[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 48 (Thursday, April 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3706-S3721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 2663. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
grant programs to provide for education and outreach on newborn 
screening and coordinated followup care once newborn screening has been 
conducted, to reauthorize programs under part A of title XI of such 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleague 
Senator DeWine to introduce legislation to protect the most vulnerable 
members of our society: newborn infants. Many people know the joy of 
parenthood. They also know the sense of worry about whether their kids 
are doing well, are feeling well, and are safe. Nothing is of greater 
importance than the health and well-being of our children.
  Thanks to incredible advances in medical technology, it is now 
possible to test newborns for more than 50 genetic and metabolic 
disorders. Many of these disorders, if undetected, would lead to severe 
disability or death. However, babies that are properly diagnosed and 
treated can, in many cases, go on to live healthy lives. So newborn 
screening can literally save lives.
  Frighteningly, the disorders that newborn screening tests for can 
come without warning. For most of these disorders, there is no medical 
history of the condition in the family, no way to predict the health of 
a baby based on the health of the parents. Although the disorders that 
are tested for are quite rare, there is a chance that any one newborn 
will be effected a sort of morbid lottery. In that sense, this is an 
issue that has a direct impact on the lives of every family.
  Fortunately, some screening has become common practice in every 
State. Each year, over four million infants have blood taken from their 
heel to detect these disorders that could threaten their life and long-
term health. As a result, about one in 4,000 babies is diagnosed with 
one of these disorders. That means that newborn screening could protect 
the health or save the life of approximately 1,000 newborns each year. 
That is 1,000 tragedies that can be averted families that can know the 
joy of a new infant rather than absolute heartbreak.
  That is the good news. However, there is so much more to be done. For 
every baby saved, another two are estimated to be born with potentially 
detectable disorders that go undetected

[[Page S3707]]

because they are not screened. These infants and their families face 
the prospect of disability or death from a preventable disorder. The 
survival of a newborn may very well come down to the State in which it 
is born, because not all States test for every detectable disorder.
  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 
highlighting the need for this legislation. According to the report, 
most States do not educate parents and health care providers about the 
availability of tests beyond what is mandated by a state. States also 
reported that they do not have the resources to purchase the technology 
and train the staff needed to expand newborn screening programs. 
Finally, even when States do detect an abnormal screening result, the 
majority do not inform parents directly.
  Two weeks ago, I visited Stamford Hospital in my home State of 
Connecticut to talk to physicians and parents about newborn screening. 
I was joined there by Pamela Sweeney. Pamela is the mother of 7-year-
old Jonathan Sweeney. At the time of his birth, Connecticut only tested 
for eight disorders. He was considered a healthy baby, although he was 
a poor sleeper and needed to be fed quite frequently. One morning in 
December of 2000, Pamela found Jonathan with his eyes wide open but 
completely unresponsive. He was not breathing and appeared to be having 
a seizure. Jonathan was rushed to the hospital where, fortunately, his 
life was saved. He was later diagnosed with L-CHAD, a disorder that 
prevents Jonathan's body from turning fat into energy.
  Despite this harrowing tale, Jonathan and his family are extremely 
fortunate. Jonathan is alive, and his disorder can be treated with a 
special diet. He has experienced developmental delays that most likely 
could have been avoided had he been tested for L-CHAD at birth. This 
raises a question. Why was he not tested? Why do many States still not 
test for L-CHAD?
  The primary reason for this unfortunate reality is the lack of a 
consensus on the federal level about what should be screened for, and 
how a screening program should be developed. Fortunately, that is 
changing. In the Children's Health Act of 2000, Senator DeWine and I 
authored language to create an Advisory Committee on newborn screening 
within the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, that 
Advisory Committee released a report recommending that all States test 
for a standard set of 29 disorders. Several States, including 
Connecticut, are already well on their way to meeting this 
recommendation.
  The legislation that we are introducing today will give states an 
additional helping hand towards meeting the Advisory's Committee's 
recommendation by providing $25 million for States to expand and 
improve their newborn screening programs. In order to access these 
resources, States will be required to commit to screening for all 29 
disorders.
  Our legislation will also provide $15 million for two types of 
grants. The first seeks to address the lack of information available to 
health care professionals and parents about newborn screening. Every 
parent should have the knowledge necessary to protect their child. The 
tragedy of a newborn's death is only compounded by the frustration of 
learning that the death was preventable. This bill authorizes grants to 
provide education and training to health care professionals, state 
laboratory personnel, families and consumer advocates.
  The second type of grant will support States in providing follow-up 
care for those children diagnosed by a disorder detected through 
newborn screening. While these families are the fortunate ones, in many 
cases they are still faced with the prospect of extended and complex 
treatment or major lifestyle changes. We need to remember that care 
does not stop at diagnosis.
  Finally, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) to establish a national surveillance program for 
newborn screening, and provides $15 million for that purpose. Such a 
program will help us conduct research to better understand these rare 
disorders, and will hopefully lead us towards more effective treatments 
and cures.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative so that 
every newborn child will have the best possible opportunity that 
America can offer to live a long, healthy and happy life.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the 
Aviation Fuel Tax Simplification Act. This bill would suspend the new 
tax system on aviation grade kerosene until we have time to adequately 
address and study the impacts of such a proposal on aviation small 
businesses and the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
  This bill addresses a problem created in the Highway Bill this body 
passed last year. That bill contained a change in the collection of 
fuel taxes for business and general aviation operators.
  Prior to the Highway bill passing, jet fuel intended for 
noncommercial use was taxed at 21.9 cents per gallon. Under the new 
provision, all taxes on aviation jet fuel are collected at the diesel 
fuel rate, which is 24.4 cents per gallon. After collection at the 
higher rate, the operator or ultimate vendor then has to file a claim 
with the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to be reimbursed for the 2.5 
cent per gallon difference. Once, and only if, the vendor files the 
claim do the tax revenues then get transferred to the Airport and 
Airway Trust Fund.
  For general aviation, most of the entities that would be the ultimate 
vendors are the Fixed Based Operators, FBOs, located at the 19,200 
airports, heliports and seaplane bases throughout the U.S. Most of 
these FBOs are very small mom and pop businesses, and they do not have 
the resources to comply with the IRS's ultimate vendor rules.
  The Highway bill provision took effect last October, with little 
guidance from the IRS on how aviation fuel operators should apply the 
new policy. This lack of guidance has created an onerous and convoluted 
process for taxing aviation jet fuel. It also presents an enormous 
administrative challenge for aviation businesses, the overwhelming 
majority of which have never been engaged in any sort of wrongdoing.
  This provision was put in the Highway bill with the best of 
intentions in an effort to fight fuel fraud. However, I believe that 
provision has fallen into the category covered by the rule of 
unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the reality is the impact on 
small aviation businesses far outweighs the intent.
  In theory, the provision was put into place to address fuel fraud 
allegations directed at truck drivers filling up with jet fuel to avoid 
the 24.4 highway/diesel fuel tax. In reality, jet fuel is considerably 
more expensive than diesel fuel. It makes no sense to me that a truck 
driver would pay at least $1 per gallon more to save 25 cents per 
gallon in taxes.
  I have heard from many Montana providers on this issue and I think I 
can safely say, while the intent was noble, the impact is far too 
burdensome. Because of the burden and the possible impact on the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund I feel it necessary to immediately 
suspend the new tax system. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to find a more appropriate way of curbing fuel fraud.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator 
Dodd in introducing the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006.
  This important legislation would help States expand and improve their 
newborn screening programs, educate parents and health care providers 
about newborn screening, and improve follow-up care for infants with an 
illness detected through screening.
  Newborn screening is a public health activity used for early 
identification of infants affected by certain genetic, metabolic, 
hormonal and functional conditions for which there may be an effective 
treatment or intervention. If left untreated, these conditions can 
cause death, disability, mental retardation, and other serious health 
problems. Every year, over 4 million infants are born and screened to 
detect such conditions, with an estimated 3,000 babies identified in 
time for treatment. However, the number and quality of newborn 
screening tests performed varies dramatically from State to State. The 
Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006 aims to remedy these problems 
and improve newborn screening for all of America's newborns.

[[Page S3708]]

  This legislation is important because it provides resources to States 
to expand and improve their newborn screening programs and encourage 
States to test for the full roster of disorders recommended by the 
Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. It 
is imperative that we test for the full roster of disorders. That is 
why we are introducing this legislation to provide adequate funds to 
get this program started. It authorizes $65 million in fiscal year 07 
and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 08 through fiscal 
year 11 for grants to educate health care professionals, laboratory 
personnel, and parents about newborn screening and relevant new 
technologies.
  I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Dodd and me in co-
sponsoring this important bill.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2663

       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 ``Newborn Screening Saves 
     Lives Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Currently, it is possible to test for more than 30 
     disorders through newborn screening.
       (2) There is a lack of uniform newborn screening throughout 
     the United States. While a newborn with a debilitating 
     condition may receive screening, early detection, and 
     treatment in 1 location, in another location the condition 
     may go undetected and result in catastrophic consequences.
       (3) Each year more than 4,000,000 babies are screened by 
     State and private laboratories to detect conditions that may 
     threaten their long-term health.
       (4) There are more than 2,000 babies born every year in the 
     United States with detectable and treatable disorders that go 
     unscreened through newborn screening.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TITLE III OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 
                   ACT.

       Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399AA. NEWBORN SCREENING.

