Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 57 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 57 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4471-S4477]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Allen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Coleman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Dayton, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Dodd, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. McCain, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Ms.
Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, Mr. Obama, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Sununu, Mr. Talent, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Voinovich, and
Mr. Wyden):
S. 2784. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Tenzin Gyatso,
the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in recognition of his many enduring and
outstanding contributions to peace, non-violence, human rights, and
religious understanding; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dalai
Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2006.
This legislation would convey upon the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin
Gyatso, one of Congress' most prestigious awards for his advocacy of
peace, tolerance, human rights, non-violence, and compassion throughout
the globe.
I am deeply honored to be joined today by my colleague, Senator
Thomas, and wish to express my appreciation to him for his willingness
to be the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation.
Senator Thomas has long been an advocate for addressing the plight of
the Tibetan people, and in 2001 joined with me in introducing the
Tibetan Policy Act, the first piece of legislation outlining U.S.
policy toward Tibet and its people. He was truly instrumental in
helping to advance its passage in the Congress.
In fact, one of my proudest days as a U.S. Senator was on September
30, 2002, when President George W. Bush signed the Tibetan Policy Act
into law.
Both Senator Thomas and I are also grateful that 73 of our Senate
colleagues have agreed to be original cosponsors of this legislation
honoring the Dalai Lama.
Under the rules, Congressional Gold Medals need the support of at
least two-thirds, or 67 Senators, in order for the Senate Banking
Committee to consider such authorizing legislation.
I look forward to working closely with Chairman Shelby and Ranking
Member Sarbanes to ensure that the Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal
Act can be taken up and passed out of the Banking Committee in a timely
and efficient manner.
In my view, there is no international figure more deserving of the
Congressional Gold Medal than His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
This is a man who has dedicated his life to the betterment of
humanity as a whole. As one of the most respected religious figures in
the world today, the Dalai Lama's teachings on peace, non-violence and
ecumenical openness have been embraced by millions.
One of his greatest contributions has been his promotion of harmony
and respect among the different religious faiths of the world.
In his own words: ``I always believe that it is much better to have a
variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single
religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different
mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain
unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich
one's faith.''
As the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, he has worked arduously
for nearly 50 years to increase understanding between China and the
people of Tibet.
He has also dedicated his life to the preservation of the Tibetan
culture, religion, and language.
The Dalai Lama's story is a fascinating one.
In 1959, as a teenager, he fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring
India, where he established a government-in-exile that eventually
settled at Dharmasala--in the Himalayan foothills.
While he admittedly once espoused independence for Tibet--
particularly in the face of the heavy-handed oppression of the Tibetan
people by the Chinese Communists--the Dalai Lama foreswore this
position nearly two decades ago.
Alternatively, he began to pursue a reasonable and flexible ``Middle
Way Approach'' that would provide for cultural and religious autonomy
for Tibetans, within the People's Republic of China.
In 1989, the Dalai Lama was the recipient of the Noble Peace Prize
for his consistent and unfailing advocacy for the rights of the Tibetan
people, along with his promotion of non-violence and peace throughout
the globe.
In their recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai
Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently
has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated
peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in
order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his
people.

In April 1991 , when the Congress welcomed the Dalai Lama in a
ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda that was attended by the entire
Congressional leadership, he offered a moving anecdote about receiving
a small gift from President Franklin Roosevelt when he was a young boy.
That gift--a gold watch showing phases of the moon and the days of
the week--became very special to him.
``I marveled at the distant land which could make such a practical
object so beautiful,'' he said.
``But what truly inspired me were your ideas of freedom and
democracy. I felt that your principles were identical to my own, the
Buddhist beliefs in fundamental human rights freedom, equality,
tolerance and compassion for all.''
I have been blessed to be able to call the Dalai Lama a friend for
almost three decades. I first met him through my husband Richard during
a trip to India and Nepal in the fall of 1978.
Incidentally, our first stop was in Dharmasala, where we met with His
Holiness and invited him to visit San Francisco where I was mayor.
The Dalai Lama was grateful for the invitation. At that time, he had
never even been to the United States.
For political reasons, the Chinese objected to his visiting the
United States, and our government, which at that time was in the
process of normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China,
was sensitive to these concerns.
While the trip was postponed temporarily, as mayor I was delighted to
receive the Dalai Lama and present him with a key to the city upon his
arrival in San Francisco in September 1979.
During our many conversations over the years, His Holiness has often
reiterated that, at its core, Buddhism espouses reaching out to help
others, particularly the less fortunate. And it encourages us all to be
more kind and compassionate.
The Dalai Lama's persona exudes these qualities. He has a great sense
of humor, responds quite spontaneously, and his philosophies cross all
religions, cultures, and ethnic lines.
I have visited with him many times since 1978, and while his
principled beliefs have never wavered, his teachings have become more
expansive. His message has never been more relevant in our troubled
world.
At the same time, I also had the opportunity as mayor of San
Francisco to become acquainted with several of China's future leaders
through the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Relationship that I
started with Mayor Wang Daohan in 1980.
Mayor Wang's immediate successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, were
both later promoted to high-level positions in the Chinese Communist
Party and Central Government after leaving Shanghai.

