[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 77 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5952-S5966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Cochran, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Jeffords, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Salazar, and Mr. Sessions):
S. 3516. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
permanently extend the floor on the Medicare work geographic adjustment
under the fee schedule for physicians' services; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with
Senators Snowe, Cochran, Cantwell, Domenici, Lincoln, Jeffords,
Collins, Murray, Harkin, Landrieu, Obama, Salazar, and Sessions
entitled the ``Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Extension Act of
2006.'' The legislation would extend a provision that was included as
part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and came from my
original legislation, S. 881 in the 108th Congress, with Congressman
Doug Bereuter of Nebraska to ensure that the work component of the
Medicare physician payment formula is set to ensure that no geographic
region is paid less than the national average.
The Medicare physician payment formula, known as the Medicare
Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, or RBRVS, is based on three
components of each service: work, practice expense, and professional
liability insurance. The relative value of each service is then
multiplied by a geographic adjuster for each Medicare locality, which
is known as the Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or GPCIs.
Prior to the enactment of this provision as part of the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003, the physicians in States that have the worst
workforce shortages were being paid far less than their counterparts in
States with adequate or even an oversupply of physicians due to the
GPCI adjustment. For the ``work component'' in particular, which
accounts for about 55 percent of the total Medicare physician payment,
an adjustment based on geographic adjustments made little sense. An
office visit to a rural physician is no different in time, effort, or
workload compared to an office visit to an urban physician.
As National Rural Health Association president Dr. Wayne Myers said
on January 7, 2003, prior to the legislation's passage, ``An office
visit to a rural physician is no different than an office visit to an
urban physician. The idea that physicians are reimbursed for their work
and their skills at a lower rate simply on the basis that they choose
to practice in a rural area and serve our rural communities is
completely ludicrous.''
In addition, since Medicare beneficiaries pay the same premium for
all Part B services, inequitable physician fee payments result in
substantial cross-subsidization from people living in low payment
States to people living in higher payment States.
Congress determined that such extensive geographic disparities were
unfair and, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, language
from my bill was included that brought all geographic areas up to the
national average for the calculation of this piece of the Medicare
physician payment formula.
It is important to highlight that the importance of this formula
extends well beyond Medicare. According to the American Academy of
Pediatrics in its February 8, 2006, update on the Medicare payment
formula, ``. . . over 74 percent of public and private payors,
including state Medicaid programs, have adopted components of the
Medicare RBRVS to reimburse physicians, while many other payors are
exploring its implementation.''
Furthermore, Medicare Advantage plan payments are based in large part
on fee-for-service payments made in various geographic locations.
Disparities in Medicare Advantage payments are also caused, in part, by
such geographic adjustments made to physician payments.
Unfortunately, these disparities will increase if the ``work
component'' in the physician payment rate is allowed to once again
fully adjust based on geography. The provision bringing payment levels
up to the national average for every geographic area was in effect for
2004-2006 and is set to expire at the end of this calendar year. As a
result, physicians, who already face a potential reduction in their
overall Medicare payment rate, might also see their payment rates
further reduced unless this legislative extension is passed.
According to the November 21, 2005, Federal Register notice, if
payment rates were not brought up to the national average, there would
be reductions in physician payments to the following States: Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia outside of Atlanta,
Idaho, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland outside of Baltimore region, Michigan outside of
Detroit, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, most of New York outside of New York City and
suburbs, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon outside
of Portland, Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas outside of Houston, Dallas,
and Brazoria, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington outside of Seattle,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Lack of equitable reimbursement is a critical factor leading to the
shortage of physicians in many rural areas, including the State of New
Mexico. The extension of the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform
Extension Act of 2006 will ensure that the disparity in physician
payments between states such as New Mexico and other geographic areas
does not once again widen.
I urge prompt passage of this important legislation and 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. 3516
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 Equity Payment Index
Reform Extension Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF FLOOR ON MEDICARE WORK
GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT.
Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ``and before January
1, 2007,''.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 3517. A bill to enhance the services available to members of the
Armed Forces returning from deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom to assist such members in transitioning to
civilian life, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the
Heroes
[[Page S5953]]
at Home Act of 2006. This legislation would take several important
steps toward assisting our brave men and women in uniform in
transitioning back home to their families, workplaces, and communities
after deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hundreds of thousands of troops have rotated through Iraq and
Afghanistan as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, and Operation
Enduring Freedom, OEF, including thousands of courageous men and women
from New York. More military service members than ever are surviving
these conflicts because of better body armor and helmets and improved
battlefield medicine.
But surviving these wars and transitioning home can be an uphill
battle. Many OIF and OEF service members, including the unprecedented
number of National Guard and Reserve members, face readjustment
challenges after war, such as medical, mental health, relationship, and
work problems. Family members also are affected by the transition as
they struggle to reconnect with their war heroes, some who may be
deployed two, three, if not more times.
As I meet with returning service members and their families around
the State of New York and the country, I hear about the real hardships
they battle after deployment--just how difficult it can be to adjust
back to life at home.
Several articles and reports have highlighted these struggles.
According to a March 2006 study, 19 percent of Iraq veterans and 11
percent of Afghanistan veterans reported mental health problems. Among
the OIF and OEF veterans seeking care at Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA, hospitals, nearly a third have been diagnosed with mental
disorders, with over 40 percent of those posttraumatic stress disorder,
PTSD. Another report found that 10 to 30 percent of National Guard
members come home from Iraq searching for work. Others return to
civilian jobs dissatisfied with old tasks that pale in comparison to
wartime responsibilities.
In addition to these challenges, a large number of service members
are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with life-threatening brain
injuries from roadside blasts that can cause brain damage. It is
estimated that traumatic brain injuries, TBI, affect more than 25
percent of bomb blast survivors--a percentage thought to be higher than
in any other past U.S. conflict, making TBI the ``signature'' injury of
Iraq. The diffuse but debilitating symptoms of TBI can leave service
members with cognitive and emotional problems, including the inability
to adapt to civilian life. However, TBI frequently goes undiagnosed
because returning troops may show no visible wounds or may not realize
they suffered a concussion.
Lessons from past wars have taught us that identifying and dealing
with problems like PTSD and TBI right away is vital for overcoming
them. Yet just last month, a GAO report found that only 22 percent of
OIF and OEF service members who may have been at risk for developing
PTSD based on post deployment screenings were referred on for further
mental health evaluations. In another report from May 2005, the GAO
identified that, despite DOD efforts, the needs of demobilizing Reserve
and National Guard members for transition assistance were still unmet.
We must do more today to reach out and help our newest generation of
war heroes as they transition home after serving bravely in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And we must do more to shore up their families, who have
courageously maintained family life on the home front during their
deployment. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The
Heroes at Home Act would help address returning service members'
readjustment to work, PTSD, TBI, and other problems, as well as provide
support to their family members.
This bill would involve partnerships with employers and community
organizations because--despite more services and resources offered at
DOD facilities, VA hospitals, and Vet Centers--returning service
members are often reluctant to go to traditional mental health clinics
due to stigma and concerns about confidentiality and their military
careers. Only 29 percent of the approximately 500,000 separated OIF and
OEF veterans have sought VA health care services, including mental
health services.
This legislation would identify ways to better assist National Guard
and Reserve members in returning to civilian jobs, who are often hurled
from civilian life into combat with less preparation and are then
expected to reenter the civilian workforce. It would develop an
assistance center for employers, employee assistance programs, and
other organizations to provide them with best practices and education
for ensuring the success of Guard and Reserve members in resuming
civilian work after deployment, a win for our businesses, our
employers, and our troops.
Under this legislation, demonstration grants would be awarded to
organizations in community setting for providing mental health
education and assistance to National Guard and Reserve members and
their families. Since many of these troops return to local communities
scattered across the country far away from military bases and VA
hospitals, these pilot projects would help reach them and their loved
ones in more convenient places like community colleges, public schools,
community mental health clinics, and family support organizations.
With more and more troops injured by improvised explosive devices,
IEDs, and bombs in Iraq, we must do more to understand the effects of
these blasts on those impacted by them. That is why this legislation
also calls for a study on the long-term physical and mental health
consequences and rehabilitation needs of traumatic brain injured
service members of OIF and OEF. This study would examine ways to help
prevent future generations of service members from sustaining such
injuries while assessing what types of programs and services are
available to treat those who have already been injured in the years
ahead.
To further assist the mushrooming number of traumatic brain injured
service members and their families, this legislation would establish a
TBI family caregiver training curricula. Health professionals at DOD
and VA hospitals would use this training to teach family members how to
care for traumatic brain injured service members after they leave the
hospital. It is crucial that we give family members the tools they need
to effectively assist their loved ones at home in their communities.
Those who have proudly served our Nation in OIF and OEF have made
extraordinary sacrifices in the battlefield in defense of democracy and
freedom. Back home, these heroes deserve our best resources and support
to make sure they once again are vibrant and welcomed members in our
neighborhoods, our towns, and our cities, at our work sites, and in our
families. None of our returning service members should suffer alone in
silence. Nor should their families. We all must do our part. I look
forward to working with all of my colleagues to ensure passage of this
bill that champions the successful transition of our newly returning
heroes to their families, workplaces and communities.
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. 3517
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 ``Heroes at Home Act of
2006''.
SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF TASK FORCE ON MENTAL HEALTH ON
TRANSITION TO CIVILIAN LIFE OF MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE RETURNING FROM
DEPLOYMENT IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) In General.--Section 723 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163;
119 Stat. 3348) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
``(d) Assessment and Recommendations on Transition to
Civilian Life of Members of National Guard and Reserve
Returning From Deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom.--
[[Page S5954]]
``(1) In general.--In addition to the activities required
under subsection (c), the task force shall, not later than 12
months after the date of the enactment of the Heroes at Home
Act of 2006, submit to the Secretary a report containing an
assessment of, and recommendations for improving, assistance
to members of the National Guard and Reserve returning from
deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring
Freedom, and their families, in transitioning to civilian
employment upon their return from such deployment,
including--
``(A) members who were self-employed before deployment and
seek to return to such employment after deployment;
``(B) members who were students before deployment and seek
to return to school or commence employment after deployment;
``(C) members who have experienced multiple recent
deployments; and
``(D) members who have been wounded or injured during
deployment.
``(2) Working group.--In conducting the assessment and
making the recommendations required by paragraph (1), the
task force shall utilize the assistance of a working group
that consists of individuals selected by the task force from
among individuals as follows:
``(A) With the concurrence of the Administrator of the
Small Business Administration, personnel of the Small
Business Administration.