       ``(a) Authorization of Grant Programs.--
       ``(1) Grants to assist health care professionals.--From 
     funds appropriated under subsection (h), the Secretary, 
     acting through the Associate Administrator of the Maternal 
     and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration (referred to in this section as the `Associate 
     Administrator') and in consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children 
     (referred to in this section as the `Advisory Committee'), 
     shall award grants to eligible entities to enable such 
     entities to assist in providing health care professionals and 
     newborn screening laboratory personnel with--
       ``(A) education in newborn screening; and
       ``(B) training in--
       ``(i) relevant and new technologies in newborn screening; 
     and
       ``(ii) congenital, genetic, and metabolic disorders.
       ``(2) Grants to assist families.--
       ``(A) In general.--From funds appropriated under subsection 
     (h), the Secretary, acting through the Associate 
     Administrator and in consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee, shall award grants to eligible entities to enable 
     such entities to develop and deliver educational programs 
     about newborn screening to parents, families, and patient 
     advocacy and support groups. The educational materials 
     accompanying such educational programs shall be provided at 
     appropriate literacy levels.
       ``(B) Awareness of the availability of programs.--To the 
     extent practicable, the Secretary shall make relevant health 
     care providers aware of the availability of the educational 
     programs supported pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Grants for quality newborn screening followup.--From 
     funds appropriated under subsection (h), the Secretary, 
     acting through the Associate Administrator and in 
     consultation with the Advisory Committee, shall award grants 
     to eligible entities to enable such entities to establish, 
     maintain, and operate a system to assess and coordinate 
     treatment relating to congenital, genetic, and metabolic 
     disorders.
       ``(b) Application.--An eligible entity that desires to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(c) Selection of Grant Recipients.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after receiving 
     an application under subsection (b), the Secretary, after 
     considering the approval factors under paragraph (2), shall 
     determine whether to award the eligible entity a grant under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Approval factors.--
       ``(A) Requirements for approval.--An application submitted 
     under subsection (b) may not be approved by the Secretary 
     unless the application contains assurances that the eligible 
     entity--
       ``(i) will use grant funds only for the purposes specified 
     in the approved application and in accordance with the 
     requirements of this section; and
       ``(ii) will establish such fiscal control and fund 
     accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure proper 
     disbursement and accounting of Federal funds paid to the 
     eligible entity under the grant.
       ``(B) Existing programs.--Prior to awarding a grant under 
     this section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) conduct an assessment of existing educational 
     resources and training programs and coordinated systems of 
     followup care with respect to newborn screening; and
       ``(ii) take all necessary steps to minimize the duplication 
     of the resources and programs described in clause (i).
       ``(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall take all necessary 
     steps to coordinate programs funded with grants received 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--
       ``(1) Grants to assist health care professionals.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under subsection (a)(1) 
     may use the grant funds to work with appropriate medical 
     schools, nursing schools, schools of public health, schools 
     of genetic counseling, internal education programs in State 
     agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and professional 
     organizations and societies to develop and deliver education 
     and training programs that include--
       ``(A) continuing medical education programs for health care 
     professionals and newborn screening laboratory personnel in 
     newborn screening;
       ``(B) education, technical assistance, and training on new 
     discoveries in newborn screening and the use of any related 
     technology;
       ``(C) models to evaluate the prevalence of, and assess and 
     communicate the risks of, congenital conditions, including 
     the prevalence and risk of some of these conditions based on 
     family history;
       ``(D) models to communicate effectively with parents and 
     families about--
       ``(i) the process and benefits of newborn screening;
       ``(ii) how to use information gathered from newborn 
     screening;
       ``(iii) the meaning of screening results, including the 
     possibility of false positive findings;
       ``(iv) the right of refusal of newborn screening, if 
     applicable; and
       ``(v) the potential need for followup care after newborns 
     are screened;
       ``(E) information and resources on coordinated systems of 
     followup care after newborns are screened;
       ``(F) information on the disorders for which States require 
     and offer newborn screening and options for newborn screening 
     relating to conditions in addition to such disorders;
       ``(G) information on additional newborn screening that may 
     not be required by the State, but that may be available from 
     other sources; and
       ``(H) other items to carry out the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(1) as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Grants to assist families.--An eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under subsection (a)(2) may use the grant 
     funds to develop and deliver to parents, families, and 
     patient advocacy and support groups, educational programs 
     about newborn screening that include information on--
       ``(A) what newborn screening is;
       ``(B) how newborn screening is performed;
       ``(C) who performs newborn screening;
       ``(D) where newborn screening is performed;
       ``(E) the disorders for which the State requires newborns 
     to be screened;
       ``(F) different options for newborn screening for disorders 
     other than those included by the State in the mandated 
     newborn screening program;
       ``(G) the meaning of various screening results, including 
     the possibility of false positive and false negative 
     findings;
       ``(H) the prevalence and risk of newborn disorders, 
     including the increased risk of disorders that may stem from 
     family history;
       ``(I) coordinated systems of followup care after newborns 
     are screened; and
       ``(J) other items to carry out the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(2) as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Grants for quality newborn screening followup.--An 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under subsection (a)(3) 
     shall use the grant funds to--
       ``(A) expand on existing procedures and systems, where 
     appropriate and available, for the timely reporting of 
     newborn screening results to individuals, families, primary 
     care physicians, and subspecialists in congenital, genetic, 
     and metabolic disorders;
       ``(B) coordinate ongoing followup treatment with 
     individuals, families, primary care physicians, and 
     subspecialists in congenital, genetic, and metabolic 
     disorders after a newborn receives an indication of the 
     presence or increased risk of a disorder on a screening test;
       ``(C) ensure the seamless integration of confirmatory 
     testing, tertiary care medical services, comprehensive 
     genetic services including genetic counseling, and 
     information about access to developing therapies by 
     participation in approved clinical trials involving the 
     primary health care of the infant;
       ``(D) analyze data, if appropriate and available, collected 
     from newborn screenings to

[[Page S3709]]

     identify populations at risk for disorders affecting 
     newborns, examine and respond to health concerns, recognize 
     and address relevant environmental, behavioral, 
     socioeconomic, demographic, and other relevant risk factors; 
     and
       ``(E) carry out such other activities as the Secretary may 
     determine necessary.
       ``(f) Reports to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     reports--
       ``(A) evaluating the effectiveness and the impact of the 
     grants awarded under this section--
       ``(i) in promoting newborn screening--

       ``(I) education and resources for families; and
       ``(II) education, resources, and training for health care 
     professionals;

       ``(ii) on the successful diagnosis and treatment of 
     congenital, genetic, and metabolic disorders; and
       ``(iii) on the continued development of coordinated systems 
     of followup care after newborns are screened;
       ``(B) describing and evaluating the effectiveness of the 
     activities carried out with grant funds received under this 
     section; and
       ``(C) that include recommendations for Federal actions to 
     support--
       ``(i) education and training in newborn screening; and
       ``(ii) followup care after newborns are screened.
       ``(2) Timing of reports.--The Secretary shall submit--
       ``(A) an interim report that includes the information 
     described in paragraph (1), not later than 30 months after 
     the date on which the first grant funds are awarded under 
     this section; and
       ``(B) a subsequent report that includes the information 
     described in paragraph (1), not later than 60 months after 
     the date on which the first grant funds are awarded under 
     this section.
       ``(g) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(1) a State or a political subdivision of a State;
       ``(2) a consortium of 2 or more States or political 
     subdivisions of States;
       ``(3) a territory;
       ``(4) an Indian tribe or a hospital or outpatient health 
     care facility of the Indian Health Service; or
       ``(5) a nongovernmental organization with appropriate 
     expertise in newborn screening, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2011.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVED NEWBORN AND CHILD SCREENING FOR HERITABLE 
                   DISORDERS.

       Section 1109 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300b-8) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) an assurance that the entity has adopted and 
     implemented, is in the process of adopting and implementing, 
     or will use grant amounts received under this section to 
     adopt and implement the guidelines and recommendations of the 
     Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and 
     Children established under section 1111 (referred to in this 
     section as the `Advisory Committee') that are adopted by the 
     Secretary and in effect at the time the grant is awarded or 
     renewed under this section, which shall include the screening 
     of each newborn for the heritable disorders recommended by 
     the Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary and the 
     reporting of results; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (i), by striking ``such sums'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011.''.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEWBORN- AND CHILD-
                   SCREENING PROGRAMS.

       Section 1110 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300b-9) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011.''.

     SEC. 6. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HERITABLE DISORDERS IN NEWBORNS 
                   AND CHILDREN.

       Section 1111 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300b-10) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) recommend a uniform screening panel for newborn 
     screening programs that includes the heritable disorders for 
     which all newborns should be screened, including secondary 
     conditions that may be identified as a result of the 
     laboratory methods used for screening;
       ``(4) develop a model decision-matrix for newborn screening 
     program expansion, and periodically update the recommended 
     uniform screening panel described in paragraph (3) based on 
     such decision-matrix; and''; and
       (D) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by subparagraph (A)), 
     by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, including 
     recommendations, advice, or information dealing with--
       ``(A) followup activities, including those necessary to 
     achieve rapid diagnosis in the short term, and those that 
     ascertain long-term case management outcomes and appropriate 
     access to related services;
       ``(B) diagnostic and other technology used in screening;
       ``(C) the availability and reporting of testing for 
     conditions for which there is no existing treatment;
       ``(D) minimum standards and related policies and procedures 
     for State newborn screening programs;
       ``(E) quality assurance, oversight, and evaluation of State 
     newborn screening programs;
       ``(F) data collection for assessment of newborn screening 
     programs;
       ``(G) public and provider awareness and education;
       ``(H) language and terminology used by State newborn 
     screening programs;
       ``(I) confirmatory testing and verification of positive 
     results; and
       ``(J) harmonization of laboratory definitions for results 
     that are within the expected range and results that are 
     outside of the expected range.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Decision on Recommendations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     Advisory Committee issues a recommendation pursuant to this 
     section, the Secretary shall adopt or reject such 
     recommendation.
       ``(2) Pending recommendations.--The Secretary shall adopt 
     or reject any recommendation issued by the Advisory Committee 
     that is pending on the date of enactment of the Newborn 
     Screening Saves Lives Act of 2006 by not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of such Act.
       ``(3) Determinations to be made public.--The Secretary 
     shall publicize any determination on adopting or rejecting a 
     recommendation of the Advisory Committee pursuant to this 
     subsection, including the justification for the 
     determination.
       ``(e) Continuation of Operation of Committee.--
     Notwithstanding section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Advisory Committee shall continue to 
     operate during the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 
     2006.''.

     SEC. 7. LABORATORY QUALITY AND SURVEILLANCE.

       Part A of title XI of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300b-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1112. LABORATORY QUALITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     and in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Heritable 
     Disorders in Newborns and Children established under section 
     1111, shall provide for--
       ``(1) quality assurance for laboratories involved in 
     screening newborns and children for heritable disorders, 
     including quality assurance for newborn-screening tests, 
     performance evaluation services, and technical assistance and 
     technology transfer to newborn screening laboratories to 
     ensure analytic validity and utility of screening tests; and
       ``(2) population-based pilot testing for new screening 
     tools for evaluating use on a mass scale.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011.

     ``SEC. 1113. SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS FOR HERITABLE DISORDERS 
                   SCREENING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     shall carry out programs--
       ``(1) to collect, analyze, and make available data on the 
     heritable disorders recommended by the Advisory Committee on 
     Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children established 
     under section 1111, including data on the causes of such 
     disorders and on the incidence and prevalence of such 
     disorders;
       ``(2) to operate regional centers for the conduct of 
     applied epidemiological research on the prevention of such 
     disorders;
       ``(3) to provide information and education to the public on 
     the prevention of such disorders; and
       ``(4) to conduct research on and to promote the prevention 
     of such disorders, and secondary health conditions among 
     individuals with such disorders.
       ``(b) Grants and Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may make grants to and enter into contracts with 
     public and nonprofit private entities.
       ``(2) Supplies and services in lieu of award funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon the request of a recipient of an 
     award of a grant or contract under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may, subject to subparagraph (B), provide supplies,

[[Page S3710]]