[[Page S4472]]

Consequently, since 1990, my husband and I have had many discussions
with Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, and other Chinese officials about the
status of the Dalai Lama and the plight of the Tibetans in and outside
of Tibet.
On three separate occasions over the past 15 years, I have hand-
delivered letters from His Holiness to the Chinese leadership, asking
for direct talks and reiterating that he does not seek independence for
Tibet.
I know that at the same time President Bill Clinton, President George
W. Bush, and many others in the U.S. Government have also encouraged a
meaningful dialogue. For the most part, these efforts have had little
success.
If His Holiness the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet, his wish is,
as he says, to be a simple monk and to be involved only in religious
and cultural matters.
China will be a better nation when it embraces the aspirations of the
Tibetan people.
Through the passage of this legislation, the United States Senate
would recognize the Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace and
religious understanding.
Among past recipients of the Congressional Gold Medal are fellow
moral and religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II and Mother
Teresa, and fellow Nobel Peace Laureates, such as Elie Wiesel and
Nelson Mandela.
By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most
heroic, courageous and outstanding--those who we wish to emulate in our
life's actions.
I strongly believe that the Dalai Lama is such an individual.
I am proud that the U.S. Congress has a long record of showing
support for the Dalai Lama's message of peace and compassion, and I
look forward to joining my colleagues in recognizing him with this
distinguished award.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
California in offering this legislation to award the 14th Dalai Lama
with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal.
Mr. President, the Dalai Lama has been one of the leading voices in
advocating for peace, tolerance, human rights, nonviolence, and
compassion throughout the globe. He has worked tirelessly for nearly 50
years to increase understanding between the Tibetan and Chinese people.
In these difficult times, I believe it is necessary to recognize those
who fight to bring people together. There are few international figures
more deserving of receiving this award.
In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring
India, where he established a government in exile. Under his ``Middle
Way'' approach, he has worked arduously for the past two decades to
find a reasonable and peaceful solution for providing cultural and
religious autonomy for Tibetans within the People's Republic of China.
He has also been a steadfast and vigorous advocate for peace and human
rights for all people across the globe.
In 1989, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In their
recommendation, the Nobel Committee noted that in his struggle for the
liberation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has consistently opposed the use of
violence, and has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon
tolerance and mutual respect.
The Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace, religious
understanding, and the advancement of human rights are innumerable. He
has made it his life's work to promote harmony and respect among the
different religious faiths of the world. In his own words: ``I always
believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a
variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy.
This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each
human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and
learning about them can only enrich one's faith.''
By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most
heroic, courageous, and outstanding those who we wish to emulate in our
own lives. The Dalai Lama is such an individual, and I urge all of my
colleagues to join Senator Feinstein and myself in honoring him with
this distinctive award.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI):
S. 2789. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a tax credit to rural primary health providers; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr BURNS. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator Murkowski in
introducing the Rural Physicians Relief Act of 2006. This legislation
is intended to bring needed relief to doctors in rural America.
As those of us from rural States are well aware, our constituents
face many unique challenges when seeking quality health care. Our
populations are small and spread out across extremely remote areas.
Incidentally, the costs of operating even the most basic medical
practice are simply too much for many physicians. As a result, many
areas of our States tend to be some of the most medically underserved
areas in the Nation.
To give you an idea of the situation in Montana, nearly 286,000 or
one third of my constituents live in what are known as frontier areas.
According to the United States Census Bureau, these are counties with
fewer than seven people per square mile. That means that 46 of
Montana's 56 counties are classified as frontier--24 of those have
fewer than two people per square mile and 10 of those have less than
one per square mile. However, what is even more striking is 9 of these
frontier counties have no doctors at all, and 10 others have fewer than
3. Consequently, a large percentage of Montanans must travel great
distances simply to get basic medical treatment.
The legislation that Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today
seeks to alleviate this problem. It will provide incentives to
encourage physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas.
Specifically, it would give a physician who is a Primary health
services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she
provides services in a frontier area. Furthermore, physicians who treat
a high percentage of patients from frontier areas would also be
eligible for the tax credit.
All too often many of our constituents are at a disadvantage simply
because of where they live. While this legislation will not completely
solve the problem, it will go a long way toward bringing quality health
care to those in rural America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2789

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 ``Rural Physicians Relief Act
of 2006''.

SEC. 2. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR RURAL PRIMARY HEALTH
SERVICES PROVIDERS .