``(B) Representatives of employers who employ members of
the National Guard and Reserve described in paragraph (1) on
their return to civilian life as described in that paragraph.
``(C) Representatives of employee assistance organizations.
``(D) Representatives of associations of employers.
``(E) Representatives of organizations that assist wounded
or injured members of the National Guard and Reserves in
finding or sustaining employment.
``(F) Representatives of such other public or private
organizations and entities as the co-chairs of the task
force, in consultation with the members of the task force,
consider appropriate.
``(3) Report elements.--The report required by paragraph
(1) shall include recommendations on the following:
``(A) The provision of outreach and training to employers,
employment assistance organizations, and associations of
employers on the employment, readjustment, and mental health
needs of members of the National Guard and Reserve described
in paragraph (1) upon their return from deployment as
described in that paragraph.
``(B) The provision of outreach and training to employers,
employment assistance organizations, and associations of
employers on the needs of family members of such members.
``(C) The improvement of collaboration between the pubic
and private sectors in order to ensure the successful
transition of such members into civilian employment upon
their return from such deployment.
``(4) Other duties.--In the period between the submittal of
the report required by paragraph (1) and the termination of
the task force under subsection (h), the task force
(including the working group established under paragraph (2))
shall serve as an advisor to the Assistance Center for
Employers and Employment Assistance Organizations established
under section 3 of the Heroes at Home Act of 2006.
``(5) Employment assistance organization defined.--In this
subsection, the term `employment assistance organization'
means an organization or entity, whether public or private,
that provides assistance to individuals in finding or
retaining employment, including organizations and entities
under military career support programs.''.
(b) Report.--Subsection (f) of such section, as
redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section, is further
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Report'' and
inserting ``Reports'';
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph (1):
``(1) In general.--The report submitted to the Secretary
under each of subsections (c) and (d) shall include--
``(A) a description of the activities of the task force
under such subsection;
``(B) the assessment and recommendations required by such
subsection; and
``(C) such other matters relating to the activities of the
task force under such subsection as the task force considers
appropriate.''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``the report under paragraph (1)'' and
inserting ``a report under paragraph (1)''; and
(B) by striking ``the report as'' and inserting ``such
report as''.
(c) Plan Matters.--Subsection (g) of such section, as
redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section, is further
amended--
(1) by striking ``the report from the task force under
subsection (e)(1)'' and inserting ``a report from the task
force under subsection (f)(1)''; and
(2) by inserting ``contained in such report'' after ``the
task force'' the second place it appears.
(d) Termination.--Subsection (h) of such section, as
redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section, is further
amended--
(1) by inserting ``with respect to the assessment and
recommendations required by subsection (d)'' after ``the task
force''; and
(2) by striking ``subsection (e)(2)'' and inserting
``subsection (f)(2)''.
SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE CENTER FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Establishment of Center.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
an office to assist employers, employment assistance
organizations, and associations of employers in facilitating
the successful transition to civilian employment of members
of the National Guard and Reserve returning from deployment
in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
(2) Designation.--The office established under this
subsection shall be known as the ``Assistance Center for
Employers and Employment Assistance Organizations'' (in this
section referred to as the ``Center'').
(3) Head.--The Secretary shall designate an individual to
act as the head of the Center.
(4) Integration.--In establishing the Center, the Secretary
shall ensure close communication between the Center and the
military departments, including the commands of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces.
(b) Functions.--The Center shall have the following
functions:
(1) To provide education and technical assistance to
employers, employment assistance organizations, and
associations of employers to assist them in facilitating the
successful transition to civilian employment of members of
the National Guard and Reserve described in subsection (a) on
their return from deployment as described in that subsection.
(2) To provide education and technical assistance to
employers, employment assistance organizations, and
associations of employers to assist them in facilitating the
successful adjustment of family members of the National Guard
and Reserve to the deployment and return from deployment of
members of the National Guard and Reserve as described in
that subsection.
(c) Resources To Be Provided.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the functions specified in
subsection (b), the Center shall provide employers,
employment assistance organizations, and associations of
employers resources, services, and assistance that include
the following:
(A) Guidelines on best practices and effective strategies.
(B) Education on the physical and mental health
difficulties that can and may be experienced by members of
the National Guard and Reserve described in subsection (a) on
their return from deployment as described in that subsection
in transitioning to civilian employment, including
difficulties arising from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), including education
on--
(i) the detection of warning signs of such difficulties;
(ii) the medical, mental health, and employment services
available to such members, including materials on services
offered by the Department of Defense, the Department of
Veterans Affairs (including through the vet center program
under section 1712A of title 38, United States Code), the
Department of Labor, military support programs, and community
mental health clinics; and
(iii) the mechanisms for referring such members for
services described in clause (ii) and for other medical and
mental health screening and care when appropriate.
(C) Education on the range and types of potential physical
and mental health effects of deployment and post-deployment
adjustment on family members of members of the National Guard
and Reserve described in subsection (a), including education
on--
(i) the detection of warning signs on such effects on
family members of members of the National Guard and Reserves;
(ii) the medical, mental health, and employment services
available to such family members, including materials on such
services as described in subparagraph (B)(ii); and
(iii) mechanisms for referring such family members for
services described in clause (ii) and for medical and mental
health screening and care when appropriate.
(D) Education on mechanisms, strategies, and resources for
accommodating and employing wounded or injured members of the
National Guard and Reserves in work settings.
(2) Provision of resources.--The Center shall make
resources, services, and assistance available under this
subsection through such mechanisms as the head of the Center
considers appropriate, including the Internet, video
conferencing, telephone services, workshops, trainings,
presentations, group forums, and other mechanisms.
(d) Personnel and Other Resources.--The Secretary of
Defense shall assign to the Center such personnel, funding,
and other resources as are required to ensure the effective
discharge by the Center of the functions under subsection
(b).
(e) Reports on Activities.--
(1) Annual report by center.--Not later than one year after
the establishment of the Center, and annually thereafter, the
head of the Center, in consultation with the Department of
Defense Task Force on Mental Health (while in effect), shall
submit to the Secretary of Defense a written report on the
progress and outcomes of the Center during the one-year
period ending on the date of such report.
(2) Transmittal to congress.--Not later than 60 days after
receipt of a report under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
transmit
[[Page S5955]]
such report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, together with--
(A) such comments on such report, and such assessment of
the effectiveness of the Center, as the Secretary considers
appropriate; and
(B) such recommendations on means of improving the
effectiveness of the Center as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Availability to public.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to make each report under paragraph (2)
available to the public, including through the Internet
website of the Center.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Employment assistance organization.--The term
``employment assistance organization'' means an organization
or entity, whether public or private, that provides
assistance to individuals in finding or retaining employment,
including organizations and entities under military career
support programs.
(2) Department of defense task force on mental health.--The
term ``Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health''
means the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health
established under section 723 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended by section
2 of this Act.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense to carry out
this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, such sums
as may be necessary.
SEC. 4. GRANTS ON ASSISTANCE IN COMMUNITY-BASED SETTINGS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE AND
THEIR FAMILIES AFTER DEPLOYMENT IN OPERATION
IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may award grants
to eligible entities to carry out demonstration projects to
assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing
community-based settings for the provision of assistance to
members of the National Guard and Reserve who serve in
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, and
their families, after the return of such members from
deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring
Freedom, as the case may be, including--
(1) services to improve the reuniting of such members of
the National Guard and Reserve and their families;
(2) education to increase awareness of the physical and
mental health difficulties that members of the National Guard
and Reserve can and may experience on their return from such
deployment, including education on--
(A) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and traumatic
brain injury (TBI); and
(B) mechanisms for the referral of such members of the
National Guard and Reserve for medical and mental health
screening and care when necessary; and
(3) education to increase awareness of the physical and
mental health difficulties that family members of such
members of the National Guard and Reserve can and may
experience on the return of such members from such
deployment, including education on--
(A) depression, anxiety, and relationship problems; and
(B) mechanisms for medical and mental health screening and
care when appropriate.
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for the award of
a grant under this section is any public or private non-
profit organization, such as a community mental health
clinic, family support organization, military support
organization, law enforcement agency, community college, or
public school.
(c) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
this section shall submit to the Secretary of Defense an
application therefor in such manner, and containing such
information, as the Secretary may require for purposes of
this section, including a description of how such entity will
work with the Department of Defense, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, State health agencies, other appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, family support
organizations, and other community organization in
undertaking activities described in subsection (a).
(d) Annual Reports by Grant Recipients.--An entity awarded
a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary of
Defense on an annual basis a report on the activities
undertaken by such entity during the preceding year utilizing
amounts under the grant. Each report shall include such
information as the Secretary shall specify for purposes of
this subsection.
(e) Annual Reports to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
activities undertaken under the grants awarded under this
section. The report shall include recommendations for
legislative, programmatic, or administrative action to
improve or enhance activities under the grants awarded under
this section.
(2) Availability to public.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to make each report under this subsection
available to the public.
SEC. 5. LONGITUDINAL STUDY ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY INCURRED
BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN OPERATION
IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, provide
for a longitudinal study on the effects of traumatic brain
injury incurred by members of the Armed Forces in Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The duration of
the longitudinal study shall be 15 years.
(b) Selection of Entity for Conduct of Study.--The
Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, select an entity to conduct
the study required by subsection (a) from among private
organizations or entities qualified to conduct the study.
(c) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall
address the following:
(1) The long-term effects of traumatic brain injury on the
overall readiness of the Armed Forces.
(2) Mechanisms for improving body armor and helmets in
order to protect members of the Armed Forces from sustaining
traumatic brain injuries.
(3) The long-term physical and mental health consequences
of traumatic brain injuries incurred by members of the Armed
Forces during service in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation
Enduring Freedom.
(4) The health care, mental health care, and rehabilitation
needs of such members for such injuries after the completion
of inpatient treatment through the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or both.
(5) The type and availability of long-term care
rehabilitation programs and services within and outside the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
for such members for such injuries, including community-based
programs and services and in-home programs and services.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Periodic and final reports.--After the third, seventh,
eleventh, and fifteenth years of the study required by
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, submit
to the appropriate elements of the Department of Defense and
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and to Congress, a
comprehensive report on the results of the study during the
preceding years. Each report shall include the following:
(A) Current information on the cumulative outcomes of the
study.
(B) In the case of a report to elements of the Department
of Defense--
(i) such recommendations as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for programmatic and administrative
action to improve body armor and helmets to protect members
of the Armed Forces from sustaining traumatic brain injuries;
and
(ii) such other recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate based on the outcomes of the study.