     equipment, and services for the purpose of aiding the 
     recipient in carrying out the purposes for which the award is 
     made and, for such purposes, may detail to the recipient any 
     officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       ``(B) Reduction.--With respect to a request described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall reduce the amount of 
     payments under the award involved by an amount equal to the 
     costs of detailing personnel and the fair market value of any 
     supplies, equipment, or services provided by the Secretary. 
     The Secretary shall, for the payment of expenses incurred in 
     complying with such request, expend the amounts withheld.
       ``(3) Application for award.--The Secretary may make an 
     award of a grant or contract under paragraph (1) only if an 
     application for the award is submitted to the Secretary and 
     the application is in such form, is made in such manner, and 
     contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the 
     purposes for which the award is to be made.
       ``(c) Biennial Report.--Not later than February 1 of fiscal 
     year 2007 and of every second such year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, a 
     report that, with respect to the preceding 2 fiscal years--
       ``(1) contains information regarding the incidence and 
     prevalence of heritable disorders and the health status of 
     individuals with such disorders and the extent to which such 
     disorders have contributed to the incidence and prevalence of 
     infant mortality and affected quality of life;
       ``(2) contains information under paragraph (1) that is 
     specific to various racial and ethnic groups (including 
     Hispanics, non-Hispanic whites, Blacks, Native Americans, and 
     Asian Americans);
       ``(3) contains an assessment of the extent to which various 
     approaches of preventing heritable disorders and secondary 
     health conditions among individuals with such disorders have 
     been effective;
       ``(4) describes the activities carried out under this 
     section;
       ``(5) contains information on the incidence and prevalence 
     of individuals living with heritable disorders, information 
     on the health status of individuals with such disorders, 
     information on any health disparities experienced by such 
     individuals, and recommendations for improving the health and 
     wellness and quality of life of such individuals;
       ``(6) contains a summary of recommendations from all 
     heritable disorders research conferences sponsored by the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
       ``(7) contains any recommendations of the Secretary 
     regarding this section.
       ``(d) Applicability of Privacy Laws.--The provisions of 
     this section shall be subject to the requirements of section 
     552a of title 5, United States Code. All Federal laws 
     relating to the privacy of information shall apply to the 
     data and information that is collected under this section.
       ``(e) Coordination.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall coordinate, to the extent practicable, 
     programs under this section with programs on birth defects 
     and developmental disabilities authorized under section 317C.
       ``(2) Priority in grants and contracts.--In making grants 
     and contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to entities that demonstrate the ability to 
     coordinate activities under a grant or contract made under 
     this section with existing birth defects surveillance 
     activities.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 2664. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to pharmacies under part D; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access 
Improvement Act of 2006.
  The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start. As 
the new benefit was rolled out, the program experienced problems 
related to its computer system and databases. A lot of those problems 
have been fixed. But a new computer program or new software could not 
fix a number of the problems that pharmacists faced.
  The Medicare drug benefit made big changes to the pharmacy business. 
Transitioning dual eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare 
drug coverage affected the pharmacists who provide drugs. And 
pharmacists have experienced problems dealing with the private drug 
plans that offer the new benefit.
  I have been hearing from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. 
They are trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. 
The success of the Medicare drug benefit ultimately depends on the 
pharmacists who deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. And we must 
act now, before pharmacists find that they are no longer able to 
provide drugs to Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.
  This bill would provide the help that pharmacists need to continue 
delivering the Medicare drug benefit. It would resolve problems that 
they face every day as they provide Medicare beneficiaries with their 
drugs. It would help ensure that pharmacies remain open and operable so 
the drug benefit can be a meaningful part of beneficiaries' health 
care.
  The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help 
pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug 
plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with 
broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure 
that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide 
real access to Medicare beneficiaries.
  It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks. 
These pharmacies have served the most vulnerable patients for years. 
They should be able to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be 
allowed to exclude safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge 
disservice to needy beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems 
that safety net pharmacies have encountered in participating in the 
Medicare drug benefit.
  The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to 
pharmacies. The delay that pharmacies have experienced in receiving 
payment from drug plans has sent pharmacies all over the country into 
financial frenzy. These delays have forced pharmacies to seek 
additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse, as they try to 
continue operations. This bill would require drug plans to pay 
promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks, making it 
easier for pharmacies to operate. And the bill would impose a monetary 
penalty on plans if they paid late.
  One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how 
confused they are. One source of their confusion comes from the 
practice of co-branding. Co-branding is when a drug plan partners with 
a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's logo or name on its 
marketing materials and identification cards. This is confusing, 
because it sends the message that drugs are available only from that 
pharmacy. And that is not true. To help end this confusion, the 
Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from placing 
pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and restrict 
other forms of co-branding.
  This bill would also require that pharmacists be paid reasonable 
dispensing fees for each prescription that they fill. Currently, some 
plans pay no dispensing fees. Other plans pay only nominal dispensing 
fees. Pharmacists are not able to cover their costs of dispensing 
drugs. And that puts them at a severe disadvantage. It eats up their 
margins from non-Medicare business. And it is unsustainable in the 
long-run.
  Some would say that it is too soon to consider legislation that 
affects the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree. The problems that 
pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not going away. If we 
wait a year to consider the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act, it may be 
too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they serve. We 
have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and robust as 
it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents an 
opportunity for us to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Conrad, 
        and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2665. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
simplify and improve the Medicare prescription drug program; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006. This bill would improve 
the Medicare drug benefit by creating simple, understandable benefit 
packages. It would

[[Page S3711]]

provide extra funds for State counselors who educate Medicare 
beneficiaries about the drug benefit. And it would strengthen consumer 
protections for beneficiaries who enroll.
  Medicare drug benefits are critical to the health of our Nation's 
elderly and disabled. In 2003, after years of debate, Congress added 
drug coverage to Medicare through passage of the Medicare Modernization 
Act, the MMA. I was proud to help pass that bill. The law was not 
perfect. But, as I said then, we should not let perfection be the enemy 
of the good. The MMA can go a long way toward helping those who need it 
most.
  But implementation of the law has been flawed. The Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, was put in charge of ensuring 
that the prescription drug benefit was fully operational by January 1, 
2006. The task was big. And CMS worked hard to get it done. 
Unfortunately, CMS's efforts have come up short in a few major areas.
  First, CMS made the new program needlessly confusing. The law charged 
CMS with approving prescription drug plans. Last April, I urged CMS to 
approve only the plans meeting the highest standards, so that seniors 
could choose among a manageable number of solid offerings. But CMS 
ignored that advice.
  Instead, CMS approved 47 plans in my State alone, and more than 1,500 
nationwide. Furthermore, the differences between the plans are mind-
boggling and difficult to sort out, even for the most-savvy consumer. 
Beneficiaries deserve better. They must be able to make apples-to-
apples comparisons in order to choose what is best for them.
  There are other problems in the way that CMS chose to implement the 
new program. Consumer protections are weak and inconsistent. The list 
of drugs covered by plans should not change in the middle of the year. 
Plan formularies should be transparent. And patients should be able to 
request exceptions to them using the same process and forms, no matter 
which plans the patients enrolled in.
  Also, CMS terribly underfunded State Health Insurance Programs, known 
as SHIPs. These agencies are mainly staffed by volunteers who help 
educate and advise people about Medicare and the new drug benefit. They 
have held thousands of community events and assisted millions of people 
across the country. But they struggled to meet demand for help with the 
new drug program. Last week, Montana AARP donated $40,000 of its own 
funds to help the Montana SHIP keep enough staff and volunteers through 
the May 15 deadline. CMS provided only $7,500 for a five-county region 
in Montana with an area bigger than Delaware. In contrast, CMS spent 
$300 million for an ad campaign, a bus tour, and a blimp.
  Yet despite these ads, many seniors are still confused about the drug 
benefit. When I asked Montanans how they feel about the new program, 
they tell me that it is too complex and confusing.
  Recent focus groups conducted by MedPAC, the group that advises 
Congress on Medicare policy, found the same the problem. According to 
MedPAC, beneficiaries are ``confused by the number of plans, variation 
in benefit structure.''
  And a study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation says: ``the 
absence of any standardization for many features of drug plan benefit 
design, and even some of the basic terminology used to describe these 
plans, adds to the challenges for beneficiaries'' and ``is likely to 
make apples-to-apples comparisons across plans more difficult for 
consumers.'' The report ``confirm[ed] the importance of federal 
safeguards . . . to minimize unnecessary complexity in [the] Medicare 
prescription drug plan marketplace.''
  The message is coming through loud and clear from constituents, 
researchers, advocacy groups, and government advisers. We need to make 
the Medicare drug benefit more understandable, straightforward, and 
transparent. And that's what this bill would do.
  First, the bill would make choices among prescription drug plans more 
simple and straightforward. It would require the Federal Department of 
Health and Human Services to define six types of drug benefit packages 
that insurers could offer. In addition, Medicare and insurers would 
both have to use uniform language, names, and terminology to describe 
drug benefit packages. Seniors can reach informed decisions, but they 
deserve clear options.
  This approach is similar to the one Congress took with the Medicare 
supplemental market. In 1980, Congress enacted the Baucus amendments to 
fix marketing abuses and consumer confusion with supplemental or 
Medigap plans.
  Those reforms required private issuers to meet minimum standards and 
have minimum loss ratios. Ten years later, Congress again took up 
Medigap reform, passing legislation that led to the standardization of 
Medigap policies. This resulted in a limited number of Medigap options, 
each with a fixed set of benefits. These changes were successful in 
helping consumers to make comparisons and in strengthening consumer 
protections.
  My colleague and co-sponsor, Senator Ron Wyden, was instrumental in 
bringing about these reforms. And I thank him for his involvement then 
and today.
  The bill that we are introducing today would build on these lessons 
and apply them to the Medicare drug benefit. By establishing six 
standardized types of benefit packages that insurers can offer, the 
bill would help people to make apples-to-apples comparisons. It would 
make choices more understandable. It would reduce confusion and help 
beneficiaries make the decisions that are best for each individual. And 
it would do this while preserving the ability of insurers to compete in 
the marketplace.
  Second, the bill would provide extra funds to State Health Insurance 
Programs through 2010. Putting information on the Internet, television, 
and a toll-free hotline is not enough.
  Third, the bill would stop drug plans from removing medications or 
increasing drug costs during the benefit year.
  Fourth, the bill would prohibit insurance agents from engaging in 
unfair marketing practices that prey on vulnerable people--practices 
like cold-calling seniors.
  I believe strongly that Medicare beneficiaries need prescription drug 
coverage. And, if CMS implements it correctly, the market-based 
approach envisioned in the MMA can deliver those benefits effectively. 
But a market can work only if the product is well defined and consumers 
have sufficient knowledge of it. As Adam Smith said: ``[Value] is 
adjusted . . . not by any accurate measure, but by the haggling and 
bargaining of the market.'' It's not fair to expect seniors and people 
with disabilities to haggle and bargain if the choices are 
incomprehensible.
  Some may say that lots of choice is good. This is true when people 
buy cars or toasters. But, as many economists have shown, the health 
care market is different. People want to choose their providers and 
pharmacies. But they do not necessarily want to wade through a 
confusing array of plans.
  Some may say that we should hold off making changes until the market 
consolidates. But that is both unfair and unrealistic. With more than 
1,500 plans in the market now, how much consolidation could really fix 
the problem of confusion and complexity? Furthermore, the next 
enrollment period is fast approaching, and consumers are insisting on 
relief now.
  Some may say that enrollment is high, so why tinker with the benefit? 
But look at the numbers. In 2003, CMS said that they expected 19 
million Americans to sign up for the drug program. But so far, only 8 
million have voluntarily enrolled. In Montana, only 42 percent of 
people who have a choice about whether to sign up have done so. We can 
do better than that. And with passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug 
Simplification Act, we will.
  The MMA tried to balance the needs of private plans and 
beneficiaries. But implementation has tilted that balance toward the 
private firms, rather than seniors and the disabled. The Medicare 
Prescription Drug Simplification Act of 2006 would restore the proper 
balance needed to make the drug program work fairly for people with 
Medicare.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID. (for Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. 
        Lieberman)):
  S. 2670. A bill to restore fairness in the provision of incentives 
for oil and gas production, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


[[Page S3712]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2672. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that oil and gas companies will not be eligible for the effective rate 
reductions enacted in 2004 for domestic manufacturers; to the Committee 
on Finance.