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25D the following new section:

``SEC. 25E. RURAL PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual
who is a qualified primary health services provider for any
month during the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for such
taxable year an amount equal to $1,000 for each month during
such taxable year--
``(1) which is part of the eligible service period of such
individual, and
``(2) for which such individual is a qualified primary
health services provider.
``(b) Qualified Primary Health Services Provider.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified primary health
services provider' means, with respect to any month, any
physician who is certified for such month by the Bureau to be
a primary health services provider or a licensed mental
health provider who--
``(1) is primarily providing primary health services, and
either--
``(A) substantially all of such primary health services are
provided in frontier areas (within the meaning of section
330I(r) of the Public Health Service Act), or
``(B) such primary health services are provided in a
practice which includes rural patients from frontier areas
(as so defined) in a percentage of the total practice which
is at least equal to the percentage of total residents in the
State in which such practice is

[[Page S4473]]

located who reside in frontier areas (as so defined),
``(2) is not receiving during the calendar year which
includes such month a scholarship under the National Health
Service Corps Scholarship Program or the Indian health
professions scholarship program or a loan repayment under the
National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program or the
Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program,
``(3) is not fulfilling service obligations under such
Programs, and
``(4) has not defaulted on such obligations.
Such term shall not include any individual who is described
in paragraph (1) with respect to any of the 3 most recent
months ending before the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(c) Eligible Service Period.--For purposes of this
section, the term `eligible service period' means the period
of 60 consecutive calendar months beginning with the first
month the taxpayer is a qualified primary health services
provider.
``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Bureau.--The term `Bureau' means the Bureau of Health
Care Delivery and Assistance, Health Resources and Services
Administration of the United States Public Health Service.
``(2) Physician.--The term `physician' has the meaning
given to such term by section 1861(r) of the Social Security
Act.
``(3) Primary health services provider.--The term `primary
health services provider' means a provider of basic health
services (as described in section 330(b)(1)(A)(i) of the
Public Health Service Act).
``(4) Only 60 months taken into account.--In no event shall
more than 60 months be taken into account under subsection
(a) by any individual for all taxable years.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 25D the following new item:

``Sec. 25E. Rural primary health services providers.''.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator
Burns in introducing the Rural Physicians' Relief Act of 2006. This
important legislation will bring needed assistance to physicians who
provide primary health services to rural America.
Physicians who provide health care in the most rural locations in
America face challenges unlike their more urban counterparts. Often
great distances, remote locations, limited transportation, and harsh
climate combine to make health care delivery extremely difficult to say
the very least. Patient populations are small and spread out across
extremely remote areas. As a result, many of these areas tend to be the
most medically underserved areas in the Nation.
In my State of Alaska, a State that is larger than the States of
California, Texas and Montana combined, nearly one-quarter of the
State's population lives in communities and villages that are only
reachable by boat or aircraft. In fact, Alaska has fewer roads than any
other State--even fewer roads than Rhode Island. And unlike Rhode
Island where over 90 percent of the roads are paved, less than 20
percent of the roads are paved in Alaska.
This means that approximately 75 percent of Alaskan communities are
not connected by road to another community with a hospital. This means
that all medical supplies, patients, and providers must travel by air.
These remote populations tend to be among the poorest in the State. Air
travel equates to excessively high health care costs--generally 70
percent higher than costs in the lower 48 States. In short, ``rural''
takes on a new definition in Alaska.
In Alaska, patient access to health care is exacerbated because our
State also faces a chilling crisis--we have 25 percent to 30 percent
fewer physicians than our population needs. In fact, Alaska has one of
the smallest numbers of physicians per capita in the country. We need a
minimum of 500 more doctors just to be at the national average of
physicians per capita. An American Medical News article recently
declared Alaska's precarious situation: ``Alaska has long ranked among
the worst states in terms of physician supply.''
Our physician shortage crisis will only worsen. There is an expected
retirement of at least 118 physicians in Anchorage alone in the next 10
years. In the 1990s, there were 130 new doctors each year. Now that
figure has dropped to only 31 new physicians since 2001. Outside of
Anchorage, one in every eight physician positions is vacant.
Additionally, many physicians are forced out of the Medicare and
Medicaid Programs because reimbursement rates simply do not cover the
cost to treat those patients. With Alaska's growing population,
especially of our elderly, this shortage will lead to the severe health
care access crisis for all Alaskans.
On top of harsh physical challenges, Alaska's rural population also
faces significant human challenges. These rural patient populations are
often in the greatest need for primary health care services. Heart
disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases are the leading
causes of death in Alaska. Women in our State have higher death rates
from stroke than do women nationally; and mortality among Native
Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas it is actually
declining among Caucasian women in Lower 48. The prevalence of chronic
disease such as diabetes and even tuberculosis is increasing faster in
Alaska than any other State. Each of these health concerns is magnified
because access to health care--especially in rural Alaska--remains our
greatest challenge.
The legislation that Senator Burns and I introduce today seeks to
lessen this problem. It will both assist physicians who currently
practice in rural America and will provide an incentive to encourage
physicians to practice in these remote and underserved areas.
Specifically, it would give a physician who is a primary health
services provider a $1,000 tax credit for each month that he or she
provides services in a designated ``frontier'' area. Furthermore,
physicians who treat a high percentage of patients from frontier areas
would also be eligible for the tax credit.
Mr. President, my hope is to encourage physicians to practice
medicine in rural Alaska and throughout rural America. Creating
incentives that offset the high cost of providing care in the most
remote areas of the Nation will go far in recruiting physicians to the
areas that are most in need of their services.
______