(C) In the case of a report to elements of the Department
of Veterans Affairs--
(i) such recommendations as the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs considers appropriate for programmatic and
administrative action to improve long-term care and
rehabilitative programs and services for members of the Armed
Forces with traumatic brain injury; and
(ii) such other recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate based on the outcomes of the study.
(D) In the case of a report to Congress--
(i) such recommendations as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for legislative action to improve body
armor and helmets to protect members of the Armed Forces from
sustaining traumatic brain injuries;
(ii) such recommendations as the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs considers appropriate for legislative action to
improve long-term care and rehabilitative programs and
services for members of the Armed Forces with traumatic brain
injury; and
(iii) such other recommendations as the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs jointly
consider appropriate based on the outcomes of the study.
(2) Availability to public.--The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly take
appropriate actions to make each report under this subsection
available to the public.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense to carry out
this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, such sums
as may be necessary.
SEC. 6. TRAINING CURRICULA FOR FAMILY CAREGIVERS ON CARE AND
ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
INCURRED IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
establish within the Department of Defense a panel to develop
coordinated, uniform, and consistent training curricula to be
used in training family members in the provision of care and
assistance to members and former members of the Armed Forces
for traumatic brain injuries incurred during service in the
Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring
Freedom.
(2) Designation of panel.--The panel established under
paragraph (1) shall be known as the ``Traumatic Brain Injury
Family Caregiver Panel''.
[[Page S5956]]
(3) Members.--The Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver
Panel established under paragraph (1) shall consist of 15
members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, equally
represented from among--
(A) physicians, nurses, rehabilitation therapists, and
other individuals with an expertise in caring for and
assisting individuals with traumatic brain injury, including
those who specialize in caring for and assisting individuals
with traumatic brain injury incurred in war;
(B) representatives of family caregivers or family
caregiver associations;
(C) Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
Affairs health and medical personnel with expertise in
traumatic brain injury, and Department of Defense personnel
and readiness representatives with expertise in traumatic
brain injury;
(D) representatives of military service organizations who
specialize in matters relating to disabled veterans;
(E) representatives of veterans service organizations who
specialize in matters relating to disabled veterans;
(F) psychologists or other individuals with expertise in
the mental health treatment and care of individuals with
traumatic brain injury;
(G) experts in the development of training curricula;
(H) researchers and academicians who study traumatic brain
injury; and
(I) any other individuals the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(4) Meetings.--The Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver
Panel shall meet not less than monthly.
(b) Development of Curricula.--
(1) In general.--The Traumatic Brain Injury Family
Caregiver Panel shall develop training curricula to be
utilized during the provision of training to family members
of members and former members of the Armed Forces described
in subsection (a) on techniques, strategies, and skills for
care and assistance for such members and former members with
the traumatic brain injuries described in that subsection.
(2) Scope of curricula.--The curricula shall--
(A) be based on empirical research and validated
techniques; and
(B) shall provide for training that permits recipients to
tailor caregiving to the unique circumstances of the member
or former member of the Armed Forces receiving care.
(3) Particular requirements.--In developing the curricula,
the Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Panel shall--
(A) specify appropriate training commensurate with the
severity of traumatic brain injury; and
(B) identify appropriate care and assistance to be provided
for the degree of severity of traumatic brain injury for
caregivers of various levels of skill and capability.
(4) Use of existing materials.--In developing the
curricula, the Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Panel
shall utilize and enhance any existing training curricular,
materials, and resources applicable to such curricula as the
Panel considers appropriate.
(5) Consultation.--In developing the curricula, the
Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Panel shall consult
with the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee, as
appropriate.
(6) Deadline for development.--The Traumatic Brain Injury
Family Caregiver Panel shall develop the curricula not later
than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Dissemination of Curricula.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver
Panel, develop mechanisms for the dissemination of the
curricula developed under subsection (b) to health care
professionals referred to in paragraph (2) who treat or
otherwise work with members and former members of the Armed
Forces with traumatic brain injury incurred in Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. In developing
such mechanisms, the Secretary may utilize and enhance
existing mechanisms, including the Military Severely Injured
Center.
(2) Health care professionals.--The health care
professionals referred to in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) Personnel at military medical treatment facilities.
(B) Personnel at the polytrauma centers of the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
(C) Personnel and care managers at the Military Severely
Injured Center.
(D) Such other health care professionals of the Department
of Defense as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(E) Such other health care professionals of the Department
of Veterans Affairs as the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
considers appropriate.
(3) Scope.--The mechanisms developed under paragraph (1)
shall include the provision of refresher training in the
curricula developed under subsection (a) for the health care
professional referred to in paragraph (2) not less often than
once every six months.
(4) Provision of training to family caregivers.--
(A) In general.--Health care professionals referred to in
paragraph (2) who are trained in the curricula developed
under subsection (b) shall provide training to family members
of members and former members of the Armed Forces who incur
traumatic brain injuries during service in the Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom in the care and
assistance to be provided for such injuries.
(B) Timing of training.--Training under this paragraph
shall, to the extent practicable, be provided to family
members while the member or former member concerned is
undergoing treatment at a facility of the Department of
Defense or Department of Veterans Affairs, as applicable, in
order to ensure that such family members receive practice on
the provision of such care and assistance under the guidance
of qualified health professionals.
(C) Particularized training.--Training provided under this
paragraph to family members of a particular member or former
member shall be tailored to the particular care needs of such
member or former member and the particular caregiving needs
of such family members.
(5) Quality assurance.--The Secretary shall develop
mechanisms to ensure quality in the provision of training
under this section to health care professionals referred to
in paragraph (2) and in the provision of such training under
paragraph (4) by such health care professionals.
(6) Report.--Not later than one year after the development
of the curricula required by subsection (b), and annually
thereafter, the Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver
Training Panel shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to Congress, a report
on the following:
(A) The actions undertaken under this subsection.
(B) The results of the tracking of outcomes based on
training developed and provided under this section.
(C) Recommendations for the improvement of training
developed and provided under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense to carry out
this section amounts as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2007, $5,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, such sums
as may be necessary.
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 3518. A bill to amend the Credit Repair Organizations Act to
establish a new disclosure statement; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
amend the Credit Repair Organizations Act, CROA, to stop abusive class
action lawsuits against companies offering legitimate credit file
monitoring products. The following is a summary of why we need to pass
this legislation.
Credit-monitoring products are offered by consumer reporting
agencies, their affiliates, and resellers. These products help
consumers access their consumer report information and credit scores on
a regular basis. They include credit alert features when derogatory
information appears in the consumer's file or someone obtains the
consumer's report. The products give consumers a front-line defense
against identity theft, and are routinely made available to victims of
security breaches. Credit-monitoring products also educate consumers
about their credit scores and credit histories. The market is highly
competitive. Banks and other creditors also provide these products to
their customers.
These products are threatened by abusive class action lawsuits, based
on CROA's language. CROA was to combat the assault on the integrity of
accurate credit file data by credit repair organizations and by
consumers acting on their advice. Under CROA, a credit repair
organization is subject to a number of appropriately harsh and specific
requirements. The most significant of these is a prohibition on
collecting fees before completion of performance of the promised
services. CROA also mandates that consumers be given a written warning
that the services cannot result in the change or deletion of negative
but accurate data. This ``warning'' would be confusing and
inappropriate if given to a consumer of credit monitoring products or
services.
CROA was enacted before credit monitoring products were created. The
CROA definition of ``credit repair organization'' is intentionally
broad in order to prevent circumvention of its coverage. Among other
things, the definition includes an entity that implies its activities
or services can ``improve'' a consumer's credit record, credit history
or credit rating. The breadth of the definition has been used by
plaintiffs' lawyers an attempt to obtain statutory damages against
consumer reporting agencies and their resellers solely for offering
these monitoring
[[Page S5957]]
products. The class action lawsuits threaten the viability of the
credit-monitoring industry.
This result can be prevented through the enactment of a technical
amendment to CROA that clarifies the definition of ``credit repair
organization'' as it includes ``improving'' a consumer's credit record,
etc. The amendment can explain that ``improving'' a consumer's credit
record does not include credit monitoring, notifications, analysis,
evaluation, or explanations.
Because this is a clarifying amendment, it will not affect the CROA's
essential operation or Federal agency enforcement. The Federal Trade
Commission has stated that it does not think credit-monitoring products
should be subject to CROA. If this amendment is enacted, consumers will
continue to enjoy CROA's important rights and protections, including
the right to bring private lawsuits against credit repair organizations
for violations of the act. The amendment to CROA will also assure the
continued availability of credit monitoring products and services for
consumers.
I encourage my colleagues to join with me in passing this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3519. A bill to reform the State inspection of meat and poultry in
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Agriculture
Small Business Opportunity and Enhancement Act of 2006. Currently, 28
States, including my home State of Utah, have State meat inspection
programs. But, outdated Federal laws prohibit the interstate shipment
of certain meats inspected under these programs. My legislation would
remove that unfair ban.
Let me provide some background on why this legislation is necessary.
A 1906 law, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, requires the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, USDA, to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine,
goats, and horses slaughtered for human consumption. An amendment in
1957, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, added poultry to that list.
While the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the 1968 Poultry Products
Inspection Act recognized State inspection programs separate from the
Federal program, these laws also prohibit certain meats inspected under
State programs from being sold in interstate commerce. That ban applies
to beef, poultry, pork, lamb, and goat products, but not to specialty
meats such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, and numerous others
that are typically inspected under State programs.
It is important to point out that this ban is unique. State-inspected
beef, poultry, pork, lamb, and goat products are the only food
commodities that are banned from interstate shipment. Many perishable
products, including milk and other dairy items, fruit, vegetables, and
fish, which are inspected under State programs, are shipped freely
across State lines.
There is no legitimate reason for the ban on the interstate shipment
of State-inspected meats to continue. The State programs are equal or
superior to the Federal program. In fact, the 1967 and 1968 Meat and
Poultry Inspection Acts require State inspection programs to be ``at
least equal to'' the Federal program. Since 1967, USDA has conducted
comprehensive reviews of each individual State inspection program to
verify whether or not the program meets the statutory requirement to be
``at least equal to'' the Federal program. In the nearly 30 years that
USDA has been conducting these reviews, the agency has never
unilaterally found that a State inspection program should be
discontinued due to an inability to meet Federal food safety standards.
Further, the 2002 farm bill required USDA to conduct an additional
comprehensive review of State inspection programs. After a 2-year
study, USDA issued an interim report which found that State inspection
programs are indeed ``at least equal to'' the Federal inspection
program. In addition, three USDA Advisory Committees have recommended
that the ban on interstate shipment be lifted.