  Mr. REID (for Mr. Kerry). Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 contained $2.6 billion over 10 years in tax breaks for oil and gas 
companies. The bill also contained a $1.5 billion fund for an oil 
consortium that brings the total handouts for oil companies to more 
than $4 billion over ten years. These giveaways are on top of at least 
$6 billion in tax breaks already available to the oil industry through 
2009. And these new tax breaks come at a time when the world's largest 
energy companies are reaping record-setting profits.
  Just this week, President Bush said: ``Record oil prices and large 
cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these 
energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs 
of certain geological and geophysical expenditures, or the use of 
taxpayers' money to subsidize energy companies' research into deep 
water drilling. I'm looking forward to Congress to take about $2 
billion of these tax breaks out of the budget over a 10-year period of 
time. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain 
of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies.''
  Not long ago, we heard the top oil executives testify before Congress 
that they don't need the tax breaks either.
  Today I am introducing the Energy Fairness for America Act and the 
Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Production Act of 2006. These 
bills repeal tax breaks for oil companies, close corporate tax 
loopholes that benefit oil companies, and repeal the new domestic 
manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies.
  The Energy Fairness for America Act will repeal provisions approved 
in the recent Energy Policy Act, as well as pre-existing handouts. 
Instead of providing tax breaks to oil companies, the Energy Fairness 
for America Act will save at least $28 billion for tax payers. This 
money can then go to provide relief to consumers suffering from higher 
energy costs as well as investments in efficiency and renewable 
technologies that can benefit all Americans.
  The Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Production Act of 2006 
would repeal the new manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies 
that was enacted by Congress in 2004. Congressman McDermott is 
introducing companion legislation in the House. This domestic 
manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export-related tax 
benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union.
  Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial 
legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export-related tax 
benefits and to replace with a new domestic manufacturing deduction 
only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the 
export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the 
deduction to include the oil and gas industry.
  This legislation repeals the 2004 manufacturing deduction for oil and 
gas companies because these industries suffered no detriment from the 
repeal of export-related tax benefits. At a time when oil companies are 
reporting record profits, there is no valid reason to reward them with 
a tax deduction.
  Many Members of Congress including myself support a windfall profits 
tax and providing this deduction to oil and gas companies operates as a 
reverse windfall profits tax. This deduction lowers the tax rate on the 
windfall profits they are currently enjoying. Without Congressional 
action, this benefit will increase. The domestic manufacturing 
deduction is currently three percent and is schedule to increase to six 
percent in 2007 and nine percent in 2010. This means that next year oil 
companies that are benefiting from this deduction will see their 
benefits double and triple in 2010.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the Energy Fairness for America 
Act and the Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Production Act of 
2006. We owe it to the American people to eliminate tax benefits to the 
oil industry at a time of record profits, record gas prices, and a 
projected record deficit.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2670

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Energy 
     Fairness for America Act''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
Sec. 2. Termination of deduction for intangible drilling and 
              development costs.
Sec. 3. Termination of percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas 
              wells.
Sec. 4. Termination of enhanced oil recovery credit.
Sec. 5. Termination of certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 
              2005.
Sec. 6. Termination of certain tax provisions of the Energy Policy Act 
              of 2005.
Sec. 7. Revaluation of LIFO inventories of large integrated oil 
              companies.
Sec. 8. Modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to dual 
              capacity taxpayers.
Sec. 9. Rules relating to foreign oil and gas income.
Sec. 10. Elimination of deferral for foreign oil and gas extraction 
              income.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF DEDUCTION FOR INTANGIBLE DRILLING AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 263(c) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``This subsection shall not 
     apply to any taxable year beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this sentence.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     section 291(b) are each amended by striking ``section 263(c), 
     616(a),'' and inserting ``section 616(a)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR OIL 
                   AND GAS WELLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 613A is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Termination.--For purposes of any taxable year 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection, 
     the allowance for percentage depletion shall be zero.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 43 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ENERGY 
                   POLICY ACT OF 2005.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 are repealed on and after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act:
       (1) Section 342 (relating to program on oil and gas 
     royalties in-kind).
       (2) Section 343 (relating to marginal property production 
     incentives).
       (3) Section 344 (relating to incentives for natural gas 
     production from deep wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf 
     of Mexico).
       (4) Section 345 (relating to royalty relief for deep water 
     production).
       (5) Section 357 (relating to comprehensive inventory of OCS 
     oil and natural gas resources).
       (6) Subtitle J of title IX (relating to ultra-deepwater and 
     unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources).
       (b) Termination of Alaska Offshore Royalty Suspension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``and in the Planning Areas offshore 
     Alaska''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN TAX PROVISIONS OF THE ENERGY 
                   POLICY ACT OF 2005.

       (a) Electric Transmission Property Treated as 15-Year 
     Property.--Section 168(e)(3)(E)(vii) is amended by inserting 
     ``, and before the date of the enactment of the Energy 
     Fairness for America Act'' after ``April 11, 2005''.

[[Page S3713]]

       (b) Temporary Expensing of Equipment Used in Refining 
     Liquid Fuels.--Section 179C(c)(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``the 
     date of the enactment of the Energy Fairness for America 
     Act'', and
       (2) by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``the 
     date of the enactment of the Energy Fairness for America 
     Act''.
       (c) Natural Gas Distribution Lines Treated as 15-Year 
     Property.--Section 168(e)(3)(E)(viii) is amended by striking 
     ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``the date of the enactment 
     of the Energy Fairness for America Act''.
       (d) Natural Gas Gathering Lines Treated as 7-Year 
     Property.--Section 168(e)(3)(C)(iv) is amended by inserting 
     ``, and before the date of the enactment of the Energy 
     Fairness for America Act'' after ``April 11, 2005''.
       (e) Determination of Small Refiner Exception to Oil 
     Depletion Deduction.--Section 1328(b) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 is amended by inserting ``and beginning before 
     the date of the enactment of the Energy Fairness for America 
     Act'' after ``this Act''.
       (f) Amortization of Geological and Geophysical 
     Expenditures.--Section 167(h) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment of the 
     Energy Fairness for America Act.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 7. REVALUATION OF LIFO INVENTORIES OF LARGE INTEGRATED 
                   OIL COMPANIES.

       (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, if a taxpayer is an applicable integrated oil company 
     for its last taxable year ending in calendar year 2005, the 
     taxpayer shall--
       (1) increase, effective as of the close of such taxable 
     year, the value of each historic LIFO layer of inventories of 
     crude oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product 
     (within the meaning of section 4611) by the layer adjustment 
     amount, and
       (2) decrease its cost of goods sold for such taxable year 
     by the aggregate amount of the increases under paragraph (1).

     If the aggregate amount of the increases under paragraph (1) 
     exceed the taxpayer's cost of goods sold for such taxable 
     year, the taxpayer's gross income for such taxable year shall 
     be increased by the amount of such excess.
       (b) Layer Adjustment Amount.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) In general.--The term ``layer adjustment amount'' 
     means, with respect to any historic LIFO layer, the product 
     of--
       (A) $18.75, and
       (B) the number of barrels of crude oil (or in the case of 
     natural gas or other petroleum products, the number of 
     barrel-of-oil equivalents) represented by the layer.
       (2) Barrel-of-oil equivalent.--The term ``barrel-of-oil 
     equivalent'' has the meaning given such term by section 
     29(d)(5) (as in effect before its redesignation by the Energy 
     Tax Incentives Act of 2005).
       (c) Application of Requirement.--
       (1) No change in method of accounting.--Any adjustment 
     required by this section shall not be treated as a change in 
     method of accounting.
       (2) Underpayments of estimated tax.--No addition to the tax 
     shall be made under section 6655 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to failure by corporation to pay estimated 
     tax) with respect to any underpayment of an installment 
     required to be paid with respect to the taxable year 
     described in subsection (a) to the extent such underpayment 
     was created or increased by this section.
       (d) Applicable Integrated Oil Company.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``applicable integrated oil company'' 
     means an integrated oil company (as defined in section 
     291(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which has an 
     average daily worldwide production of crude oil of at least 
     500,000 barrels for the taxable year and which had gross 
     receipts in excess of $1,000,000,000 for its last taxable 
     year ending during calendar year 2005. For purposes of this 
     subsection all persons treated as a single employer under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall be treated as 1 person and, in the case of 
     a short taxable year, the rule under section 448(c)(3)(B) 
     shall apply.

     SEC. 8. MODIFICATIONS OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT RULES APPLICABLE 
                   TO DUAL CAPACITY TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 (relating to credit for taxes 
     of foreign countries and of possessions of the United States) 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (n) 
     and by inserting after subsection (l) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(m) Special Rules Relating To Dual Capacity Taxpayers.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this chapter, any amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity 
     taxpayer to a foreign country or possession of the United 
     States for any period shall not be considered a tax--
       ``(A) if, for such period, the foreign country or 
     possession does not impose a generally applicable income tax, 
     or
       ``(B) to the extent such amount exceeds the amount 
     (determined in accordance with regulations) which--
       ``(i) is paid by such dual capacity taxpayer pursuant to 
     the generally applicable income tax imposed by the country or 
     possession, or
       ``(ii) would be paid if the generally applicable income tax 
     imposed by the country or possession were applicable to such 
     dual capacity taxpayer.

     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to imply the 
     proper treatment of any such amount not in excess of the 
     amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(2) Dual capacity taxpayer.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `dual capacity taxpayer' means, with 
     respect to any foreign country or possession of the United 
     States, a person who--
       ``(A) is subject to a levy of such country or possession, 
     and
       ``(B) receives (or will receive) directly or indirectly a 
     specific economic benefit (as determined in accordance with 
     regulations) from such country or possession.
       ``(3) Generally applicable income tax.--For purposes of 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `generally applicable income 
     tax' means an income tax (or a series of income taxes) which 
     is generally imposed under the laws of a foreign country or 
     possession on income derived from the conduct of a trade or 
     business within such country or possession.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include a tax unless 
     it has substantial application, by its terms and in practice, 
     to--
       ``(i) persons who are not dual capacity taxpayers, and
       ``(ii) persons who are citizens or residents of the foreign 
     country or possession.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxes paid or accrued in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Contrary treaty obligations upheld.--The amendments 
     made by this section shall not apply to the extent contrary 
     to any treaty obligation of the United States.

     SEC. 9. RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME.

       (a) Separate Basket for Foreign Tax Credit.--
       (1) Years before 2007.--Paragraph (1) of section 904(d) 
     (relating to separate application of section with respect to 
     certain categories of income), as in effect for years 
     beginning before 2007, is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (H), by redesignating subparagraph (I) as 
     subparagraph (J), and by inserting after subparagraph (H) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(I) foreign oil and gas income, and''.
       (2) 2007 and after.--Paragraph (1) of section 904(d), as in 
     effect for years beginning after 2006, is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the 
     period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) foreign oil and gas income.''
       (b) Definition.--
       (1) Years before 2007.--Paragraph (2) of section 904(d), as 
     in effect for years beginning before 2007, is amended by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (H) and (I) as subparagraphs (I) 
     and (J), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (G) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) Foreign oil and gas income.--The term `foreign oil 
     and gas income' has the meaning given such term by section 
     954(g).''
       (2) 2007 and after.--Section 904(d)(2), as in effect for 
     years after 2006, is amended by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (J) and (K) as subparagraphs (K) and (L) and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (I) the following:
       ``(J) Foreign oil and gas income.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `foreign oil and gas income' 
     has the meaning given such term by section 954(g).
       ``(ii) Coordination.--Passive category income and general 
     category income shall not include foreign oil and gas income 
     (as so defined).''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 904(d)(3)(F)(i) is amended by striking ``or 
     (E)'' and inserting ``(E), or (I)''.
       (2) Section 907(a) is hereby repealed.
       (3) Section 907(c)(4) is hereby repealed.
       (4) Section 907(f) is hereby repealed.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Years after 2006.--The amendments made by paragraphs 
     (1)(B) and (2)(B) shall apply to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2006.
       (3) Transitional rules.--
       (A) Separate basket treatment.--Any taxes paid or accrued 
     in a taxable year beginning on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to income which was 
     described in subparagraph (I) of section 904(d)(1) of such 
     Code (as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act), shall be treated as taxes paid or 
     accrued with respect to foreign oil and gas income to the 
     extent the taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury that such taxes were paid or 
     accrued with respect to foreign oil and gas income.
       (B) Carryovers.--Any unused oil and gas extraction taxes 
     which under section 907(f) of such Code (as so in effect) 
     would have been allowable as a carryover to the taxpayer's 
     first taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act (without regard to

[[Page S3714]]

     the limitation of paragraph (2) of such section 907(f) for 
     first taxable year) shall be allowed as carryovers under 
     section 904(c) of such Code in the same manner as if such 
     taxes were unused taxes under such section 904(c) with 
     respect to foreign oil and gas extraction income.
       (C) Losses.--The amendment made by subsection (c)(3) shall 
     not apply to foreign oil and gas extraction losses arising in 
     taxable years beginning on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF DEFERRAL FOR FOREIGN OIL AND GAS 
                   EXTRACTION INCOME.