By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr Burns, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Lott, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
Talent, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Biden, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski and Mr.
Jeffords):
S. 2791. A bill to amend title 46 and 49, United States Code, to
provide improved maritime, rail, and public transportation security,
and for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bipartisan
transportation security bill, which is a joint Commerce and Banking
Committee bipartisan package co-sponsored by Senators Inouye, Shelby,
Sarbanes, and 37 of our colleagues. This bill would dramatically
enhance our Nation's port, rail, and transit security systems. The port
and rail provisions of this package are identical to provisions of the
transportation security bill, S. 1052, which was reported unanimously
by the Commerce Committee last year. The transit provisions of the
package are identical to those reported unanimously by the Banking
Committee.
The events of 9/11 made clear that Congress needed to address the
vulnerabilities within the Nation's transportation systems and
dramatically increase security measures to protect the essential
interstate flow of commerce.
Even before 9/11, the Commerce Committee led the Senate's effort to
achieve the delicate balance between improved transportation security
and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. In the weeks and months
following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Commerce Committee developed
the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which was signed into law by
the President in 2002. The committee later expanded

[[Page S4474]]

MTSA by developing the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of
2004.
In MTSA, the Commerce Committee called on both public and private
sector entities, including Federal agencies, the port community, vessel
owners, shippers, and earners, to play a role in dramatically enhancing
maritime security. The International Maritime Organization followed
suit with its own improvements, many of which were based on the
foundation set forth in MTSA.
The Commerce Committee spearheaded the establishment of a harmonized
security credential for all transportation workers, authorizing the
creation of a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC,
program in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (2001), and
twice more in the Maritime Transportation Security Acts of 2002 and
2004. Additional statutory authority from the PATRIOT Act reinforced
the importance of such a transportation credential.
TWIC is intended to improve identity management for all
transportation workers, ensuring that only authorized personnel gain
unescorted access to secure areas of the country's transportation
system. TWIC is designed to mitigate the threat of terrorists
exploiting certain physical and cyber security gaps in the
transportation system.
The bill would require TSA to deliver a rulemaking on the
implementation of the TWIC program. It has been over three and one half
years since Congress first required such a card, and this provision
sets a mandatory deadline of January 1, 2007 for rollout.
The bill that I propose also would direct the Coast Guard to expand
the deployment of Interagency Operations Centers to ports throughout
the United States. These centers, already operating in five cities,
would bring together all port security and operations stakeholders into
a single facility at major ports. This approach has proven effective at
maximizing communication among Federal, State, and local entities
charged with securing the ports.
In addition, the provision would require greater standards and
requirements for cargo screening equipment, and call for additional
data to be incorporated into the system used to target cargo and
containers for searches.
While TWIC, Interagency Operation Centers, and equipment standards
will help improve security on our shores, we must be cognizant of the
fact that maritime security begins in foreign ports. We must cast our
security net as far back into the inbound international supply chain as
possible.
Two programs that were authorized by the Commerce Committee in MTSA
address the need to pre-screen cargo bound for the United States--the
Container Security Initiative CSI, and the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism, (C-TPAT).
CSI is a program in which U.S. inspectors are deployed to foreign
nations to assist their foreign counterparts in the pre-screening of
U.S.-bound cargo containers. C-TPAT is a voluntary supply chain
security program that allows companies to seek certification from the
Federal Government that such companies have taken sufficient steps to
ensure that their supply chains are secure in exchange for expedited
cargo clearance benefits at U.S. ports.
The bill that I introduce with my colleagues would require that basic
program elements and standards be developed by DHS in order to provide