In short, there is no distinction between the Federal and State
inspection programs. Without exception, State inspection programs meet
or exceed Federal food-safety requirements, and USDA has verified the
safety of these programs for decades.
In Utah, we have 32 establishments that inspect meat under a State's
inspection program. These establishments, like the nearly 2,000 similar
plants nationwide, are, for the most part, small businesses. And,
generally speaking, these establishments cater to the needs of small,
family-run farms and ranches. The outdated ban on interstate shipment
of State-inspected meats clearly disrupts the free flow of trade,
restricts market access for countless small businesses, and creates an
unfair advantage for big businesses.
But it gets worse. Current regulations also favor foreign meat
producers over small businesses in our Nation. In fact, meat inspected
in 34 foreign countries can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. because the
USDA has certified that the inspection programs in these foreign
countries are equivalent to the Federal program. As I have pointed out,
State inspection programs must meet the same Federal equivalency
standard. In fact, USDA supervision of State inspection programs is far
more frequent and thorough than its oversight of foreign inspection
programs.
In my view, it is absurd that meat inspected in 34 foreign countries
can be shipped anywhere in the United States without restriction, but
small businesses in 28 States are prohibited from shipping their
products across State lines, even though these small businesses meet
the same Federal food safety requirements as their foreign competitors.
A ban on interstate shipment of State-inspected meat unfairly hinders
our Nation's economy. My legislation would remove the outdated,
unnecessary, unjust ban that puts our small businesses at such a
disadvantage. Removing this prohibition will increase competition and
innovation. It will provide farmers and ranchers with increased
opportunities to sell their products at a better price. It will not do
anything more than level the playing field and ensure that our small
businesses have the opportunity to economically compete in the market.
I urge my colleagues to join me in defending America's small
businesses by supporting this important legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Menendez):
S. 3520. A bill to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of
1949 to allow for certain claims of nationals of the United States
against Turkey, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as you know, Turkey invaded the northern
area of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974. At that time,
less than 20 percent of the private real property in this area was
owned by Turkish Cypriots, with the rest owned by Greek Cypriots and
foreigners. Turkey's invasion and subsequent occupation of northern
Cyprus displaced people who are to this day prevented by the Turkish
armed forces from returning to and repossessing their homes and
properties.
A large proportion of these properties were distributed to, and are
currently being used by, the 120,000 Turkish settlers brought into the
occupied area by Turkey. It is estimated that 7,000 to 10,000 U.S.
nationals today claim an interest in such property.
Adding urgency to the plight of Greek-Cypriots and Americans who lost
property in the wake of the invasion is a recent property development
boom in the Turkish-occupied north of Cyprus. As an ever-increasing
number of disputed properties are transferred or developed, the
rightful owners' prospects for recovering their property or being
compensated worsen.
In 1998, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had
unlawfully deprived Greek Cypriot refugees of the use of their
properties in the north of the island. The Court ruled that the
Government of Turkey was obliged to compensate the refugees for such
deprivation, and to allow them to return home.
It is to provide similar redress to the American victims of Turkey's
invasion and occupation of Cyprus that my colleague Senator Menendez
and I today introduce the American-Owned Property in Occupied Cyprus
Claims Act. A substantively identical bill has been
[[Page S5958]]
proposed in the House of Representatives by Representative Pallone and
32 of his Republican and Democratic colleagues.
This act would direct the U.S. Government's independent Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission to receive, evaluate, and determine awards
with respect to the claims of U.S. citizens and businesses that lost
property as a result of Turkey's invasion and continued occupation of
northern Cyprus. To provide funds from which these awards would be
paid, the act would urge the President to authorize the Secretary of
State to negotiate an agreement for settlement of such claims with the
Government of Turkey.
The act would further grant U.S. Federal courts jurisdiction over
suits by U.S. nationals against any private persons--other than
Turkey--occupying or otherwise using the U.S. national's property in
the Turkish-occupied portion of Cyprus. Lastly, the act would expressly
waive Turkey's sovereign immunity against claims brought by U.S.
nationals in U.S. courts relating to property occupied by the
Government of Turkey and used by Turkey in connection with a commercial
activity carried out in the United States.
This bill represents an important step toward righting the
internationally recognized wrong of the expropriation of property,
including American property, in northern Cyprus in the wake of the 1974
invasion by the Turkish Army. I strongly urge my colleagues to promptly
consider and pass this critical piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Allard, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Alexander, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Craig, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. DeMint, Mr. McCain, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Domenici):
S. 3521. A bill to establish a new budget process to create a
comprehensive plan to rein in spending, reduce the deficit, and regain
control of the Federal budget process; to the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which is
sponsored by myself and 20 other Members of the Senate.
The purpose of this bill is to put some control over spending--or at
least put procedures in--to allow us as a Congress to begin to control
spending.
I think we all recognize that in the short run we are headed toward a
budget that looks like it may actually move toward balance. We have
seen some very significant, positive gains. A deficit that was supposed
to be about $425 billion this year is down to about $300 billion, and
it may well go below that. That does not solve our problem even though
we have gotten things moving the right way because in the outyears we
face a fiscal crisis. That is reflected in this chart.
The fact is, there is facing this country a situation where we have a
generation known as the baby boom generation which is such a large
generation that it has basically overwhelmed the systems of America at
each point in its evolution. It started out in the early 1950s and late
1940s. It overwhelmed the school systems it was so big. As it moved
forward in the 1960s, it created the civil rights movement, and in the
1980s and 1990s it created the greatest prosperity in the history of
our country as a result of its size and productivity.
But now that generation is beginning to retire. It will start to
retire in the year 2008. It will be fully retired by the year 2020. It
will be the largest retired generation in the history of our Nation by
a factor of two. There will essentially be 70 million people retiring
during that period.
What are the implications? The implications are rather severe for our
Nation's fiscal policy, and especially for our children. All of our
retirement systems in this Nation--Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid--all our major safety nets were built around the concept
created by FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there would always be
many more people working than retiring.
In fact, in the early 1950s there were about 12 people working and
paying into the Social Security system for every one person taking it
out of Social Security. Today there are about three and a half people
working for every one person who is retired. By the years 2020 to 2025,
there will only be two people working for every one person taking out
of the system. That means this pyramid concept goes to a rectangle, and
our children and our grandchildren who will then be the working people
in America will not be able to support the benefit structure which is
in place for the retired.
This chart reflects the dramatic effect of this situation rather
starkly. The blue line represents what percent of gross national
product the Federal Government usually spends. Historically, since
World War II, the Federal Government has spent about 20 percent of the
gross national product. The red line represents three programs in the
Federal process: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The red line
grows dramatically beginning in about the year 2008 and proceeds at an
exponential rate of growth, so that by the years 2025 to 2028 those
three programs alone will actually cost more than 20 percent of the
gross national product of America.
What does that mean? It means if we were to spend the historic amount
we have spent on the Federal Government, those three programs would use
up all that money and there would be no money available for education,
for national defense, for laying out roads, for health care for
everyone else, other than those who are retired, or for anything else
the Federal Government is supposed to do. Everything would have to be
spent on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It does not stop
there. It continues up at a rather dramatic movement.
The point, of course, is that our children will have to pay the cost.
They will find themselves confronted with a dramatic increase in tax
burden unless we address the cost of those programs from the spending
side.
The point, also, is we really cannot tax our way out of this problem.
We cannot possibly raise taxes high enough to keep up with the cost of
these programs and still have a viable country. If we did that, we
would eliminate the ability of our children to buy a new home, to send
their kids to college, to even buy cars. The lifestyle of an American,
our children and our grandchildren, would be dramatically reduced--
their quality of life--were we to raise taxes to try to keep up with
this rate of growth of spending.
Again, it is not a revenue problem; it is a spending problem. That is
important to stress. In fact, if you look at the revenues over the last
few years, this reinforces this point. Revenues dropped precipitously
at the beginning of this President's term for two reasons. One, we had
the largest bubble in the history of the world, the Internet bubble,
back in the late 1990s, where we were essentially producing false
income, paper returns through the issuance of stock which wasn't backed
up by productive companies. This bubble burst, and it was the biggest
bubble in history, bigger than the tulip or south seas bubble. And the
effect of it was to cause our economy to retrench.
Then we had the attack of September 11, which dramatically impacted
our psyche as a nation. Obviously, it had a horrific effect in the area
of loss of lives, but it had a dramatic effect on our economy. Those
two back-to-back events basically forced a significant drop in
revenues.
So President Bush came in and said: Let's try to get out of this
recession--and it was a shallow recession but would have headed a lot
deeper--by cutting taxes and giving people an incentive to be more
productive. We have heard a lot from the other side about how it is
terrible we cut taxes at the beginning of this administration. But what
those tax cuts did was create an atmosphere where people who wanted to
be entrepreneurial, who wanted to go out and take risks, who were
willing to put their own personal efforts and their dollars behind an
effort to be productive, and, thus, create jobs, did exactly that.
Then the economy started to recover. We had 39 straight months of
recovery. We had one of the largest expansions of the post-World-War II
period. The practical effect of that is that we have created more
economic activity, created
[[Page S5959]]
more jobs, and created more revenue to the Federal Government. So in
the last 2 years, the revenue to the Federal Government has actually
jumped greater in a 2-year period than at any time in the post-World-
War II period. Each of the last 2 years has had historic increases of
revenues for the Federal Government.
We are at a point where revenues are essentially at the same place
they would be over history as a percent of gross national product. We
are essentially generating about the same amount of revenue we have
always generated to the Federal Government.
The other side of the aisle says: Let's raise taxes some more. That
is not going to help because we are already generating as much revenue
as we usually generate. We are doing it the right way, with a fair tax
system, telling entrepreneurs to make jobs and create risks. We have
created jobs and given revenues to the Federal Government.
The real issue is, you have to be willing to address spending, which
is what the chart shows. A group on our side of the aisle said: How do
you do this? Probably the way to do it is to put in place a series of
processes in the Senate and in the House, which basically forced the
Congress to address the public policy issues of reducing the rate of
growth and spending for the Federal Government. This is very difficult
for an elected body. We know it is a natural tendency of an elected
body to spend more money because people come to you and say: We need
this for that. Usually the stories are compelling and the purposes are
good.
The simple fact is, we cannot afford to spend all the money that
people want to spend, and we need to have some mechanisms around here
which energize an atmosphere of producing fiscal responsibility,
delivering government that is efficient, delivering government that is
effective, delivering government that people get what they expect, and,
also, get their dollars used efficiently and effectively to produce a
government that works.