       (a) General Rule.--Paragraph (1) of section 954(g) 
     (defining foreign base company oil related income) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the term `foreign oil and gas income' means any 
     income of a kind which would be taken into account in 
     determining the amount of--
       ``(A) foreign oil and gas extraction income (as defined in 
     section 907(c)), or
       ``(B) foreign oil related income (as defined in section 
     907(c)).''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsections (a)(5), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of section 954, 
     and section 952(c)(1)(B)(ii)(I), are each amended by striking 
     ``base company oil related income'' each place it appears 
     (including in the heading of subsection (b)(8)) and inserting 
     ``oil and gas income''.
       (2) Subsection (b)(4) of section 954 is amended by striking 
     ``base company oil-related income'' and inserting ``oil and 
     gas income''.
       (3) The subsection heading for subsection (g) of section 
     954 is amended by striking ``Foreign Base Company Oil Related 
     Income'' and inserting ``Foreign Oil and Gas Income''.
       (4) Subparagraph (A) of section 954(g)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``foreign base company oil related income'' and 
     inserting ``foreign oil and gas income''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years of foreign corporations 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to 
     taxable years of United States shareholders ending with or 
     within such taxable years of foreign corporations.
                                  ____


                                S. 2672

       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 ``Restore a Rational Tax Rate 
     on Petroleum Production Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) like many other countries, the United States has long 
     provided export-related benefits under its tax law,
       (2) producers and refiners of oil and natural gas were 
     specifically denied the benefits of those export-related tax 
     provisions,
       (3) those export-related tax provisions were successfully 
     challenged by the European Union as being inconsistent with 
     our trade agreements,
       (4) the Congress responded by repealing the export-related 
     benefits and enacting a substitute benefit that was an 
     effective rate reduction for United States manufacturers,
       (5) producers and refiners of oil and natural gas were made 
     eligible for the rate reduction even though they suffered no 
     detriment from repeal of the export-related benefits, and
       (6) the decision to provide the effective rate reduction to 
     producers and refiners of oil and natural gas has operated as 
     a reverse windfall profits tax, lowering the tax rate on the 
     windfall profits they are currently enjoying.

     SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO 
                   DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR 
                   PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) the production, refining, processing, 
     transportation, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any 
     primary product thereof.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2671. A bill to provide Federal coordination and assistance in 
preventing gang violence; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Feinstein to introduce a bill to combat gang violence and honor a young 
girl from California, Mynesha Crenshaw, who was killed last year in a 
tragic shooting.
  On November 13, 2005, a gang-related dispute broke out in San 
Bernardino, CA and gunfire sprayed an apartment building, killing 11-
year old Mynesha Crenshaw and seriously wounding her 14-year old sister 
as they ate Sunday dinner with their family.
  Imagine the fear and anguish the family and the community still feel 
over this tragedy a young girl, full of hope and promise, dead. Her big 
sister, wounded from the same gunfire, though thankfully she 
subsequently recovered. Imagine the fear that this could happen again. 
Our hearts and our prayers go out to Mynesha's family and to the entire 
community, which like so many others across the United States, has 
struggled with gang violence.
  Last year, there were 58 homicides in San Bernardino, a city of 
200,000 east of Los Angeles, and 13 more homicides so far this year. 
And just last month, two men were caught in a gang-related crossfire 
and died in Downtown San Bernardino. This has to stop. It is a waste of 
life; it is unacceptable.
  San Bernardino's diverse population of young people and their 
families face many challenges, but San Bernardino also has a vibrant 
and united community, strong leadership, and a desire to come together 
to improve their city.
  Mynesha Crenshaw's death galvanized over 1,000 residents to take to 
the streets, demanding change. And some 40 community and religious 
leaders, public officials, and concerned citizens from San Bernardino 
have joined together to form ``Mynesha's Circle'' to find solutions to 
the plague of gang violence and to help San Bernardino's young people 
grow up safe, finish school, and succeed in life.
  I applaud Mayor Patrick Morris, Police Chief Michael Billdt, 
community leaders Kent Paxton and Rev. Reggie Beamon and Robert Balzer, 
the publisher of the San Bernardino Sun, for taking up this cause.
  I want to also thank all the other members of ``Mynesha's Circle'' 
Sheryl Alexander, Betty Dean Anderson, Donald Baker, Fred Board, Ruddy 
Bravo, Hardy Brown, Cheryl Brown, Mark and Katrina Cato, Larry 
Ciecalone, Stephani Congdon, San Bernardino City Schools Superintendent 
Arturo Delgado, Tim Evans, San Bernardino County Schools Superintendent 
Herb Fischer, Rialto Schools Superintendent Edna Herring, Sheriff Rod 
Hoops, Syeda Jafri, Walter Jarman, Rev. David Kalke, CSU President Al 
Karnig, William Leonard, Sheriff Gary Penrod, DA Michael Ramos, Sandy 
Robbins, Doug Rowand, Larry Sharp, Ron Stark, Tori Stordahl, Heck 
Thomas, David Torres, Mark Uffer, San Bernardino Police Chief Gary 
Underwood, Councilmember Rikke Van Johnson, Bobby Vega, and the Sun 
Reader Advisory Board members: Daniel Blakely, Barbara Lee Harn Covey, 
Mark Henry, Julie Hernandez, Lynette Kaplan, Brenda Mackey, James 
Magnuson, Julian Melendez, Ernest Ott, Jeffrey Pryor, John Ragsdale, 
Glenda Randolph, Nora Taylor, and David Torres.
  I have pledged to do what I can at the Federal level to help San 
Bernardino. And that is why today I am introducing ``Mynesha's Law,'' 
with my colleague, Senator Feinstein.
  ``Mynesha's Law'' will create an interagency Task Force at the 
Federal level, including the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, to take a 
comprehensive approach to reducing gang violence and targeting 
resources at the communities in our nation most at risk. The resources 
will come from proven existing Federal programs, including Child Care 
Block Grants, Head Start, Even Start, Job Corps, COPS, Byrne Grants and 
other programs the Task Forces chooses.
  Communities will be able to apply to the Department of Justices for 
designation as a ``High-Intensity Gang Activity Area'' and then be 
eligible to receive targeted assistance from the Task Force.
  The Task Force will be required to report annually to Congress on the 
best practices and outcomes among the High-Intensity Gang Activity 
Areas and on the adequacy of Federal funding to meet the needs of these 
areas. If the Task Force identifies any programmatic shortfalls in 
addressing gang prevention, the report will also include a request for 
new funding or reprogramming of existing funds to meet the shortfalls 
and the bill authorizes such sums to be appropriated.

[[Page S3715]]

  In addition to ``Mynesha's Law,'' I am seeking a $1 million 
appropriation that the city of San Bernardino has requested to 
implement a comprehensive gang intervention and prevention strategy 
called ``San Bernardino Gang Free Schools.'' The program would fund 10 
probation officers to provide gang resistance and education training to 
57,000 students, as well as case management and oversight for at-risk 
youth.
  I am also requesting a $3 million appropriation to renovate and equip 
what may be the most important organization for at-risk young people in 
the area the Boys and Girls Club of San Bernardino.
  The Boys and Girls Club is one of the few safe and supportive places 
in San Bernardino where young people can go after school to get help 
with homework or play sports with their friends. Many community leaders 
believe the Boys and Girls Club is one of the best gang prevention 
programs in San Bernardino and has helped many young people stay in 
school and out of trouble.
  This tragic shooting of Mynesha Crenshaw symbolizes the struggle that 
so many communities across the United States, like San Bernardino, face 
in combating gang violence and serves as a reminder of the nationwide 
problem we face in protecting our children from senseless violence. I 
believe ``Mynesha's Law'' will help the children of San Bernardino, and 
across our nation, grow up safely so they can reach their dreams.
  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. 2671

       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 ``Mynesha's Law''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds--
       (1) with an estimated 24,500 gangs operating within the 
     United States, gang violence and drug trafficking remain 
     serious problems throughout the country, causing injury and 
     death to innocent victims, often children;
       (2) on November 13, 2005, a gang-related dispute broke out 
     in San Bernardino, California, and gunfire sprayed an 
     apartment building, killing 11-year old Mynesha Crenshaw and 
     seriously wounding her 14-year old sister as they ate Sunday 
     dinner with their family;
       (3) this tragic shooting symbolizes the struggle that so 
     many communities across the United States, like San 
     Bernardino, face in combating gang violence, and serves as a 
     reminder of the nationwide problem of protecting children 
     from senseless violence;
       (4) according to the National Drug Threat Assessment, 
     criminal street gangs are responsible for the distribution of 
     much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other 
     illegal drugs throughout the United States;
       (5) the Federal Government has made an increased commitment 
     to the suppression of gang violence through enhanced law 
     enforcement and criminal penalties; and
       (6) more Federal resources and coordination are needed to 
     reduce gang violence through proven and proactive prevention 
     and intervention programs that focus on keeping at-risk youth 
     in school and out of the criminal justice system.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATION AS A HIGH-INTENSITY GANG ACTIVITY AREA.

       (a) In General.--A unit of local government, city, county, 
     tribal government, or a group of counties (whether located in 
     1 or more States) may submit an application to the Attorney 
     General for designation as a High-Intensity Gang Activity 
     Area.
       (b) Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     criteria for reviewing applications submitted under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Considerations.--In establishing criteria under 
     subsection (a) and evaluating an application for designation 
     as a High-Intensity Gang Activity Area, the Attorney General 
     shall consider--
       (A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity 
     in the area;
       (B) the extent to which violent crime in the area appears 
     to be related to criminal gang activity;
       (C) the extent to which the area is already engaged in 
     local or regional collaboration regarding, and coordination 
     of, gang prevention activities; and
       (D) such other criteria as the Attorney General determines 
     to be appropriate.

     SEC. 4. PURPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--In order to coordinate Federal assistance 
     to High-Intensity Gang Activity Areas, the Attorney General 
     shall establish an Interagency Gang Prevention Task Force (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Task Force''), consisting of a 
     representative from--
       (1) the Department of Justice;
       (2) the Department of Education;
       (3) the Department of Labor;
       (4) the Department of Health and Human Services; and
       (5) the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       (b) Coordination.--For each High-Intensity Gang Activity 
     Area designated by the Attorney General under section 3, the 
     Task Force shall--
       (1) coordinate the activities of the Federal Government to 
     create a comprehensive gang prevention response, focusing on 
     early childhood intervention, at-risk youth intervention, 
     literacy, employment, and community policing; and
       (2) coordinate its efforts with local and regional gang 
     prevention efforts.
       (c) Programs.--The Task Force shall prioritize the needs of 
     High-Intensity Gang Activity Areas for funding under--
       (1) the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.);
       (2) the Even Start programs under subpart 3 of part B of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6381 et seq.);
       (3) the Healthy Start Initiative under section 330H of the 
     Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-8);
       (4) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       (5) the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 
     under part B of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171 et seq.);
       (6) the Job Corps program under subtitle C of title I of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2881 et 
     seq.);
       (7) the community development block grant program under 
     title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.);
       (8) the Gang Resistance Education and Training projects 
     under subtitle X of title III of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13921);
       (9) any program administered by the Office of Community 
     Oriented Policing Services;
       (10) the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program under 
     part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.);
       (11) the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
     Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
     seq.); and
       (12) any other program that the Task Force determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (d) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     the Task Force shall submit to Congress and the Attorney 
     General a report on the funding needs and programmatic 
     outcomes for each area designated as a High-Intensity Gang 
     Activity Area.
       (2) Contents.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) an evidence-based analysis of the best practices and 
     outcomes among the areas designated as High-Intensity Gang 
     Activity Areas; and
       (B) an analysis of the adequacy of Federal funding to meet 
     the needs of each area designated as a High-Intensity Gang 
     Activity Area and, if the Task Force identifies any 
     programmatic shortfalls in addressing gang prevention, a 
     request for new funding or reprogramming of existing funds to 
     meet such shortfalls.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to meet any needs identified in any report 
     submitted under section 4(d)(1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 2674. A bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide 
for the support of Native American language survival schools, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would 
amend the Native American Languages Act, NALA, that was enacted into 
law on October 30, 1990, to promote the rights and freedom of Native 
Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages. 
Since 1990, awareness and appreciation of Native languages has grown. 
Continued action and investment in the preservation of Native languages 
is needed. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Daniel 
K. Inouye and Max Baucus, as we seek to improve the cultural and 
educational opportunities available to Native Americans throughout our 
Nation.
  Historians and linguists estimate that there were more than 300 
distinct Native languages at the time of first European contact with 
North America. Today, there are approximately 155 Native languages that 
remain and 87 percent of those languages have been classified as 
deteriorating or nearing extinction. Native communities across the 
country are being significantly impacted as individuals fluent in a 
Native language are passing away. These