CSI and C-TPAT participants a baseline understanding of the security
standards expected of them.
Maritime security is not the only improvement that we must make--the
unfortunate attacks on passenger trains in Madrid and the subways in
London underscored weaknesses in rail transportation that our bill
would seek to address. To improve rail security, our bill would require
TSA to conduct railroad threat assessments and to prioritize
recommendations. In addition, the legislation would create a rail
security research and development program to encourage deployment of
rail car tracking equipment for shipment of hazardous materials, and
require threat mitigation plans when specific threat information
exists. The bill also would authorize further studies of necessary
improvements to passenger rail screening, in an effort to increase
security in this mode of public transportation.
Our mass transit systems have pressing security needs, upon which
our' colleagues on the Banking Committee are focused; as a result,
transit security improvements are incorporated into our bipartisan
bill. It is unfortunate that many transit agencies in the U.S. still
lack sufficient resources to fulfill the post-9/11 recommendations of
the Federal Transit Administration's security assessment. These needs
are all the more pressing in light of recent DHS recommendations for
U.S. mass transit systems to remain alert against the possibility of
terrorist attacks. In response to this situation, our bill would create
a needs-based grant program to identify and address risks and
vulnerabilities within transit systems across the country. The bill
would authorize $3.5 billion in funding over the next 3 years to
transit agencies to invest in projects designed to resist and deter
terrorist attacks, including: surveillance technologies; tunnel
protection; chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive detection
systems; perimeter protection; and a variety of other security
improvements. The bill also would codify the role of an Information
Sharing Analysis Center, which would provide security information to
transit systems and ensure better communication among federal, state,
local, and private sector entities.
To improve security, we must have clear objectives and methods to
reach those goals. With limited resources, it is important to pinpoint
risks and vulnerabilities that exist within our transportation systems,
and address them accordingly. By combining provisions approved
unanimously by the Commerce and Banking Committees, respectively, this
bipartisan bill would make significant targeted improvements to the
framework now in place to secure the Nation's port, rail, and transit
environments.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is hard to believe, but Congress has
not made any substantive improvements to the Nation's transportation
security systems since 2002. Yet nearly every day, we are provided
further reminders that our transportation modes, particularly port,
cargo, rail, and public transit, remain vulnerable.
Given the urgent need for further improvements, Chairman Stevens and
I have joined with the Banking Committee leaders, Senator Shelby and
Senator Sarbanes, to advance a comprehensive transportation security
bill that reflects the importance of our transportation infrastructure
to the quality of life and economic health of the country.
Our legislation combines the port, cargo, and rail provisions of our
Committee's Transportation Security Improvement Act with the Banking
Committee's Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act. Together,
the combined measure makes significant improvements to our port, cargo,
rail, and public transit security nationwide.
It is important to note the level of Senate support for our approach.
Not only have the elements of our bill been separately and unanimously
approved by our respective Committees, our legislation has 42 Senate
cosponsors on introduction. That kind of support demonstrates both the
necessity of these improvements and the distinct possibility that we
can move this bill this year.
The legislation that we introduce today, with its emphasis on the
Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, is the
natural counterpart to the port security bill approved by the House of
Representatives last week. The bills are directly compatible, and if
the Senate moves quickly on this matter, we can proceed to conference
and make real progress on transportation security before the session
concludes.
This legislation reflects the port, cargo, and rail security
expertise of the Commerce Committee and the public transit security
expertise of the Banking Committee. On the Commerce Committee, we began
examining port and cargo security in 1999 and had begun to craft
security legislation even before the September 11 tragedy.
In 2001, our committee authored the landmark Maritime Transportation
Security Act, MTSA, which established the foundation for the Nation's
port and cargo security. Under the MTSA,