So we are suggesting a program that basically renews, redesigns; it
reforms, it rebuilds the Federal system relative to how we are going to
spend money and makes sure we spend it effectively so we give people an
affordable government, something that delivers the type of services
they need but does it in a way that can be afforded. That is our goal.
Our goal, essentially, is to contain spending so that we are able to
deliver quality government and still pass on to our children a
government that is affordable, a tax burden they can afford that won't
overwhelm them and will give them the opportunity to have as good a
life as we have had.
The proposal we have come up with has a variety of different elements
to accomplish this. First, we follow the ideas put forward by the
President, which has eight basic elements. It is a very extensive
reform package, renewal package, redesign package, rebuilding package.
The first element is what I call fast-track rescission. I suppose
that is too technical. The President calls it the line-item veto. But
it says the President has the opportunity to look at bills we have
passed in the Senate and say: Listen, we do not need to spend money on
that item. That is really an item of earmark, or maybe you might call
it pork, or it is just simply not what we need. It is not what the
American people have to have their dollars spent on. He gets to put
together a package of items, and he sends them to us. He says: These
are the items I don't think we need. We think the American people don't
need them. We don't think the Government can afford them, and you, the
Congress, can take another look at them and vote them up or down. Fast-
track rescission. We have to take the vote. It is an opportunity for
the executive branch to have a say and for the legislative branch to
take a second look. We have done it in a way so neither branch is
prejudiced as to our constitutional role which is very important.
The second thing we have done is we have reinstated statutory caps.
What is that? It means that we say every year how much the Federal
Government is going to spend and we lock it down so that if we spend
over that amount we have to go back and cut somewhere else to bring us
down to that number.
What has happened around here, we have said we are going to spend X
dollars. That is called a cap. But we have not had any enforcement
mechanism behind the cap. Those lapsed in 2002. So when we exceed the
cap, you get 60 votes and people say: Fine, we will spend the money
anyway, even though we said we were not going to spend that much money,
and it is ignored. This puts in place a system where we have to be
responsible to the number we set out as to what the Federal Government
should spend. It is basically truth in budgeting and forces budgeting
to be effective and responsive.
The third item we put in, we reduce the deficit so it will move to
zero by 2012. This is done by saying essentially this: The deficit
today is X percent of gross national product. We are going to say that
the deficit should be dropped as a percent of gross national product
every year until we get to about 2012 where we expect it to be
basically no deficit. If we exceed those numbers--in other words, if
the deficit exceeds that percent of gross national product which we set
out in the bill--and these numbers are historical numbers and they are
obtainable numbers.
In fact, in the first 2 years, the numbers we have set out are
basically above where the actual deficit looks like it will hit, and it
is about the third and fourth year we may have some issues to keep the
deficit moving down--but if the deficit is not moving down, we put in
place a process called reconciliation, directed at entitlement
spending.
The problem we have as a Federal Government isn't the discretionary
side of the ledger. That is spending that occurs every year. Every year
you have to spend X dollars on defense, X dollars on education, and you
can make a choice regarding how much you will spend here, how much you
spend there. Nondefense spending in those accounts has been flat for
the last few years, essentially flat if you factor in inflation. The
real growth of the Federal Government has been in these accounts that
are entitlement accounts, mandatory accounts which I had on the first
chart, three of the major ones. They represent, along with the Federal
debt, about 60 percent of Federal spending.
What this bill says is that essentially you have to go back and take
a look at those accounts if we are not meeting our deficit targets and
bring them into line so we will meet those deficit targets.
Now, in order to help accomplish this, this proposal also includes an
entitlement commission. There have been a lot of commissions around
here and everyone is a little tired of commissions. This commission is
different. This commission says take a look at the entitlement accounts
of the Federal Government, report back to the Congress, and Congress
must act on your proposal. We actually put in place a policy procedure
to try to correct the entitlement issue. Then we put in place a
budgeting procedure which allows us to legislate changes if the
entitlement improvements are not accomplishing our goals.
The purpose is to make these entitlement programs affordable for our
children while they still maintain a quality lifestyle for those who
are retired. That can be and should be able to be accomplished. But it
takes a Congress being willing to step up to the plate and doing it. So
far, we have not been willing to do that. We have been burying our head
in the sand on that issue.
Another element in this proposal is a BRAC commission, a proposal
from Senator Brownback, which essentially looks at the whole
Government, independent of the Defense Department, which was looked at
under its own BRAC commission. And if you recall, it looked at the
entire Defense Department and decided what the Defense Department
needed and didn't need and set up a package and we voted on it as a
package.
This is a ``BRAC Commission'' for the Government with very strong,
thoughtful people being appointed to the Commission, the same way the
BRAC Commission was set up relative to the Defense Department. We will
be able to take a look at functions of the Government which maybe
should be eliminated or reduced or significantly changed.
It is a good proposal. It is also a proposal that includes biennial
budgeting--an idea that is strongly supported by the Senator from
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, who is managing the bill on the floor right now,
and the Senator
[[Page S5960]]
from New Mexico--so we can have a budget process where we are not
always looking at the budget every year and everybody spinning their
wheels around the budget but, rather, having a year where we develop a
budget and a year where we do a lot more oversight. That is the theory
behind that, so we can become more efficient.
Finally, it has reforms to what is known as the reconciliation
process. The reconciliation process is the teeth under which we
accomplish savings in the budget process. But it can also,
unfortunately, be used for expanding spending if it is not handled
properly. So these reforms make it clear that reconciliation is
primarily for the purposes of controlling spending, not of expanding
spending.
So the goal is simple. The goal is to put in place a package which
will allow us as a Congress to step up and address the issue of
overspending. That is why we call it SOS, ``stop overspending.'' The
purpose of that goal is to be able to pass on to our children a
government that is affordable, that continues to deliver the services
people expect, continues to give high-quality services but does it in
an affordable way so our children's quality of life is not overwhelmed
by the burden of a government that is trying to support a retired
generation that is huge.
Again, I must stress, that you cannot do this on the tax side. You
cannot solve the issues of the deficit, you cannot solve the issues of
entitlement concerns on the tax side. There is simply too much
programmatic commitment in the pipeline to accomplish that.
Let me give you a couple numbers to highlight that fact. The General
Accounting Office--the comptroller of the Government--has told us there
is presently pending relative to entitlement responsibility for retired
people an obligation which we don't know how we are going to pay for--
that is called an unfunded liability--of $46 trillion; and that is
``trillion'' with a ``T.'' So that is $46 trillion of responsibility
that we have put on the books in costs that we don't really know how we
are going to pay for.
I don't know what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to comprehend $1
trillion. But just to put it in some sort of context, since the
beginning of this country, since our Revolution, we have paid something
like $43 trillion in taxes. So all the taxes paid since this country
started would not pay for the bills we have on the books for our
upcoming retired generation. Or to put it in another context, if you
took all the assets owned in America today--all the cars, all the
homes, all the stock, all the small businesses, all the big
businesses--and totaled them up, their total is about $47 trillion in
net value. So we have on the books a liability that is essentially the
same as the net worth of our Nation. That is a serious problem, and you
cannot deal with that problem by simply raising taxes.
The other side of the aisle has not put forward any substantive ideas
in this area relative to spending. They have suggested a proposal
called pay-go, which is a stalking-horse for tax increases. Fine. That
is their position: We should raise taxes to address all problems. But
we know from the numbers that are now coming in at the Treasury that we
are already taxing Americans at a level which is at our historic level,
our traditional level, and that revenues to the Federal Government are
jumping significantly because of the good tax policies we have in
place, the fair tax policies we have in place.
So we know you cannot solve this problem by continuing to raise taxes
on the American people. The total tax burden to the American people
today, including State, local, and Federal, is almost at a historic
high. How much higher can you put that tax burden on the American
people? No, you cannot do it on that side of the ledger. In fact, what
we have proven is you generate more revenues by giving people an
incentive to be productive and to go out and create jobs by having a
fair and reasonable tax rate rather than jumping tax rates to the point
where people have a disincentive to be productive and thus start to
reduce revenues to the Federal Government.
That was proven by John Kennedy, confirmed by Ronald Reagan, and now
confirmed again by George W. Bush. It should be accepted policy around
here, but it is rejected by the other side of the aisle, which still
subscribes to this 1930s philosophy of governance, which is that you
can always raise taxes to meet any problem. No. The problem is that we
need to be willing to step up and address spending.
This package, if it were to pass in its entirety--I hope the other
side will not obstruct it coming to the floor. We hope to mark it up in
Budget next week and report it out, and hope the other side will let us
take it up. Let's have a free-flowing debate out here on the floor
about how you address this issue.
The outyear threat to our children--which is a function of the fact
there is a baby boom generation floating around here that is huge--is
not going to go away and is going to demand significant services which
will cost a dramatic amount of money.
Our proposal is comprehensive and extensive. It is a rebuilding,
retooling approach toward how we manage this Congress and especially
our budgets. It is a constructive approach, one that is committed
toward delivering an affordable and effective government and a
government that does not overburden our children and our grandchildren
with taxes. So it will lead to a balanced budget, and it will lead to a
government that is affordable.
I thank all my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, and I do
hope we can move it forward.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. First, I wish to say to any Americans listening and all
our colleagues, when Chairman Gregg speaks about long-term financial
challenges facing this Nation, we ought to listen. ``E.F. Hutton''
speaks. So our ``E.F. Hutton'' is speaking, and I could not be more
proud of the package he has proposed because all of those proposals, in
my view, are not only workable but they will work.
What we tend to do around here a lot is we propose packages and
ideas, and the ones that pass will not actually work.
I say to Chairman Gregg, you had a chart that showed a declining
deficit. Would you put that up? I just want to raise one point about it
because it, perhaps, raises a misconception. It shows a reduction of
the deficit and, in effect, a zero deficit. But you do not mean by that
that to achieve that huge reduction in our current deficit, we have to
cut spending; is that correct?
Mr. GREGG. No.
Mr. SESSIONS. Is it necessary we actually cut the current rate of
spending to achieve that?
Mr. GREGG. Absolutely not. In fact, under most scenarios, the current
rate of spending on almost all of these major programs--such as
Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--would rise significantly; they
just would not rise as fast. Medicare, for example, would probably,
over this 5-year period, rise by about 40 percent, instead of 43
percent--something like that. Those are numbers off the top of my head,
but those are the types of numbers we are talking about. You are
talking about increased spending but at a slower rate and affordable.