[[Page S3716]]

speakers are not only important in perpetuating the language itself, 
but also serve as repositories of invaluable knowledge pertaining to 
customs and traditions, as well as resource use and management.
  The Native American Languages Act Amendments Act of 2006 would amend 
NALA to authorize the Secretary of Education to provide funds to 
establish Native American language nest and survival school programs. 
Nest and survival school programs are site-based education programs 
conducted through a Native American language. These programs have 
played an integral role in bringing together elders and youth to 
cultivate and perpetuate Native American languages. My bill would 
establish at least four demonstration programs in geographically 
diverse locations to provide assistance to nest and survival schools 
and participate in a national study on the linguistic, cultural, and 
academic effects of Native American language nest and survival schools. 
Demonstration programs would be authorized to establish endowments for 
furthering activities related to the study and preservation of Native 
American languages and to use funds to provide for the rental, lease, 
purchase, construction, maintenance, and repair of facilities.
  As Americans, it is our responsibility to perpetuate our Native 
languages that have shaped our collective identity and contributed to 
our history. For example, during World War II, the United States 
employed Native American code talkers who developed secret means of 
communication based on Native languages. The actions of the code 
talkers were critical to our winning the war and to saving numerous 
lives. My legislation would serve as another opportunity for our 
country to acknowledge and ensure that our future will be enhanced by 
the contributions of Native language and culture.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to 
enhance the cultural and educational opportunities for Native Americans 
and Native American language speaking individuals.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2675. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to set minimum 
fuel economy requirements for federal vehicles, to authorize grants to 
States to purchase fuel efficient vehicles, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
increase the fuel economy for our Nation's Federal fleet.
  Americans are facing record high gasoline prices at over $3 per 
gallon. In some places in my State of California, people are paying 
over $4 per gallon. Oil is selling for over $75 per barrel.
  We need to say ``enough is enough.'' We need to reduce our dependence 
on oil and gasoline. We can do this without changing our quality of 
life by investing in fuel-efficient cars.
  The Federal Government must set an example to the American public by 
improving the Nation's fleet. Each year, the Federal Government 
purchases 58,000 passenger vehicles. According to the Department of 
Energy, the average fuel economy of the new vehicles purchased for the 
fleet in 2005 was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon.
  In an era, where hybrid cars on the market that can achieve over 50 
miles per gallon (mpg), that level of fuel economy is unacceptable.
  Instead, our government needs to purchase fuel-efficient cars, SUVs, 
and other light trucks.
  This can be done today. I drive a Toyota Prius that gets over 50 mpg. 
The Ford Escape SUV can get 36 mpg.
  To have the Federal Government set an example for the American public 
and to create a larger market for fuel-efficient vehicles, I am 
introducing the ``Fuel-Efficient Fleets Act of 2006.''
  This legislation would require all new Federal fleet vehicles to 
obtain a minimum miles per gallon based on vehicle type. The new fuel 
efficiency standards would be as follows: 45 mpg for cars, 36 mpg for 
SUVs, 24 mpg for pickup trucks, 20 mpg for minivans, and 15 mpg for 
vans.
  The bill establishes a phase-in schedule over 4 years to allow for 
flexibility in purchasing new cars.
  Additionally, the bill has a provision to allow the standards to be 
increased if technological advances allow fuel economy to improve.
  Finally, the bill authorizes $100 million in incentive grants for the 
States' fleets to match or exceed the Federal standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. This will be a good step to 
use less gasoline in this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 2676. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to enter 
into partnership agreements with entities and local communities to 
encourage greater cooperation in the administration of Forest Service 
activities on the near National Forest System land, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, last August I participated in the White 
House Conference on Cooperative Conservation. The conference reinforced 
that conservation success can be achieved by collaboration. Many of the 
advancements in conservation result from the commitment of individuals 
to work together and with local and Federal agencies. Cooperative 
conservation requires cooperative legislation.
  That is why I rise to introduce the Forest Service Partnership Act, 
which will enhance the ability of the Forest Service to work 
cooperatively with local communities. Unfortunately, the authorities 
for the Forest Service to work jointly with others are a complex 
patchwork of temporary authorities, which have resulted in differing 
interpretations and lengthy procedures. Additionally, the existing 
authorities need enhancements to accommodate today's resources 
conservation needs and allow for the delivery of a range of visitor 
services and interpretive and educational materials.
  The Forest Service Partnership Enhancement Act will better enable 
cooperative work with the Forest Service by consolidating and providing 
permanent authority for mutually-beneficial agreements with the Forest 
Service. The legislation would also enable visitors to purchase health 
and safety items in remote Forest Service locations and permit joint 
facilities and publications, which benefit the public.
  In fiscal year 2005 alone, the Forest Service entered into more than 
3,000 cooperative agreements that would be permanently authorized 
through this legislation. These agreements leveraged $37.3 million in 
Federal funds with $32.8 million in private contributions for a total 
of more than $70 million worth of mutually-beneficial collaborative 
successes. In my home State of Idaho, the Forest Service entered into a 
public-private partnership for the construction of 1900 feet of new 
channel and associated flood plain on Granite Creek. This project 
restores habitat connectivity to approximately 6 miles of stream. The 
cooperative work of the Forest Service, Avista Utilities, the Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 15 
volunteers from Trout Unlimited enabled the leveraging of $60,000 of 
Forest Service funds with $120,000 from the participating partners.
  Collaboration is necessary to bring lasting conservation success. The 
Forest Service Partnership Act would enhance the ability of the Forest 
Service to partner with other Federal agencies, local communities, 
tribal governments, and other interested parties, and I encourage the 
commitment to collaborative conservation by supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2681. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
reports on the withdrawal or diversion of equipment from Reserve units 
to other Reserve units being mobilized, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Guard Equipment Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues, the 
Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the co-chair of the Senate 
National Guard Caucus the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who have 
cosponsored this important piece of legislation.
  As a Nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare, and properly 
equip all of our men and women in uniform.

[[Page S3717]]

That includes our Reserves and National Guard.
  The National Guard and Reserves represent an essential element of our 
national defense, confronting our enemies in distant lands and 
responding to threats of terror right here within our own borders. In 
Washington State, we face threats from volcanoes, tsunamis, and other 
natural disasters. The National Guard played a critical role in the 
emergency response following the eruption of Mount St. Helens. We have 
relied on the civil response capabilities of the Guard to protect our 
communities from wildfires, floods, and to secure our skies in the 
uncertain hours after 9/11. More recently, in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard responded with urgency and 
compassion.
  There are approximately 30,000 members of the National Guard 
currently deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. About 500 
members of the Washington National Guard are among them.
  The men and women who serve in the National Guard are making a great 
sacrifice, fulfilling a distinct and important responsibility. And we 
owe them all of the resources necessary to safely and effectively 
achieve their mission.
  Right now, there is simply too much uncertainty and when it comes to 
maintaining adequate equipment levels for our National Guard.
  When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations 
overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit.
  While serving abroad, their equipment becomes integrated with the 
greater mission. As a result, when our men and women return home their 
equipment does not often return with them.
  And too often there is no established plan or process to replace or 
even track that equipment once it's been left behind. As a result, too 
many of our National Guard units are left underequipped--lacking the 
necessary equipment for training or to respond to domestic civil 
emergencies.
  The numbers are clear: According to the Department of Defense, the 
Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 
Billion overseas in support of ongoing military operations.
  Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the 
time the Army could not account for more than half of all items left 
behind and has not committed to an equipment replacement plan, as 
Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires.
  Given the amount of equipment left behind in total, National Guard 
Units in other States are surely facing a similar situation.
  The provisions of my legislation would simply codify provisions of 
Department of Defense policy that are critical to providing our men and 
women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve.
  The National Guard Equipment Accountability Act would require a 
comprehensive report about all transferred equipment. Within 90 days of 
diverting equipment from any reserve unit to another reserve unit or to 
active duty forces, the Secretary of the Army or Air Force would be 
required to report it to the Secretary of Defense.
  The report must also include a plan to replace equipment to the 
original unit. Further, if a reserve unit returns from abroad but 
leaves equipment in the theater of operations, the Department of 
Defense would be required to provide a replacement plan for equipment 
to facilitate continued training.
  Finally, my amendment would require a signed Memorandum of 
Understanding specifying exactly how withdrawn equipment will be 
tracked and when that equipment will be returned.
  Given the current equipment situation, my legislation's provisions 
are crucial. Our soldiers have chosen to follow a noble and selfless 
path. We have a responsibility to give our active duty, reserve units, 
and the men and women of the National Guard, the very best resources so 
they may fulfill their mission as safely and effectively as possible.
  We must do so today and everyday for their sacrifice is immense and 
our gratitude is profound.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Cantwell for 
her leadership on this issue. This bill is a direct result of what we 
have seen traveling through our States and overseas.
  Every time I travel to Iraq and Afghanistan, I am struck by the 
commitment and professionalism of the men and women of our military. 
They honor America with their service and dedication.
  What is also noticeable to those of us who have been around for 
awhile is that it is impossible to tell who is in the Guard, the 
Reserves, or the Active Duty.
  Unfortunately, when those same brave men and women return home, it is 
often to units lacking the most basic equipment--radios, trucks, and 
engineering equipment.
  This is not ``nice to have'' equipment. It is the essential stuff, 
the most basic equipment, needed to respond to natural disasters or 
perform homeland defense missions.
  When a governor calls the State Adjutant-General because there has 
been a major winter storm, severe flooding, or any natural disaster, 
that governor expects the National Guard to have the ability to get to 
the disaster area, assist those in need, and communicate with State and 
Federal leaders and others responding.
  Today, many State Guard units may not be able to do those basic tasks 
because they do not have the equipment they need.
  Why not? Three reasons.
  First, for years the Guard was not given all of the equipment it 
needed. Most units had 65 to 79 percent of what they needed. So they 
started the war short.
  Second, in 2003 the Army began a policy of leaving equipment in Iraq 
to reduce transportation costs and to make sure that those in Iraq 
would have what they needed. The Defense Department estimates that the 
Army Guard has left over $1.7 billion worth of equipment in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office has found that 
the Army cannot account for over half of these items and, even worse, 
the Army has no plan for replacing the equipment.
  Third, the Army has a huge equipment bill because the equipment in 
Iraq is being worn out at two to nine times the rate planned for and 
the Army is trying to transform itself into a modular force with 
entirely new and different equipment.
  So, I understand why we have equipment shortages. What I don't 
understand is why the Secretary of Defense doesn't have a plan to fix 
the shortages.
  In April of 2005, the Department of Defense issued a policy directive 
that said every time equipment is taken from a Reserve unit, a plan had 
to be developed within 90 days to replace that equipment.
  It's been a full year since the policy was made official and yet 
States across the country are desperately short of needed equipment and 
have not seen any plans.
  Our legislation would simply make 000 live up to its rhetoric and 
provide the plans it has promised.
  There is more that we need to do to address equipment shortages 
throughout all of our ground forces, but at a minimum we should all be 
able to agree to start by following the current policy of the Defense 
Department and make a plan to replace equipment that is not being 
returned to State units.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 2682. A bill to exclude from admission to the United States aliens 
who have made investments directly and significantly contributing to 
the enhancement of the ability of Cuba to develop its petroleum 
resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to respond to the 
comments of several of our Senate colleagues. Many of my friends across 
the aisle have recently spoken about Fidel Castro's announcement that 
he plans to begin drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. This means 
that oil rigs will be operating just 50 miles from the Coast of Florida 
and near the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. My colleagues 
argue that if Castro can drill 50 miles from Florida, American 
companies must have the right to meet them on the same playing field 
and beat them at their own game. This line of reasoning, however, has 
several flaws.

