[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.

                          ____________________