Mr. SESSIONS. And even with this long-term 20-, 30-, 60-year
projection of larger deficits, if we just contain the growth in the
entitlement programs by a realistic amount, we could have a great
impact on reducing those projected deficits; isn't that correct?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is absolutely
right. We do not have to cut anywhere. All we have to do is slow the
rate of growth so it is an affordable rate of growth because the
compounding effect of slowing these rates of growth is huge.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is such an important answer.
Let me ask the Senator this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. With regard to the growth of revenue to our
Government--and you had a chart which showed that--as I recall, last
year we showed over 14 percent growth, and with this year almost half
gone, we are looking at in excess of 11 percent growth. That is after
taxes have been cut. Is that correct?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama is correct. The
rate
[[Page S5961]]
of growth of revenues to the Federal Government last year was about 14
percent. This year, through the first 6 months, it was about 11 percent
and continues to grow dramatically. That is a function of the fact that
we now have a tax policy which encourages people to go out and take
risks and create jobs, which creates revenue.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator because he has given us optimism
and hope that we can reduce this deficit, and he has shown us we can do
this without slashing our social programs or any other spending but
just contain the growth.
______
BY Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Craig, and Mrs.
Murray):
S. 3522. A bill to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions
of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator
Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Patty Murray in
introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of
2006--or FRIMA. Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense
program that has a proven track record in helping restore Northwestern
salmon runs. Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage
facilities funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective
uses of public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect
fish while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important
that this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now.
Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in
Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local
funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance, and restore more
than 550 river miles of important fish habitat and species throughout
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. For decades, State,
tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have
identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and
improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of
salmon and other fish populations.
This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of
constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations,
and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the
successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the
Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this
program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern
States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society.
FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program
to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and
related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the
information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival
and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is
currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf
of the Interior Secretary.
FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they
should not be--such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and
downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and
restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered
species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not
yet listed; making progress toward the de-listing of listed species;
utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and,
assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries.
Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This
is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers
can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest.
While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
said, ``. . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of
government and private land owners working together to promote
conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role
in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural
economies.'' [from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation
Programs, FY 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C., July, 2005, p. 13]
The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the
authorization for this program through 2012; gives priority to projects
costing less than $2.5 million--a reduction in a targeted project's
cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that projects funded
under the act are viewed as recipients of a ``pass through program''
and not a ``grant'' program; that any Bonneville Power Administration,
BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another
entity shall be considered non-Federal matching funds--because BPA's
funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory report describing
funded projects and their benefits; and changes the administrative
expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the States of
Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that administrative costs are
scaled in proportion to the amount of funds appropriated for the
program each year.
Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our
region to recover our salmon. State, Tribal and local governments,
local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government
need to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am
introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which
successful salmon recovery will be based.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation
pass.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of
support from Oregon Governor Kulongoski 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. 3522
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 ``Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PRIORITY PROJECTS; PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM.
The Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of
2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-502) is amended--
(1) in section 3--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``as a pass-through
program'' before ``within the Department''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``$5,000,000'' and
inserting ``$2,500,000''; and
(2) in section 4, by striking subsection (b) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Nonreimbursable Federal and Tribal Expenditures.--
Development and implementation of projects under the Program
on land or facilities owned by the United States or an Indian
tribe shall be nonreimbursable expenditures.''.
SEC. 3. COST SHARING.
Section 7(c) of Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The value'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The value''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Bonneville power administration.--Any amounts
provided by the Bonneville Power Administration directly or
through a grant to another entity for a project carried under
the Program shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of
the costs of the project.''.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Section 9 of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``any'' before ``amounts are made''; and
(2) by inserting after ``Secretary shall'' the following:
``, after partnering with local governmental entities and the
States in the Pacific Ocean drainage area,''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 10 of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2001 through 2005''
and inserting ``2006 through 2012''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Administrative expenses.--
``(A) Definition of administrative expense.--In this
paragraph, the term `administrative expense' means any
expenditure relating to--
``(i) staffing and overhead, such as the rental of office
space and the acquisition of office equipment; and
[[Page S5962]]
``(ii) the review, processing, and provision of
applications for funding under the Program.
``(B) Limitation.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
a percentage of amounts up to 6 percent made available for
each fiscal year, as determined under clause (ii), may be
used for Federal (including tribal) and State administrative
expenses of carrying out this Act.
``(ii) Formula.--For purposes of determining the percentage
of administrative expenses to be made available under clause
(i) for a fiscal year--
``(I) 1 percent shall be provided if less than $1,000,000
is made available to carry out the Program for the fiscal
year;
``(II) 2 percent shall be provided if $1,000,000 or more,
but less than $6,000,000, is made available to carry out the
Program for the fiscal year;
``(III) 3 percent shall be provided if $6,000,000 or more,
but less than $11,000,000, is made available to carry out the
Program for the fiscal year;
``(IV) 4 percent shall be provided if $11,000,000 or more,
but less than $15,000,000, is made available to carry out the
Program for the fiscal year;
``(V) 5 percent shall be provided if $15,000,000 or more,
but less than $21,000,000, is made available to carry out the
Program for the fiscal year; and
``(VI) 6 percent shall be provided if $21,000,000 or more
is made available to carry out the Program for the fiscal
year.
``(iii) Federal and state shares.--To the maximum extent
practicable, of the amounts made available for administrative
expenses under clause (i)--
``(I) 50 percent shall be provided to the Federal agencies
(including Indian tribes) carrying out the Program; and
``(II) 50 percent shall be provided to the State agencies
provided assistance under the Program.
``(iv) State expenses.--Amounts made available to States
for administrative expenses under clause (i)--
``(I) shall be divided evenly among all States provided
assistance under the Program; and
``(II) on request of a project sponsor, may be used to
provide technical support to the project sponsor.
``(C) Technical assistance.--
``(i) In general.--Amounts expended by the Secretary for
the provision of technical assistance relating to the Program
shall not be subject to the 6 percent limitation on
administrative expenses under subparagraph (B)(i).
``(ii) Inclusions.--For purposes of clause (i),
expenditures for the provision of technical assistance
include any staffing expenditures (including staff travel
expenses) associated with--
``(I) arranging meetings to promote the Program to
potential applicants;
``(II) assisting applicants with the preparation of
applications for funding under the Program; and
``(III) visiting construction sites to provide technical
assistance, if requested by the applicant.''.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 12, 2006.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Domenici and Bingaman: I write in support of
the re-authorization of the Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA). In addition, I support the
funding 1evel originally authorized by Congress of $25
million per year.
The Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act is
one of the most successful cost share programs in the Pacific
Northwest, funding the installation of fish screens and
ladders at irrigation diversions in Idaho, Montana, Oregon
and Washington. Conservationists support it because it saves
wild, migrating Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish such
as Steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon, as well as those
produced in state and federal hatcheries. Irrigated
agriculture supports the program both for its conservation
effects and because it helps protect operators from possible
federal enforcement actions resulting from take of ESA fish.
It is widely accepted that correcting fish barrier,
diversion and screen problems is a very cost-effective
investment. Each federal FRIMA dollar has been matched by
$1.37 in state or local dollars. Participants have
contributed a total of 58 percent toward the cost share--
exceeding the legal requirement of 35 percent--and also pay
100 percent of project operation and maintenance costs. The
FRIMA projects are completed quickly because existing state
fish screening and passage programs are used to implement
projects.
The program, which I have summarized for you in the
enclosed fact sheet, has resulted in fish-friendly irrigation
projects as well as increased spawning and rearing habitat.
Since FRIMA's introduction in 2000, 103 projects have been
installed, providing fish access to 553 miles of habitat
upstream and screening a total volume of water at 1,572,757
gallons per minute. Healthy fish populations produce
commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, which are
essential to our coastal economies and rural communities that
have often lost other industries in recent years.
Due to its popularity and success, there is a backlog of
hundreds of potential FRIMA projects. To date, appropriations
have averaged only $3 million per year, or $750,000 per
state, per year. This amount has jump-started the process,
but is inadequate given the magnitude of the available
projects and the fish benefits they are designed to provide.
I urge you to increase funding to $25 million per year--the
level originally authorized by Congress--so we can continue
increasing fish populations, assisting irrigators in
installing fish protection devices and bolstering local
economies.
Sincerely,
Theodore R. Kulongoski,
Governor.
____
FRIMA
Re-authorization Fact Sheet
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act 2000
(P.L. 106-502).
FRIMA is a highly popular and cost-effective voluntary fish
screening and passage partnership program that benefits
Idaho, western Montana, Oregon and Washington.
Why do fish need protection at water diversions?
Water diversions redirect water from streams and rivers so
it can be used for crop irrigation, power, drinking water,
and other beneficial purposes. Water diversions also block
the normal migration of fish and pull fish into pumps,
irrigation canals, and fields greatly reducing their
survival.
Benefits of fish protection 98% of young salmon survive an
encounter with a properly designed fish screen that meets
accepted state and federal criteria. Fish protection devices
benefit by: Keeping fish out of places where they should not
be (like an irrigation system); providing safe upstream and
downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival,
and restoration of native fish species; achieving both
sustainable agriculture and sustainable fisheries.
How the program works
FRIMA is a 65%/35% cost share program requiring that grant
recipients contribute at least 35% in non-federal matching
funds. Projects must: Be associated with an irrigation, or
other water diversion; benefits fish species native to the
project area; have a local, state, tribal or federal
government sponsor or co-applicant.
Successful cost share 2000-2005: 83 fish screens installed,
screening 1,572,757 gallons of water per minute; 20 fishways
installed, opening 553 miles of habitat to fish; $1 in FRIMA
funds leverage $1.37 in state/local funds; participants have
contributed 58% in cost share, which is much more than the
required 35%.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 3523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse
relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while
such claims are pending; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that
enhances the innocent spouse equitable relief provision of the Internal
Revenue Code. Through only minor legislative modifications, this bill
clarifies the statute's original intent, affording innocent spouses the
necessary recourse to ensure their cases and circumstances are given a
fair hearing.
According to section 6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS
may relieve an innocent spouse of liability for unpaid taxes generated
through the filing of a joint tax return if ``taking into account all
the facts and circumstances'' it would be inequitable to hold the
spouse responsible.
Little recourse exists, however, to prevent the IRS from seizing
assets or garnishing wages if a petition for innocent spouse equitable
relief is not approved.
Recent decisions of the Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals
have denied the Tax Court jurisdiction over petitions for equitable
relief under the Innocent Spouse Statute. Consequently, there is no
mechanism for review or appeal of these IRS decisions.