[[Page S4475]]

the Coast Guard became the lead agency on port security matters and
created the Nation's current, international, inter-modal cargo security
regime. That expertise and perspective is essential as we advance
improvements to our maritime security laws.
However, the implementation of MTSA's security improvements has been
weak and inconsistent. The Department of Homeland Security's budgets
have not reflected port security's significance to the economy, and the
Agency has missed numerous internal and legislated security deadlines.
As a result, vulnerabilities remain.
Given the recent focus on the Nation's lingering, significant port
security weaknesses, the country is now far more attuned to port and
cargo security. The heartland is learning what the coasts have known
for many years: Our national economy and physical security depend on
strong port and cargo security.
Our legislation makes the many enhancements that are long overdue. It
guides and enhances the Coast Guard's and the Department of Homeland
Security's, DHS, authorities on maritime security. It improves
examination of cargo before it reaches U.S. ports, provides a process
for the speedy resumption of commerce in the event of an attack on a
seaport, and expands the use of interagency operations centers.
Specifically, our legislation improves the examination of shipments
before they reach U.S. shores. It calls upon the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, CBP, to develop standards for the evaluation,
screening, and inspection of cargo destined for the U.S. prior to
loading in a foreign port, and it provides greater targeting and
scrutiny of high-risk cargo by requiring importers to file entry data
24-hours prior to loading at a foreign port.
Also, the legislation authorizes the random inspection of incoming
cargo--a method which has proven to be 12 times more likely to find
illicit shipments than traditional inspection methods.
In the event there is a seaport attack, our bill clarifies the
requirements for expedited clearance of cargo through the Secure
Systems of Transportation Program and extends the supply chain review
to the initial point of loading. The bill also amends MTSA based on
Government Accountability Office, GAO, recommendations to improve upon
the Container Security Initiative, CSI, the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism Program, C-TPAT, and Automated Targeting System, ATS.
It is important to note that while our port security regime has
significant weaknesses, the agencies involved have also begun to make
some notable improvements in recent years. According to the Department
of Homeland Security Inspector General's most recent report on the port
security grant program, the DHS has made substantial progress on the
program and is beginning to deliver funding to the Nation's ports
efficiently and effectively.
Our legislation builds upon the port and cargo security systems that
have taken 4 years to develop and provides the resources necessary to
strengthen port security infrastructure, planning, and coordination.
Other pending proposals have sought to reorganize the DHS yet again and
add an additional layer of bureaucracy through a new Office of Cargo
Policy. Such changes are counterproductive and suggest a lack of
understanding of local stakeholders' actual needs and given the need
for immediate improvements, they make little sense.
Our committee has also brought its transportation security expertise
to bear on the challenges facing rail security. Consistent with the
Rail Security Act approved unanimously by the Senate in 108th Congress,
our legislation requires the Transportation Security Administration,
TSA, to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit
prioritized recommendations for improving rail security. It also calls
for the TSA and the Department of Transportation to clarify their
respective roles for rail security.
Our legislation provides grants through TSA to Amtrak, freight
railroads, and others to upgrade security across the entire railroad
system. It provides funding through the Department of Transportation to
make needed security and safety enhancements to Amtrak railroad tunnels
in New York, Washington, and Baltimore.
Our bill creates a rail security research and development program
through DHS and encourages the deployment of rail car tracking
equipment for hazardous material rail shipments. It so requires
railroads shipping high-hazard materials to create threat mitigation
plans to protect high-consequence targets when specific threat
information exists.
Finally, the bill authorizes studies to improve passenger rail
screening and immigration processing along the U.S. northern border,
creates a security training program for railroad workers, and provides
whistleblower protections for workers who report security concerns.
All of these enhancements have been thoroughly vetted over several
years of meticulous work. They have received the unanimous support of
our committee membership, and in the case of the rail security
provisions, the support of the full Senate in 2004.
In the 108th Congress, the Senate conclusive determined that
transportation security and transportation safety could not be
separated. Thus, given its oversight of the Coast Guard, TSA, and its
general expertise in transportation matters, the Commerce Committee
maintained jurisdiction over transportation security generally, and
port, cargo, and rail security specifically. Similarly, the Banking
Committee's expertise in urban transit has made it the Committee of
jurisdiction for public transit security.
This expertise matters, particularly when crafting legislation that
impacts how these systems operate. Transportation security legislation
must reflect a balanced understanding of security, safety, and
commerce. It is not enough to understand just one of those elements.
Our economy is totally dependent upon efficient and effective
transportation systems. Thus, our security policies must be robust, but
they cannot ignore the realities of modern commerce nor the potential
economic damage that could result from public policies that did not
sufficiently take into account the resumption of our systems.
The legislation that we advance today reflects the Commerce and
Banking Committees' expertise and understanding of this important
balance. The time has come to advance these improvements, and nearly
half of this body has already signed-on in support of this bill. Our
legislation presents an opportunity to make immediate progress on
transportation security, and it is my sincere hope that the Senate will
act on this measure as soon as possible.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
in introducing legislation to improve security at our Nation's transit
systems, rail lines, and ports. The transit title in this legislation
was reported unanimously by the Banking Committee in November of last
year, and the rail and port titles were reported on the same day by the
Commerce Committee. Combining these titles into one piece of
legislation makes extraordinary sense when one considers the urgent
need to improve security in all areas of our Nation's multimodal
transportation network.
As ranking member of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction
over public transportation, I will focus my remarks on the transit
portion of this legislation, though the need for improved security is
equally great at our rail network and ports. Let me begin by noting
that during the last Congress, the Senate unanimously passed the Public
Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which is identical to
the transit title in the legislation we are introducing today.
Unfortunately, that legislation was never enacted into law, and the
threat to transit continues. Just last week the Department of Homeland
Security issued a new warning to transit systems to remain alert
against possible terrorist attacks. According to the Associated Press,
the warning said that four people had been arrested over the last
several months in separate incidents involving videotaping of European
subway stations and trains or similar activity, which provides
``indications of continued terrorist interest in mass transit systems
as targets.''
Last year, the London subway system was the target of a tragic attack
that left 50 people dead, and in 2004, almost 200 people were killed
when bombs exploded on commuter rail

[[Page S4476]]

trains in Madrid. In fact, in 2002, the GAG reported that one-third of
all terrorist attacks worldwide are against transit systems. Despite
this significant threat, security funding has been grossly inadequate,
and, as a result, our Nation's transit systems have been unable to
implement necessary security improvements, including those that have
been identified by the Department of Homeland Security. In an editorial
last July, just after the London attacks, the Baltimore Sun stated
that: Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has spent $18
billion on aviation security. Transit systems, which carry 16 times
more passengers daily, have received about $250 million. That is a
ridiculous imbalance.
The editorial goes on to state:

How would those in charge of the nation's public transit
systems spend the extra money? Chiefly for necessities like
security cameras, radios, training an extra security
personnel. Those aren't extravagant requests.