[[Page S3718]]

Since when have we made any law or set any business or environmental 
standard using Cuba as a model? I am astounded that we would attempt to 
justify our actions by holding up Castro's actions as an example to 
follow.
  The answer to Castro's outrageous proposal to drill 50 miles from 
Florida is not to kick off a race to see who can set up the most rigs 
in our precious coastal waters--the answer is to hit back hard and fast 
to stop Castro from drilling so close to our shores.
  At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that this debate, 
at its heart, is not about Castro. Preventing drilling off the coast of 
Florida is about preserving one of America's most important coastlines: 
a stretch of precious land and sea where critical environmental, 
economic and military assets overlap. What is truly important to 
understand in this debate is how inextricably linked these three 
elements of our national interest are: environmental protection is 
critical to the tourism industry that is the economic backbone of the 
southeastern United States, and above it all, our military uses this 
protected area for essential land-, air- and sea exercises and testing.
  Florida, as a community and an economic entity, has worked hard, 
tremendously hard, to build a $62 billion tourism industry employing 
nearly 1 million citizens. This industry would not exist on such a 
large, vital scale without the unique and precious environment that is 
the beauty and essence of our state. Florida is windswept beaches, 
clear blue water, and the great ``River of Grass'' itself--the 
Everglades. And all of these wonders of nature are inhabited by some of 
America's most beautiful and exotic wildlife: manatees, crocodiles, 
panthers and ospreys. We have learned the hard way that failing to 
protect our environment has deadly consequences, consequences that will 
have a stark impact on the very tourism industry that support so many 
families in our state. In fact, Congress has invested some $8 billion 
in restoring this remarkable ecosystem. Now that investment is put at 
risk.
  In January 1969, an explosion at a California offshore drilling site 
caused a 200,000-gallon crude oil spill off the coast. While small in 
comparison to other spills, that incident dealt a devastating blow to 
neighboring beaches and aquatic life. As tides brought an 800-square-
mile slick ashore, oil coated 35 miles of the coastline, blackening 
beaches and killing thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, fish and other 
wildlife. A national outcry followed, and sparked a movement that led 
to legal bans on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, including the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico off of Florida.
  This wise ban is now at risk--nearly 40 years after that deadly spill 
in California, must we be doomed to repeat the past? After so many 
years and so much additional economic and environmental research, we 
know better than ever that the real value lies in protecting the 
tourism industry and its environmental foundation. I refuse to see the 
long-standing consensus against drilling off of Florida scrapped for 
the sake of ``keeping up with the Castros.''
  And, finally, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to the 
grave consequences that oil drilling poses not only to America's 
beaches and environment, but also to our national interests and foreign 
policy. We must do all we can to prevent Castro from drilling for oil 
so close to the shores of Florida. Foreign oil companies must not 
provide the props to support Castro's regime without facing stiff 
penalties.
  For all of these reasons, I am introducing legislation today that 
will nullify the agreement that defines the maritime borders between 
the United States and Cuba. This agreement was negotiated in 1977--a 
different era--when oil drilling so close to our shores was not 
contemplated. The agreement draws a line through the middle of the 90 
miles of ocean that separate our two countries. Without this line, 
foreign oil companies have no legal basis for exploring in waters that 
are claimed by both the U.S. and Cuba. We cannot allow this agreement--
never ratified by the Senate--to enable Castro's foolhardy exploration 
for oil in areas so near to some of the most pristine waters in our 
country.
  The legislation also takes a second step to further dissuade foreign 
oil companies from exploring for oil so close to our coastline. It will 
bar the Secretary of State from granting visas to executives of foreign 
oil companies who invest in petroleum development off the North coast 
of Cuba. This legislation, an expansion of the landmark Helms-Burton 
law, is a step in the right direction. It is only a first step, but I 
call on my colleagues to join me in preventing a tyrannical dictator 
from drilling for oil so close to our shores.
  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. 2682

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

     SECTION 1. NULLIFICATION OF MARITIME BOUNDARY AGREEMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Maritime 
     Boundary Agreement Between the United States of America and 
     the Republic of Cuba signed at Washington D.C., December 16, 
     1977, shall have no force and effect after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--The Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6021 note) is 
     amended by inserting after section 401 the following:

     ``SEC. 402. EXCLUSION FROM THE UNITED STATES OF ALIENS WHO 
                   DIRECTLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE 
                   ABILITY OF CUBA TO DEVELOP PETROLEUM RESOURCES 
                   OFF OF CUBA'S NORTH COAST.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa 
     to, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall exclude from the United States, any alien who 
     the Secretary of State determines is a person who--
       ``(1) is an officer or principal of an entity, or a 
     shareholder who owns a controlling interest in an entity, 
     that, after the date of the enactment of this section, makes 
     an investment of $1,000,000 or more (or any combination of 
     investments that in the aggregate equals or exceeds 
     $1,000,000 in any 12-month period), that directly and 
     significantly contributes to the enhancement of Cuba's 
     ability to develop petroleum resources off of Cuba's north 
     coast; or
       ``(2) is a spouse, minor child, or agent of a person 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     Secretary of State finds, on a case-by-case basis, that the 
     entry into the United States of the person who would 
     otherwise be excluded under this section is necessary for 
     medical reasons or for purposes of litigation of an action 
     under title III.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Develop.--The term `develop', with respect to 
     petroleum resources, means the exploration for, or the 
     extraction, refining, or transportation by pipeline of, 
     petroleum resources.
       ``(2) Investment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `investment' means any of the 
     following activities if such activity is undertaken pursuant 
     to an agreement, or pursuant to the exercise of rights under 
     such an agreement, that is entered into with the Government 
     of Cuba or a nongovenmental entity in Cuba, on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this section:
       ``(i) The entry into a contract that includes 
     responsibility for the development of petroleum resources 
     located in Cuba, or the entry into a contract providing for 
     the general supervision and guarantee of another person's 
     performance of such a contract.
       ``(ii) The purchase of a share of ownership, including an 
     equity interest, in that development.
       ``(iii) The entry into a contract providing for the 
     participation in royalties, earnings, or profits in that 
     development, without regard to the form of the participation.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `investment' does not include 
     the entry into, performance, or financing of a contract to 
     sell or purchase goods, services, or technology.
       ``(3) Petroleum resources.--The term `petroleum resources' 
     includes petroleum and natural gas resources.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     applies to aliens seeking to enter the United States on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BYRD:
  S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution 
neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in schools; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution 
neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in the public 
schools of this country.

[[Page S3719]]

  On September 25, 1885, an entrancing poem was published in the 
Glenville Crescent, the local paper in Gilmer County, West Virginia. 
The poem was attributed to Mrs. Ellen Rudell King, the wife of the 
Reverend David King, a man of the cloth who ministered to the citizens 
of Glenville, WV. Over time, people learned that the poem may have been 
written by the reverend as a gift to his wife Ellen, his soulmate. Just 
as my beloved Erma was my soulmate the West Virginia Reverend David 
King also had a soulmate, his wife Ellen.
  Today we recognize that his poem was a gift not just to his wife 
Ellen but also to the State of West Virginia and to the Nation. In 
fact, when the poem was published at the end of the 19th century, its 
tone was so melodious, its message so inspiring, it drew the attention 
of a composer named Howard Engle. West Virginians know the story of 
what happened next. Howard Engle liked the poem so much that he decided 
to compose a tune to accompany its lyrical verse. In 1961, his musical 
composition became the West Virginia State song, known by its title 
today as ``The West Virginia Hills.'' Let me read for the Senators just 
a few of the stanzas of this beautiful song:

       Oh, West Virginia hills! How majestic and how grand, with 
     their summits bathed in glory, like our Prince Immanuel's 
     land! Is it any wonder then, that my heart with rapture 
     thrills, as I stand once more with loved ones on those West 
     Virginia hills?
       Oh, the West Virginia hills! Where my childhood hours were 
     passed, where I often wandered lonely, and the future tried 
     to cast; many are our visions bright, which the future ne'er 
     fulfills; but how sunny were my daydreams on those West 
     Virginia hills!
       Oh, the West Virginia hills, how unchanged they seem to 
     stand, with their summits pointed skyward to the great 
     Almighty's land! Many changes I can see, which my heart with 
     sadness fills; but no changes can be noticed in those West 
     Virginia hills.

  Ah, ah, those West Virginia hills. For West Virginians, this song, 
with its prayerful verse, has always been an uplifting reminder of the 
memories of our childhoods, our fervent hopes for a bright future, a 
testament to the beauty of our resplendent natural landscape, and a 
source of solace in time of trouble.
  Regrettably, since January, West Virginians have had good reason to 
seek such solace. As witnessed by all of America since this year began, 
West Virginia has been beset by unspeakable tragedy. We have lost 18 
coal miners--favorite sons of the West Virginia hills--in Boone County, 
in Logan County, in Mingo County, and in Upshur County. In the words of 
our ancient sweet song, these tragic events ``our heart with sadness 
fills.''
  But we West Virginians stand strong despite our grief, steadfast in 
our devotion to one another and to Almighty God, from whom all good 
things come, from whom all blessings flow.
  In our Easter season we celebrate the belief in both the resurrection 
of the dead and the life of the world to come. We know that while our 
way may not always be God's way, His way is the only way. Therefore, 
our way must be His way. We know that life's most bitter travails can, 
at times, sear the human soul, painfully driving good people to their 
knees--sometimes through no fault of their own. But we also know that 
as long as there is life, there is hope, and we know that hardship can 
be endured and in fact diminished through the power--the ever working 
power--of prayer. We know this. We know it. We know it based on 
experience.
  Over these past 5 years, as I watched my childhood sweetheart, my 
darling Erma--my darling Erma, who is in heaven now--I watched her fall 
ill and become increasingly frail. But she and I prayed for each other. 
We prayed every day. There were many good times--many good times--but 
there were also times that were difficult. Through it all, it was our 
abiding faith, Erma's and mine which we celebrated in prayer together, 
which I believe kept us devoted to one another and to God for nearly 69 
years, through thick and thin, through good times and hard times. Our 
marriage was literally made in heaven, and I believe its duration was 
God's answer to our shared prayer.
  So when I say that I know prayer can work miracles and move 
mountains, I speak from experience. I am a witness to the power of 
prayer.
  But I am not unique. West Virginians have been and always will be a 
deeply spiritual and reverent people. In that sense, it remains as true 
today as it was in 1885 that no changes can be noticed in those West 
Virginia hills.
  The Apostle Paul has told us that in the face of affliction--in the 
face of affliction--it is our job not to give in to discouragement but 
to proclaim the truth openly and to commend ourselves to every man's 
conscience before God.
  So for people of faith, the question remains how best to do this. How 
do we lift our heads from the darkness to the light--from the darkness 
to the light? How do we help ourselves and others to keep the faith? 
The answer lies in three simple words: Let us pray. The Gospel, St. 
John 14, verse 13, tells us that we can have this confidence in God: 
that he hears us--yes, that he hears us whenever we ask for anything 
according to His will. Not always according to our will but according 
to His will.