The story of one of my constituents provides a stunning example of
the problem.
The IRS seized all of her husband's income to pay a tax liability
incurred 20 years earlier, before they were married. Because the IRS
seized the entirety of the income, the taxes on the income remained
unpaid.
When her husband died, the IRS pursued the innocent spouse for the
taxes
[[Page S5963]]
on her husband's income. She was forced to sell her family home and all
property owned jointly with her husband. My constituent is employed,
but due to financial hardship she must live with friends. Even so, the
IRS may have her wages garnished along with funds set aside for her in
trust by a probate court.
Because the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to review claims for
innocent spouse equitable relief, my constituent can do little to
prevent the IRS from seizing what remains.
The aim of this legislation is to provide an avenue through which
innocent spouse equitable relief decisions may be appealed, if
originally denied by the IRS.
This bill: expressly provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to
review the denial of equitable innocent spouse relief under Internal
Revenue Code section 6015(f); and suspends IRS collection activity
while a request for relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f)
is pending.
I believe that my proposal would provide a straightforward and
uncontroversial solution to the unfair treatment of innocent spouses
under current law. Moreover, without this bill, an increasing number of
innocent spouse equitable relief appeals will remain in limbo--pending,
with no method for consideration.
When this body enhanced innocent spouse protections--through passage
of the 1998 Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act--the
goal was to modernize, simplify, and streamline the cumbersome process
of seeking relief from liabilities of tax, interest, and related
penalties.
Unfortunately, the conference report on the 1998 act included vague
language, which ultimately has left innocent spouses with no avenue for
appeal.
It is worth noting that the IRS grants fewer than three in 10
requests for innocent spouse relief. This bill in no way guarantees
relief, but rather fixes the broken appeals process for these IRS
decisions.
I urge my colleagues to support this small change that will have a
profound effect on the lives of many innocent spouses--mostly women--
who deserve their day in court.
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. 3523
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TAX COURT REVIEW OF REQUESTS FOR EQUITABLE
INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 6015(e) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to petition for tax
court review) is amended by inserting ``or in the case of an
individual who requests equitable relief under subsection
(f)'' after ``who elects to have subsection (b) or (c)
apply''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or request is made''
after ``election is filed''.
(2) Section 6015(e)(1)(B)(i) of such Code is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or requesting equitable relief under
subsection (f)'' after ``making an election under subsection
(b) or (c)'', and
(B) by inserting ``or request'' after ``to which such
election''.
(3) Section 6015(e)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``or to which the request under subsection (f)
relates'' after ``to which the election under subsection (b)
or (c) relates''.
(4) Section 6015(e)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or the request for equitable relief under subsection (f)''
after ``the election under subsection (b) or (c)''.
(5) Section 6015(e)(5) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or who requests equitable relief under subsection (f)''
after ``who elects the application of subsection (b) or
(c)''.
(6) Section 6015(g)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or of any request for equitable relief under subsection
(f)'' after ``any election under subsection (b) or (c)''.
(7) Section 6015(h)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or a request for equitable relief made under subsection
(f)'' after ``with respect to an election made under
subsection (b) or (c)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to requests for equitable relief under section
6015(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to
liability for taxes which are unpaid after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing legislation to clarify
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court in cases involving ``equitable
relief'' for innocent spouse claims.
In general, spouses who sign joint tax returns are held jointly and
severally liable for taxes owed on such returns. An individual may be
relieved from such liability if she meets the ``innocent spouse'' test
set forth in section 6015 of the Internal Revenue Code. The current
standards were put in place by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998.
An article published in the New York Times in late 1999 notes that
the number of innocent spouse applications increased sharply after the
1998 law and that as many as 90 percent of the people filing innocent
spouse applications are women. Clearly, the 1998 law opened an
important avenue for ex-spouses to challenge unexpected tax bills they
received after their former spouses cheated on their taxes without the
knowledge of the ``innocent'' spouse.
Unfortunately, the 1998 law also left uncertain the Tax Court's
jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of ``equitable relief.'' The
Treasury Secretary is authorized to grant equitable relief if a
taxpayer does not meet any of the statutorily specified qualifications
for being an innocent spouse. But while the Tax Court was given
jurisdiction to hear appeals under those specific avenues spelled out
in the Code, the Code is silent on whether the Tax Court can hear
appeals based on the Treasury Secretary's equitable relief authority.
Recent decisions by the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have
held that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to hear petitions for
innocent spouse equitable relief.
The legislation Senator Feinstein and I have introduced makes clear
that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions
denying equitable relief. The National Taxpayer Advocate has
recommended that Congress pass this legislation, and I am hopeful that
we can move this important bill through the Finance Committee in very
short order.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 3526. A bill to amend the Indian Land Consolidation Act to modify
certain requirements under that Act; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to amend
various provisions of the Indian Land Consolidation Act, ILCA. Some of
these amendments are of a technical or clarifying nature; others have
the effect of delaying the effective date of certain provisions of the
Indian Probate Code set forth in ILCA section 207.
Section 1 of the bill clarifies the meaning of certain defined terms
used in ILCA--``trust or restricted interest land'' and ``land''--and
also delays the application of the act's probate code to permanent
improvements located on Indian trust lands until after July 20, 2007.
This delay will provide additional time to analyze how the probate code
should apply to permanent improvements and determine whether further
amendments are needed. The definition of land is amended to clarify
that a decedent's interest in such improvements is included in the term
``land'' only for purposes of intestate succession under ILCA section
207(a) and even then only when the improvements are located on a parcel
of trust or restricted land that is itself included in the decedent's
estate. Thus, ``land'' would not include a decedent's interest in
permanent improvements located on tribal trust land or for that matter
on individually owned trust land if the underlying parcel of land is
not itself part of the decedent's estate.
Section 2 of the bill also amends the ``single heir rule'' of ILCA
section 207(a)(2)(D)--which governs the inheritance of interests that
are less than 5 percent of the total undivided interest in a parcel of
land--by making it inapplicable to any interest in the estate of a
decedent who dies during the period beginning on the enactment date of
the clause and ending on July 20, 2007, and authorizing the Secretary
of Interior to extend this period for up to 1 year.
The bill would also delay until July 21, 2007, the application of the
presumption in ILCA section 207(c) that a devise of a trust interest to
more than 1 person creates a joint tenancy absent clear language in the
will to the contrary. It would amend ILCA section
[[Page S5964]]
207(o), which authorizes purchase of interests during probate, in
various ways, but most significantly limiting nonconsensual purchases
to the Secretary and the Indian tribe; clarifying that the 5 percent
threshold applies to the decedent's interest rather than to the
interest passing to an heir; and holding the rule allowing
nonconsensual purchase at probate of small interests inapplicable to
interests in the estate of any decedent who dies on or before July 20,
2007. This section would also authorize the Secretary to extend this
period for up to 1 additional year.
The amendments delaying the application of these provisions will give
Indian landowners more time to understand how these provisions work and
plan their estates accordingly. The delays of the single heir rule and
nonconsensual purchase option at probate will also allow the Department
more time to have procedures and systems in place to determine whether
a given interest is above or below the 5 percent threshold that
triggers the application of the rules.
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. 3526
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 ``Indian Land Consolidation
Act Amendments of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 202 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C.
2201) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(4)'';
(B) by striking `` `trust or restricted interest in land'
or'' and inserting the following:
``(ii) `trust or restricted interest in land' or''; and
(C) in clause (ii) (as designated by subparagraph (B)), by
striking ``an interest in land, title to which'' and
inserting ``an interest in land, the title to which
interest''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) the term `land'--
``(A) means any real property; and
``(B) for purposes of intestate succession only under
section 207(a), includes, with respect to any decedent who
dies after July 20, 2007, the interest of the decedent in any
improvements permanently affixed to a parcel of trust or
restricted lands (subject to any valid mortgage or other
interest in such an improvement) that was owned in whole or
in part by the decedent immediately prior to the death of the
decedent;''.
SEC. 3. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION.
Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C.
2206) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(D)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``clauses (ii) through
(iv)'' and inserting ``clauses (ii) through (v)''; and
(B) by striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
``(v) Effect of paragraph; nonapplicability to certain
interests.--Nothing in this paragraph--
``(I) limits the right of any person to devise any trust or
restricted interest pursuant to a valid will in accordance
with subsection (b); or
``(II) applies to any interest in the estate of a decedent
who died during the period beginning on the date of enactment
of this subclause and ending on July 20, 2007 (or the last
day of any applicable period of extension authorized by the
Secretary under clause (vi)).
``(vi) Authority to extend period of nonapplicability.--The
Secretary may extend the period of nonapplicability under
clause (v)(II) for not longer than 1 year if, by not later
than July 2, 2007, the Secretary publishes in the Federal
Register a notice of the extension.'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``the date that is''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting the following: ``July 21, 2007.''; and
(3) in subsection (o)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii) and indenting the clauses appropriately;
(ii) by striking ``(3)'' and all that follows through ``No
sale'' and inserting the following:
``(3) Request to purchase; consent requirements; multiple
requests to purchase.--
``(A) In general.--No sale''; and
(iii) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
following:
``(B) Multiple requests to purchase.--Except for interests
purchased pursuant to paragraph (5), if the Secretary
receives a request with respect to an interest from more than
1 eligible purchaser under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
sell the interest to the eligible purchaser that is selected
by the applicable heir, devisee, or surviving spouse.'';
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(C) in paragraph (5)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``auction and'';
(II) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(III) in clause (ii)--
(aa) by striking ``auction'' and inserting ``sale'';
(bb) by striking ``the interest passing to such heir
represents'' and inserting ``, at the time of death of the
applicable decedent, the interest of the decedent in the land
represented''; and
(cc) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(IV) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii)(I) the Secretary is purchasing the interest as part
of the program authorized under section 213(a)(1); or
``(II) after receiving a notice under paragraph (4)(B), the
Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the interest is proposing
to purchase the interest from an heir that is not a member,
and is not eligible to become a member, of that Indian
tribe.'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``(B)'' and all that follows through ``such
heir'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Exception; nonapplicability to certain interests.--
``(i) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the
consent of the heir or surviving spouse'';
(II) in clause (i), by inserting ``or surviving spouse''
before ``was residing''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Nonapplicability to certain interests.--Subparagraph
(A) shall not apply to any interest in the estate of a
decedent who dies on or before July 20, 2007 (or the last day
of any applicable period of extension authorized by the
Secretary under subparagraph (C)).''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Authority to extend period of nonapplicability.--The
Secretary may extend the period of nonapplicability under
subparagraph (B)(ii) for not longer than 1 year if, by not
later than July 2, 2007, the Secretary publishes in the
Federal Register a notice of the extension.''.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3527. A bill to require the Under Secretary of Technology of the
Department of Commerce to establish an Advanced Multidisciplinary
Computing Software Institute; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. DeWINE. 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. 3527
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 ``Blue Collar Computing and
Business Assistance Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Computational science, the use of advanced computing
capabilities to understand and solve complex problems,
including the development of new products and processes, is
now critical to scientific leadership, economic
competitiveness, and national security.