Let me give one example of a critical need right here with respect to
Washington's Metro. Their greatest security need is a backup control
operations center. This need was identified by the Federal Transit
Administration in its initial security assessment and then identified
again by the Department of Homeland Security in its subsequent security
assessment. This critical need remains unaddressed because it has been
unfunded. This legislation would authorize the funding to make this and
other urgently needed security upgrades at transit systems around the
country.
We know that transit systems are potential targets for terrorist
attacks. We know the vital role these systems play in our Nation's
economic infrastructure. We can wait no longer to make these security
investments.
I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, for
his excellent leadership on transit security and Senator Reed for his
strong and continued commitment on this issue. I also commend the
leadership of the Commerce Committee for their foresight in moving the
port and rail titles of this legislation. I thank all of our colleagues
who have joined as cosponsors of this legislation, and I urge the full
Senate to support it.
______

By Mr. GREGG:
S. 2792. A bill to revise and extend certain provisions of the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. As we seen in recent years, our Nation is not immune from
major public health and medical emergencies such as the terrorist
attacks on 9/11 or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many of us were living
under a false sense of security that the United States was not
susceptible to major terrorist attacks. We also believed that our
Federal, state, and local governments had all the appropriate emergency
preparedness measures in place to handle even the worst-case disasters,
like the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina or a pandemic outbreak
of avian flu.
Prior to 9/11, our Nation's public health system provided passive
surveillance to detect and track the spread of infectious diseases and
to educate the public on how to better protect themselves. Are we
better prepared today to handle a national public health emergency than
we were prior to 9/11? I would say yes. But, we need to do more.
In the five years since 9/11 our Nation's public health system has
begun to transform into a health system able to respond to public
health emergencies, whether it is a terrorist attack, such as the
anthrax, or a natural event.
The Bioterrorism and Public Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2002, which I co-authored, provided a number of critical provisions to
strengthen our Nation's public health infrastructure after we were
attacked on 9/11. The act has authorized almost $8 billion for state
and local public health and hospital preparedness to increase medical
surge capacity and surveillance capabilities. The act created the
Office of Public Health and Emergency Preparedness at HHS to coordinate
Federal public health and medical emergency preparedness and response,
such as significant increases of vaccines, antivirals, and medical
supplies, such as gloves, masks and first-aid equipment for rapid
deployment anywhere in the U.S. through the Strategic National
Stockpile. The act also strengthened border protection authorities,
including quarantine and isolation, and food importation and our water
supply.
While the Bioterrorism and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002
improved our Nation's public health and medical response
infrastructure, much work remain. We still cannot say with any
certainty that states are more prepared than before 9/11 because we
still do not have meaningful standards to evaluate our level of
preparedness. Once states develop preparedness plans, we must test and
evaluate them. Individuals throughout all levels of government and the
private sector agree that one of the biggest public health weaknesses
is the lack of adequate testing and evaluation of the response plans
long before an emergency occurs.
Now that we've had almost five years to strengthen our capacity to
respond effectively to a national emergency, we need to now shift our
focus to areas that are especially at a high risk of a terrorist attack
or a natural emergency. The Federal government must play a role, but
cannot stand alone. The state and local public health and medical first
responders will be on front lines during a national emergency. State
and local governments have the in-depth knowledge of their own medical
surge capacity and response plans and must play a significant role in
their own preparedness preparations.
We need to do more to encourage states and regions to coordinate and
share resources, including personnel, hospital beds and medical
supplies during a major emergency. The public health and emergency
medical response community agrees that it is critical to establish
regional agreements among neighboring states. A regional approach will
greatly increase a state's surge capacity to handle a major public
health emergency. Incentivizing states to coordinate emergency
preparedness planning is critical. My state of New Hampshire, along
with Maine and Vermont, have established memo of understanding to share
resources, such as medical personnel and hospital beds, during an
emergency in the region.
Finally, we must establish coordination among all levels of
government--from the Federal government all the way down to the city
and town leaders. The Federal response during a national emergency is
managed by the Department of Homeland Security and guided by the
National Response Plan (NRP). The NRP directs the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to lead the Federal public health and medical
response and support the state and local first-responders. It is
essential that clear and robust lines of communication are developed
between federal agencies to effectively prepare for and respond to
national emergencies.
Our Nation has certainly had its share of very difficult
circumstances to overcome in recent years. I believe these incidents
have given us a real wake-up call that we must prepare at all levels of
government to provide a rapid and robust response. I believe the bill I
am introducing today will focus on all levels of government to be
accountable and prepared to better respond to national public health
and medical emergencies.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 2793. A bill to enhance research and education in the areas of
pharmaceutical and biotechnology science and engineering, including
therapy development and manufacturing, analytical technologies,
modeling, and informatics; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Pharmaceutical Technology and Education Enhancement Act. The
legislation that I introduce today would improve pharmaceutical and
biotechnological development and manufacturing through education and
research at our nation's institutions of higher education. By expanding
pharmaceutical science, technology and engineering research within our
universities, this bill aims to expedite the drug manufacturing
process,

