2006'' or the ``STANDUP Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
reported that--
(A) motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death of
Americans between 15 and 20 years of age;
(B) between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 Americans between 15 and
20 years of age died in motor vehicle crashes, an average of
122 teenage deaths per week;
(C) teenage drivers between 16 and 20 years of age have a
fatality rate that is 4 times the rate for drivers between 25
and 70 years of age; and
(D) teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor
vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate
for drivers aged between 30 and 60 years of age.
(2) According to the American Automobile Association,
teenage drivers comprise slightly more than \1/3\ of all
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are
involved and nearly \2/3\ of all fatalities in those crashes
are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
(3) According to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, the chance of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver
is doubled if there are 2 peers in the vehicle and quadrupled
with 3 or more peers in the vehicle.
(4) According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the cognitive distraction caused by hands-
free and hand-held cell phones is significant enough to
degrade a driver's performance, particularly teenage drivers
between 15 and 20 years of age.
(5) Although only 20 percent of driving by teenage drivers
occurs at night, more than 50 percent of the motor vehicle
crash fatalities involving teenage drivers occur at night.
(6) In 1997, the first full year of its graduated driver
licensing system, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction
in fatal and injurious crashes among teenage drivers between
the ages of 15 and 18, compared with 1995, according to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
(7) The Journal of the American Medical Association reports
that crashes involving 16-year-old drivers decreased between
1995 and 1999 by 25 percent in Michigan and 27 percent in
North Carolina. Comprehensive graduated driver licensing
systems were implemented in 1997 in these States.
(8) In California, according to the Automobile Club of
Southern California, teenage passenger deaths and injuries
resulting from crashes involving 16-year-old drivers declined
by 40 percent from 1998 to 2000, the first 3 years of
California's graduated driver licensing program. The number
of at-fault collisions involving 16-year-old drivers
decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
(9) The National Transportation Safety Board reports that
39 States and the District of Columbia have implemented 3-
stage graduated driver licensing systems. Many States have
not yet implemented these and other basic safety features of
graduated driver licensing laws to protect the lives of
teenage and novice drivers.
(10) A 2001 Harris Poll indicates that--
(A) 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to
50 hours of practice driving with an adult;
(B) 92 percent of Americans support a 6-month learner's
permit period; and
(C) 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of
teenage passengers in a car with a teenage driver and
supervised driving during high-risk driving periods, such as
night.
SEC. 3. STATE GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING LAWS.
(a) Minimum Requirements.--A State is in compliance with
this section if the State has a graduated driver licensing
law that includes, for novice drivers under the age of 21--
(1) a 3-stage licensing process, including a learner's
permit stage and an intermediate
[[Page S1436]]
stage before granting an unrestricted driver's license;
(2) a prohibition on nighttime driving during the
intermediate stage;
(3) a prohibition, during the learner's permit intermediate
stages, from operating a motor vehicle with more than 1 non-
familial passenger under the age of 21 if there is no
licensed driver 21 years of age or older present in the motor
vehicle;
(4) a prohibition during the learner's permit and
intermediate stages, from using a cellular telephone or any
communications device in non-emergency situations; and
(5) any other requirement that the Secretary of
Transportation (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'')
may require, including--
(A) a learner's permit stage of at least 6 months;
(B) an intermediate stage of at least 6 months;
(C) for novice drivers in the learner's permit stage--
(i) a requirement of at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel
training with a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age;
and
(ii) a requirement that any such driver be accompanied and
supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at
all times when such driver is operating a motor vehicle; and
(D) a requirement that the grant of full licensure be
automatically delayed, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by State law for any individual who, while holding a
provisional license, convicted of an offense, such as driving
while intoxicated, misrepresentation of their true age,
reckless driving, unbelted driving, speeding, or other
violations, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Rulemaking.--After public notice and comment rulemaking
the Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement
this section.
SEC. 4. INCENTIVE GRANTS.
(a) In General.--For each of the first 3 fiscal years
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall award a grant to any State in compliance with
section 3(a) on or before the first day of that fiscal year
that submits an application under subsection (b).
(b) Application.--Any State desiring a grant under this
section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including a certification by the
governor of the State that the State is in compliance with
section 3(a).
(c) Grants.--For each fiscal year described in subsection
(a), amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be
apportioned to each State in compliance with section 3(a) in
an amount determined by multiplying--
(1) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for
such fiscal year; by
(2) the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned to each
such State for such fiscal year under section 402 of title
23, United States Code, bears to the total amount of funds
apportioned to all such States for such fiscal year under
such section 402.
(d) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
this section shall be used for--
(1) enforcement and providing training regarding the State
graduated driver licensing law to law enforcement personnel
and other relevant State agency personnel;
(2) publishing relevant educational materials that pertain
directly or indirectly to the State graduated driver
licensing law; and
(3) other administrative activities that the Secretary
considers relevant to the State graduated driver licensing
law.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Fiscal year 2010.--The Secretary shall withhold 1.5
percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to
any State for fiscal year 2010 under each of the paragraphs
(1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United
States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section
3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2009.
(2) Fiscal year 2011.--The Secretary shall withhold 3
percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to
any State for fiscal year 2011 under each of the paragraphs
(1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United
States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section
3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2010.
(3) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--The Secretary shall
withhold 6 percent of the amount otherwise required to be
apportioned to any State for each fiscal year beginning with
fiscal year 2012 under each of the paragraphs (1), (3), and
(4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, if
that State is not in compliance with section 3(a) of this Act
on the first day of such fiscal year.
(b) Period of Availability of Withheld Funds.--
(1) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2011.--Any
amount withheld from any State under subsection (a) on or
before September 30, 2011, shall remain available for
distribution to the State under subsection (c) until the end
of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year for which
such amount is appropriated.
(2) Funds withheld after september 30, 2011.--Any amount
withheld under subsection (a)(2) from any State after
September 30, 2011, may not be distributed to the State.
(c) Apportionment of Withheld Funds After Compliance.--
(1) In general.--If, before the last day of the period for
which funds withheld under subsection (a) are to remain
available to a State under subsection (b), the State comes
into compliance with section 3(a), the Secretary shall, on
the first day on which the State comes into compliance,
distribute to the State any amounts withheld under subsection
(a) that remains available for apportionment to the State.
(2) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned
funds.--Any amount distributed under paragraph (1) shall
remain available for expenditure by the State until the end
of the third fiscal year for which the funds are so
apportioned. Any amount not expended by the State by the end
of such period shall revert back to the Treasury of the
United States.
(3) Effect of non-compliance.--If a State is not in
compliance with section 3(a) at the end of the period for
which any amount withheld under subsection (a) remains
available for distribution to the State under subsection (b),
such amount shall revert back to the Treasury of the United
States.
____________________