(2) Advances in computational science and high performance
computing provide a competitive advantage because they allow
businesses to run faster simulations of complex systems or to
develop more precise computer models.
(3) The Federal Government is one of the investors in
research aimed at the development of new computational
science and high-performance computing capabilities.
(4) As determined by the Council on Competitiveness, the
Nation's small businesses and manufacturers must ``Out
Compute to Out Compete''. However, new computational science
technologies are not being transferred effectively from the
research organizations to small businesses and manufacturers.
(5) Small businesses and manufacturers are especially well-
positioned to benefit from increased availability and
utilization of high-performance computing technologies and
software.
(6) Current cost and technology barriers associated with
high-performance computing and software algorithms often
inhibit small businesses and manufacturers from successfully
making use of these technologies.
(7) The establishment of an advanced multidisciplinary
computing software institute will help make existing high
performance computing resources more accessible to small
businesses and manufacturers. This will create new
opportunities for economic growth, jobs, and product
development.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide grants
for the creation of an Advanced Multidisciplinary Computing
Software Institute that will--
[[Page S5965]]
(1) develop and compile high-performance computing software
and algorithms suitable for applications in small business
and manufacturing;
(2) effectively carry out the transfer of new computational
science and high-performance computing technologies to small
businesses and manufacturers; and
(3) actively assist small businesses and manufacturers in
utilizing such technologies.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Advanced multidisciplinary computing software center;
center.--The term ``Advanced Multidisciplinary Computing
Software Center'' or ``Center'' is a center created by an
eligible entity with a grant awarded under section 4.
(2) Advanced multidisciplinary computing software
institute.--The term ``Advanced Multidisciplinary Computing
Software Institute'' means a network of up to 5 Advanced
Multidisciplinary Computing Software Centers located
throughout the United States.
(3) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means any organization if such organization is
described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 and is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such
Code.
(4) Small business or manufacturer.--The term ``small
business or manufacturer'' means a small business concern as
that term is defined by section 3(a) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)), including a small manufacturing
concern.
(5) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary of Technology of the Department of
Commerce.
SEC. 4. GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Technology of the
Department of Commerce shall award grants to establish up to
5 Advanced Multidisciplinary Computing Software Centers at
eligible entities throughout the United States. Each Center
shall--
(1) conduct general outreach to small businesses and
manufacturers in all industry sectors within a geographic
region assigned by the Under Secretary; and
(2) conduct technology transfer, development, and
utilization programs relating to a specific industry sector,
for all firms in that sector nationwide, as assigned by the
Under Secretary.
(b) Eligible Entities.--For the purposes of this section,
an eligible entity is any--
(1) nonprofit organization;
(2) consortia of nonprofit organizations; or
(3) partnership between a for-profit and a nonprofit
organization.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each eligible entity that desires to
receive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to
the Under Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such additional information as the Under
Secretary may reasonably require.
(2) Publication in federal register.--The Under Secretary
shall publish the requirements described in paragraph (1) in
the Federal Register no later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(3) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) An application that conforms to the requirements set by
the Under Secretary under paragraph (1).
(B) A proposal for the allocation of the legal rights
associated with any invention that may result from the
activities of the proposed Center.
(4) Selection criteria.--Each application submitted under
paragraph (1) shall be evaluated by the Under Secretary on
the basis of merit review. In carrying out this merit review
process, the Under Secretary shall consider--
(A) the extent to which the eligible entity--
(i) has a partnership with nonprofit organizations,
businesses, software vendors, and academia recognized for
relevant expertise in their selected industry sector;
(ii) makes use of State-funded academic supercomputing
centers and universities or colleges with expertise in the
computational needs of the industry assigned to the eligible
entity under subsection (a)(1);
(iii) has a history of working with businesses;
(iv) has experience providing educational programs aimed at
helping organizations adopt the use of high-performance
computing and computational science;
(v) has partnerships with education or training
organizations that can help educate future workers on the
application of computational science to industry needs;
(vi) is accessible to businesses, academia, incubators, or
other economic development organizations via high-speed
networks; and
(vii) is capable of partnering with small businesses and
manufacturers for the purpose of enhancing the ability of
such entities to compete in the global marketplace;
(B) the ability of the eligible entity to enter
successfully into collaborative agreements with small
businesses and manufacturers in order to experiment with new
high performance computing and computational science
technologies; and
(C) such other factors as identified by the Under
Secretary.
(d) Amount.--A grant awarded under this section shall not
exceed $5,000,000 for any year of the grant period.
(e) Duration.--
(1) In general.--Except for a renewal under paragraph (2),
the duration of any grant awarded under subsection (a) may
not exceed 5 years.
(2) Renewal.--Any grant awarded under subsection (a) may be
renewed at the discretion of the Under Secretary.
(f) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant
under subsection (a) shall provide at least 50 percent of the
capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required
to create and maintain a Center.
(2) Funding from other federal, state, or local government
agencies.--The funds provided by the eligible entity under
paragraph (1) may consist of amounts received by the eligible
entity from a Federal department or agency, other than the
Department of Commerce, or a State or local government
agency.
(g) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--The Under
Secretary may establish a reasonable limitation on the
portion of each grant awarded under subsection (a) that may
be used for administrative expenses or other overhead costs.
(h) Fees and Alternative Funding Sources Authorized.--
(1) In general.--A Center established pursuant to this Act
may, according to regulations established by the Under
Secretary--
(A) collect a nominal fee from a small business or
manufacturer for a service provided pursuant to this Act, if
such fee is utilized for the budget and operation of the
Center; and
(B) accept funds from any other Federal department or
agency for the purpose of covering capital costs or operating
budget expenses.
(2) Condition.--Any Center that is supported with funds
that originally came from a Federal department or agency,
other than the Department of Commerce, may be selected, and
if selected shall be operated, according to the provisions of
this section.
SEC. 5. USE OF FUNDS.
An eligible entity that receives a grant under section 4(a)
shall use the funds for the benefit of businesses in the
industry sector designated by the Under Secretary under such
subsection, and the eligible entity shall use such funds to--
(1) create a repository of nonclassified, nonproprietary
new and existing federally-funded software and algorithms;
(2) test and validate software in the repository;
(3) determine when and how the industry sector it serves
could benefit from resources in the repository;
(4) work with software vendors to commercialize repository
software and algorithms from the repository;
(5) make software available to small businesses and
manufacturers where it has not been commercialized by a
software vendor;
(6) help software vendors, small businesses, and
manufacturers test or utilize the software on high-
performance computing systems; and
(7) maintain a research and outreach team that will work
with small businesses and manufacturers to aid in the
identification of software or computational science
techniques which can be used to solve challenging problems,
or meet contemporary business needs of such organizations.
SEC. 6. REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS.
(a) Report.--Each eligible entity who receives a grant
under section 4(a) shall submit to the Under Secretary on an
annual basis, a report describing the goals of the Center
established by the eligible entity and the progress the
eligible entity has achieved towards meeting the purposes of
this Act.
(b) Evaluation.--The Under Secretary shall establish a peer
review committee, consisting of representatives from industry
and academia, to review the goals and progress made by each
Center during the grant period.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, and 2011 to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Availability.--Funds provided for the establishment and
operation of Centers under this Act shall remain available
until expended.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the manufacturing sector is under siege from
cheap imports, unfair trade agreements, and escalating heath care and
energy costs. Instead of working to alleviate this burden, the Bush
administration has turned its back on manufacturing; focusing instead
on tax cuts for the rich and their heirs. Indeed, the administration
has slashed funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP,
and the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, in this year's budget. MEP
helps manufacturers streamline operations, integrate new technologies,
shorten production times, and lower costs. ATP provides grants to
support research and development of high risk, cutting edge
technologies. Both MEP and ATP help manufacturers survive and compete
with countries like China.
I today offer, with Senator DeWine, some more help for beleaguered
manufacturers. The Blue Collar Computing and Business Assistance Act of
2006 was
[[Page S5966]]
drafted from recommendations made by the Council on Competitiveness
regarding high performance computing. The legislation would provide
grants for the creation of five Advanced Computing Software Centers
throughout the United States that would transfer high performance
computing technologies to small businesses and manufacturers.
High Performance Computing will allow manufacturers to visualize and
simulate parts and products before they can be created which will cut
the time and cost required to experiment with new materials. General
Motors, for example, uses high performance computing to simulate
collisions, saving millions of dollars in development costs and
substantially shortening design cycle times.
Presently, only large companies like GM have the resources to reap
the benefits of high performance computing. This bill would provide
grants to small and medium manufacturers to implement this technology
and create new opportunities for economic growth, job creation and
product development and allow manufacturers and businesses to harness
the full potential of high performance computing.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 3529. A bill to ensure that new mothers and their families are
educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and
provided with essential services, and to increase research at the
National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator
Durbin to introduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education,
Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act. Senator
Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am
grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important
legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who
has been a champion for women battling postpartum depression, PPD, in
the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie
Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same
goals as the legislation I am introducing today.
In the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a
disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum
depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and
often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am
introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in
silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.
Recently, the great State of New Jersey passed a first-of-its-kind
law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their
families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the
State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The
attention Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey--who personally
battled postpartum depression--have brought to the issue is remarkable.
Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her
struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended
for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum
depression affects women all across the country, not just in New
Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.
In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression
after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby
blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000
women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more
serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression
and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness
or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves.
People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues,''
but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and
disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and
resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate
help.
The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have
successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of
therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their
families must be educated so that they understand what might occur
after the birth of their child and when to get help. The legislation I
am introducing today will require doctors and nurses to educate every
new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they
leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be
screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of
postnatal check-up visits. It also provides social services to new
mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with
postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of
postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families will be able to
recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the
treatment they need and deserve.
The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to
educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help
future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum
conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to
unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The
more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression,
the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking
condition.
We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education,
screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported
and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice
anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to
their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level
of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.
____________________