[[Page S4477]]

thereby producing quality pharmaceuticals at a more affordable cost to
consumers.
In 1999, 8.2 percent of total health care spending in the United
States was attributed to prescription drugs. By 2010, prescription
drugs are expected to account for 14 percent of our nation's health
care spending. In addition, the average cost of bringing a new drug to
market has risen 50 percent in the last five years, now costing as much
as $1,700,000,000.
The trend of rising pharmaceutical costs is disturbing as it
discourages innovation and impedes efforts to fight disease and address
important public health concerns. High pharmaceutical manufacturing
costs associated with outdated manufacturing processes significantly
contribute to the rising cost of prescription drugs and overall health
care in our country.
This legislation would establish a partnership between the Food and
Drug Administration and other federal agencies, the pharmaceutical and
medical industries, and the National Institute for Pharmaceutical
Technology and Education whose member institutions include Purdue
University, in my home state of Indiana, and ten other exemplary
research universities throughout the country. This collaboration will
expand the ability of those in the academic research field to
contribute to the medical technology and pharmaceutical industries to
create better quality products with more efficient, less costly
manufacturing.
Without a change in the pharmaceutical manufacturing process, health
care costs in this country will continue to rise and prevalent public
health concerns will remain unanswered. Engaging the academic community
in this process is vital and I urge my colleagues to join me as co-
sponsors of this important legislation.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2794. A bill to ensure the equitable provision of pension and
medical benefits to Department of Energy contractor employees; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Reid, Baucus, Bingaman,
Harkin, Mikulski and Cantwell join me in introducing legislation to
protect the pensions and health care of America's nuclear defense and
energy workers who provide critical services to support our national
defense and energy security.
Our bill reverses a policy the Bush administration recently issued to
eliminate secure pensions and good health care for workers under
Department of Energy contracts. This policy is bad for workers and bad
for business. By attacking their secure pensions and quality health
care benefits, this administration is undermining our government's
ability to protect our Nation and strengthen our economy. And it is
broadcasting a message that American workers' secure retirement and
good health care should be put on the chopping block. The Federal
Government should be setting a good example with strong benefits for
workers, instead of leading a race to the bottom.
By refusing to cover the costs for secure pensions, this
administration is forcing contractors to put their employees into
defined contribution plans. Workers will bear the risks of uncertain
stock markets and the risk of outliving their savings. And businesses,
instead of being free to choose which type of retirement plan is best
for their workers, will be forced into a one-size-fits-all model.
The American Academy of Actuaries, the professionals who understand
as well as anyone the benefit system in America, strongly objects to
the Department's new policy, pointing out that it takes away
contractors' ability to choose the type of benefit plans offered to
workers and undermines retirement security. They urge that this policy
be immediately rescinded.
This is a particular concern given the timing of this announcement.
Right now we have a pension bill in conference designed to strengthen
the defined benefit pension system.
At this critical time, the administration should be supporting the
growth and expansion of the defined benefit pension system. But instead
it is going the other way, by forcing businesses to abandon defined
benefit pension plans. This says to me that this President is not
committed to a secure retirement for Americans. First he tried to
privatize Social Security; now he's trying to use our federal
contracting system to do the same with our Nation's nuclear defense
workers.
The administration is also attacking employer-provided health care,
by saying the government will not pay more than the average in the
industry for health care costs under Department of Energy contracts. In
other words, it will pay only the average or below.
And the quality health care benefits Department of Energy contractors
offer workers will have to be replaced by limited medical plans that
unfairly penalize the least healthy workers.
These high deductible plans don't work for people who need health
care the most. Persons with chronic health conditions or who are hit
with illness or injury will have to pay significantly more than they
would with the comprehensive insurance that the administration's
proposal eliminates. These individuals will never be able to find the
funds to cover the care they need before meeting the high-deductible
needed for their plan to cover them. Is this how we want to treat
American workers?
If the President's goal is to cut spending for health care, this is
the wrong way to go about it. Workers with the kind of high-deductible
health plan President Bush has mandated for Department of Energy
contractors are more likely to avoid, skip or delay the care that
prevents a medical crisis. This means workers will get care when they
are sicker and may need costly hospital or emergency room care.
Shifting costs to workers drives up costs instead of cutting them.
Last week Senator Reid, Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Harkin, Mikulski,
Cantwell, Murray and I sent a letter to the White House calling on the
President to overturn this ill-conceived policy and call off his attack
on the retirement security and health care of these skilled workers. We
hope that the President will reconsider. But if he does not, we will be
looking for every opportunity to address this issue through this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

____________________