  The importance of prayer throughout all of the millennia is 
recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Now get 
this: Yet, in America, prayer is increasingly estranged from public 
life. Some are hesitant to pray for fear they might offend someone 
else. How ridiculous, to think that prayer can be offensive. Offensive 
to whom? Nonbelievers? Well, they need only close their ears. How sad, 
really, that we cannot share our faith, particularly in an effort to 
comfort others, without being accused of offending someone or, worse, 
violating the first amendment to the Constitution.
  Regrettably, that is the unfortunate situation that confronts the 
faithful in America today. How can this be possible? Does anyone really 
believe this state of affairs is consistent with the intent of the 
Framers of the Constitution?
  I have referenced the religious beliefs of our Founders many times on 
the Senate floor, but I think it bears repeating. I think we should not 
forget the mindset of those who established our representative 
democracy, this Republic. They were not afraid of prayer. They believed 
in a Supreme Being, and they did not hesitate to say so. They were 
proud of their faith. They proclaimed it from the rooftops; yes, from 
the steeple tops. They did not hang their heads in shame.
  Listen. Listen. Listen to what John Adams said. He served as Vice 
President for 8 years under George Washington. He was a member of the 
Continental Congress. He signed the Declaration of Independence. In an 
entry in his diary on February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

       Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the 
     Bible for their only lawbook and every member should regulate 
     his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member 
     would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and 
     industry; to justice, kindness, and charity toward his fellow 
     men; and to piety, love and reverence toward almighty God. . 
     . . What a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

  John Adams believed that the Bible could be our only lawbook--think 
of that. What a small but mighty tome.
  What about Benjamin Franklin? Was he afraid to discuss religion for 
fear of offending sensibilities? No, heavens no. When the Congress 
established a three-man committee, of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and 
Ben Franklin, to design a great seal of the United States, it was 
Franklin who suggested that the seal be one of Moses lifting his wand, 
dividing the Red Sea, with pharaoh in his chariot, overwhelmed by 
water. His suggested motto was, ``Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to 
God.''
  Thomas Jefferson similarly suggested a Biblical theme, highlighting 
the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a 
pillar of fire by night. These are vivid religious images that our 
Founding Fathers proposed be adopted as enduring symbols of our 
representative form of government.
  The Founders did not view these proposals as repugnant religiosity, 
something to be kept under wraps for fear of offending the popular 
culture. They were creating the culture.
  I have long been opposed to what I call the censorship of religion in 
America. I have said it before. I say it again. I don't agree with many 
of the decisions that have come down from the courts concerning prayer 
in the public schools or prohibiting the display of religious items in 
public places. I believe in ruling after ruling some of our courts, led 
by the Supreme Court, have been moving closer and closer to prohibiting 
the free exercise of religion in America, and it chills my soul. 
Americans don't want religious censorship--

[[Page S3720]]

no. Ours is a religious nation. It may not seem so but it is. We are a 
religious people. We may not seem so at times, not all of us, but we 
embrace religion as a people. We draw it close, close to us. We drape 
it over us, we draw it around us, we envelope our families in its 
protective shield. We will not shun it. We will not deny it. We will 
not run from it. We must be free to exercise our religious faith, if we 
have a religious faith, whatever it may be.
  The religion clauses of the first amendment state:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

  In my humble opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of 
these clauses. Instead, they seem to have focused only on the first 
clause which says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion,'' at the expense of the second clause, which 
says, ``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  Yes, that protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. 
I have always believed that this country was founded by men and women 
of strong faith whose intent was not to suppress religion but to ensure 
that the government favors no single religion over another. This 
principle makes a lot of sense to me; namely, that government itself 
should seek neither to discourage nor to promote religion. We can 
understand the outrage of many fine people of faith who today decry the 
nature of our public discourse, with its overt emphasis on sex, 
violence, profanity, and materialism.
  In addition, we live today with the omnipresent fear of another 
terrorist attack, global warming, avian flu, rising fuel and health 
care costs, and a whole panoply of other potential calamities over 
which we seem to have little or no control. Our Nation has every reason 
to seek comfort through prayer.
  Nearly 44 years ago, on June 27, 1962--I was here. I was sitting over 
on that side of the Chamber, to my left, in the back row. Forty-four 
years ago, on June 27, 1962, 2 days after the U.S. Supreme Court first 
struck down prayer in schools, I made the following statement on the 
Senate floor. I said it then. I say it today.

       Thomas Jefferson expressed the will of the American 
     majority in 1776 when he included in the Declaration of 
     Independence the statement, ``All men''--

Meaning, of course, women, too--

     ``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain 
     unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and 
     the pursuit of happiness.''

  Little could Mr. Jefferson suspect when he penned that line that the 
time would come that the Nation's highest Court might rule that a 
nondenominational prayer to the Creator of us all, if offered by 
schoolchildren in the public schools of America during class periods, 
would be unconstitutional. I believe this ingrained predisposition 
against expressions of religious or spiritual beliefs is wrongheaded, 
destructive, and completely contrary to the intent of the illustrious 
Founders of this great Nation. Instead of ensuring freedom of religion 
in a nation founded in part to guarantee that basic liberty, a 
suffocation or strangulation, if you might, of that freedom has been 
the result. The rights of those who do not believe, and they are few in 
number who do not believe--the rights of those who do not believe in a 
Supreme Being have been zealously guarded to the denigration--and I 
repeat, denigration--of the rights of those people who do so believe.
  The Supreme Court has bent over backward to prevent the government 
from establishing religion--which is all right--but it has not gone far 
enough and, in fact, our government has fallen far short of protecting 
the right of all Americans to exercise their religion.
  The free exercise clause of the first amendment states:

       Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise 
     of religion.

  Well, it seems to me that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in the 
public schools violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice 
their free religion, and that is not right. Any child should be free to 
pray to God of his or her own volition, whether at home, whether at 
church, whether at school, period.
  I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I 
believe such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. 
However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for more 
than 40 years, I take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least 
7 times over the past 44 years, to introduce today a joint resolution 
to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with 
respect to voluntary prayer in schools.
  Our revered Constitution--this sacred document--was conceived by the 
Framers neither to prohibit nor to require the recitation of voluntary 
prayer in public schools. Consequently, the exact language of the 
resolution that I am introducing to amend the Constitution simply makes 
that clear.
  It states--get this:

       Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendments to 
     this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary 
     prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular 
     activity.

  This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or 
cosponsored starting in 1962 but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 
1993, 1995, and 1997.
  I believe Members of the Supreme Court have placed exaggerated 
emphasis on the Framers' alleged intent to erect an absolute ``wall of 
separation'' between church and state. I do not share that view.
  I believe the right of every schoolchild to pray or not to pray 
voluntarily, if he or she chooses to do so, is protected by both the 
free speech and the free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
  Even the Supreme Court in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984, 
agreed that the Constitution does not require the complete separation 
of church and state. Instead, it mandates an accommodation of all 
religions and forbids hostility toward any.
  Let me be clear that what we are talking about is not a radical 
departure. It is simply a reiteration of what should already be 
permissible under a correct interpretation of the first amendment.
  My resolution does not change the language of the first amendment, 
and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious 
message endorsed by the government. My resolution would simply 
reiterate the Framers' intent that a child should be able to utter a 
voluntary prayer. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about 
that.
  This resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It 
does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect 
or creed. It does not compel a ``nonbeliever'' to pray. In fact, it 
does not require an atheist to embrace or to adopt any religious 
action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to 
do anything. And it does not foster any excessive government 
entanglement with religion.
  This constitutional amendment is neutral. It is nondiscriminatory. It 
does not endorse state-sponsored school prayer. It simply allows 
children to pray voluntarily, if they wish to do so. It permits 
children to express themselves on the subject of prayer just as anyone 
is free to express themselves on any other topic.
  As Justice Scalia recently held: ``A priest has as much liberty to 
proselytize as a patriot.''
  The Supreme Court has held that the establishment clause is not 
violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other 
speech equally.
  This resolution has a valid secular purpose, which is to ensure that 
religious and nonreligious speech are treated equally, and this secular 
purpose is preeminent. This purpose is not secondary to any religious 
objective.
  In one of the more recent cases on the subject, the Supreme Court, in 
Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, reiterated that the religious clauses of the 
first amendment prevent the government from ``making any law respecting 
the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof.'' But by ``no means,'' the Court held, ``do these commands 
impose a prohibition on all religious activity in our public schools.''
  ``Indeed,'' the Court ruled, ``the common purpose of the Religious 
Clauses is to secure religious liberty.''
  Thus, Justice Stevens wrote:

       Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court 
     prohibits any public school student from unvoluntarily 
     praying at any time before, during or after the school day.

  He went on to declare, though, that ``the religious liberty protected 
by this

[[Page S3721]]

Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors a 
particular religious practice or prayer.''

  So let me reiterate that the resolution I am introducing today 
addresses only voluntary student prayer--not state-sponsored speech.
  In one of her final rulings on this subject, Justice O'Connor held 
that the first amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment 
to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the 
free exercise of religion, the other barring the establishment of 
religion.
  ``They were written,'' she said, ``by the descendants of people who 
had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their 
religion freely.'' And, ``by enforcing these two clauses,'' she said, 
``we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for 
the prosecutor or the bureaucrat.''
  We should keep it that way. We should keep it that way. We should 
keep religion a matter for the individual conscience. But does keeping 
religion a matter for the individual conscience mean that a schoolchild 
must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in 
times of trial or heartache? No. No. No. Not even our Supreme Court has 
recognized that. Not every reference to God constitutes the 
impermissible establishment of religion.
  Where would we be without recourse to prayer?
  As we know, even the mighty King David sought guidance from above. In 
Psalm, 17, he implores:

       Hear, O Lord, a just suit; attend to my outcry; harken to 
     my prayer from lips without deceit . . . I call upon You for 
     You will answer me, O God; incline Your ear to me; hear my 
     word . . . keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the 
     shadows of Your wings.

  In our Nation's Capitol, just off the Rotunda, there is a small room 
called the Prayer Room. I was there when it was first dedicated. A 
small room called the Prayer Room was set aside in 1954 by the 83rd 
Congress to be used for private prayer and contemplation by Members of 
Congress. The room is open.
  Have you ever been there? If you haven't, you ought to go to see that 
Prayer Room. I go to it still from time to time.
  The room is open when Congress is in session though not open to the 
public. The room's focal point is a stained glass window that shows 
George Washington kneeling in prayer. Behind him are etched these words 
from Psalm 16:1: ``Preserve me, o God, for in thee do I put my trust.''
  What right do we have to take from schoolchildren their right to pray 
a voluntary prayer when we preserve, protect, and defend and even 
create a seperate room to enshrine that same right to ourselves here in 
the Senate?
  St. Luke, the apostle, tells us that such efforts are as much in our 
own interest as they are in the best interests of a child. Here is what 
St. Luke tells us:

       Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock 
     and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks, receives; 
     whoever seeks, finds; whoever knocks is admitted. What father 
     among you will give his son a snake if he asks for a fish, or 
     hand him a scorpion if he asks for an egg? If you, with all 
     your sins, know how to give your children good things, how 
     much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
     those who ask him?

  We must work to be certain that the free exercise clause remains as 
applicable and respected today as it was at the time it was conceived 
by the Framers.
  We must guard its protection so that all Americans, including, yes, 
children, little children--suffer little children--retain their right 
freely to practice their religion. Let us make certain that every 
individual, including any child nestled in the West Virginia hills or 
anywhere else in America, can pray to God as they please.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 35

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article --

       ``Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to 
     this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary 
     prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit 
     voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school 
     extracurricular activity.''.

                          ____________________