[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9898-S9906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3919. A bill to assist small business concerns in complying with
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order for the United States to continue
to stand for the fairest, most transparent and efficient financial
markets in the world, I believe we must provide assistance to America's
small public companies in their efforts to comply with the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act.
Just a few years ago, the trust and confidence of the American people
in their financial markets was dangerously eroded by the emergence of
serious accounting irregularities by some companies and possible
fraudulent actions by corporations like WorldCom, Inc., Enron, Arthur
Andersen and others. The shocking malfeasance by these businesses and
accounting firms put a strain on the growth of our economy. The
misconduct by a few senior executives has cost the jobs of thousands of
hard-working Americans. The lack of faith in our financial markets
contributed to an overall decline in stock values and has caused grave
losses to individual investors and pension funds.
By all accounts, Sarbanes-Oxley has been effective in bringing
accountability to corporate governance, auditing, and financial
reporting for public companies. The dark days of the Enron scandal have
given way to a new corporate culture that embraces responsibility and
transparency, and for this we have Sarbanes-Oxley to thank. Sarbanes-
Oxley has helped restore confidence in our capital markets and helped
improve our nation's future economic growth.
However, with compliance also comes cost. And while the cost of
complying with the law is small enough to be absorbed by larger
corporations, smaller public companies, particularly small minority
public companies, have been disproportionately affected by these costs.
Small business is the engine of economic growth in our Nation. Almost
60 percent of Americans are employed by small businesses. Small
business growth has been critical in developing the high wage jobs for
America's future.
Unfortunately, an April 2006 report to the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship by the United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that small public firms are incurring
much higher audit fees and increased costs in complying with the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The report finds that of the 2,263 public firms with market
capitalization of less than $75 million, just 66 have fully implemented
Section 404 of the law that requires firms to construct formal internal
control frameworks and filed internal control reports. These 66 firms
reported paying $1.14 in audit fees per $100 of revenue, compared to
just $.13 per $100 for firms with greater than $1 billion in market
capitalization. I believe we must take action to help small
[[Page S9899]]
companies comply with the regulatory burdens of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
In addition to the costs associated with internal controls, 81
percent of small firms responding to the GAO survey said they brought
in outside consultants to comply with the Act. Nearly half of the small
firms reported ``opportunity costs'' related to complying with the
regulatory burden placed on them by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act such as
deferring or canceling operational improvements, and more than one-
third of respondents were forced to defer or cancel information
technology investments. Too many small firms simply do not have the
resources and expertise necessary to implement the formal internal
control frameworks required by Section 404, and as a result, they are
disadvantaged compared to larger firms that are absorbing these costs.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has provided a lengthy
compliance period for small businesses to comply with the Sarbanes-
Oxley regulations and is attempting to develop additional methods to
ease the regulatory burden. However, I believe additional efforts are
needed.
In order to assist these firms with the increased costs of
implementation and help our small businesses keep our economy moving
forward, I am introducing the Small Business Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
Assistance Act of 2006. The bill would authorize the U.S. Small
Business Administration to award grants to small public companies and
small business concerns to help lessen the burden of these costs. If
Congress is asking these small firms to bear the burden of cost for
compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, the least we can do is chip in and help
pay for it. My legislation authorizes $5 million to be awarded annually
through 2011.
My legislation also creates a task force, assembled by the SBA Chief
Counsel for Advocacy, and comprising of representatives from the SEC
and other appropriate bank regulatory agencies, to report semi-annually
on how to assist small public companies in complying with Sarbanes-
Oxley. My hope is that this task force will continually find new ways
to lift the regulatory burden on small businesses attempting to comply
with the law. Each report of the task force will be required to
evaluate upgrades or alternatives to the SEC's Electronic Data
Gathering Analysis Retrieval System so that companies might submit
filings to the SEC without the need for third party intervention. The
task force will also report on the potential to reduce inefficiencies
related to SEC filings; the feasibility of synchronizing filing
requirements for substantially similar small firms; whether the SEC and
bank regulatory agencies should commit additional resources to aiding
small public firms with filing requirements; whether the SEC needs to
publish guidance on reporting and legal requirements aimed at assisting
smaller public firms; and the feasibility of extending incorporation by
reference privileges to other Government filings containing equivalent
information.
This legislation will help some but not all of the thousands of small
firms that are public or hope to become public. As more information
becomes available, I am hopeful that the task force will provide ideas
on how the SEC can help more of the small, non-accelerated filers
implement the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. We must do all we can to
insure that small firms can demonstrate that transparency and
accountability in the private sector is thriving without having to
incur such a burdensome cost. This legislation is supported by the
National Black Chamber of Commerce as well as Small Business Majority.
I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 3920. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to assure access to durable medical equipment under the Medicare
Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act with my colleague Senator
Kent Conrad of North Dakota. This bill makes several modest changes to
the competitive acquisition process for this equipment.
In 2007, a competitive acquisition program will replace the current
reimbursement policy for durable medical equipment in Medicare. This
shift toward a market-based approach to payments for durable medical
equipment was mandated through the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of
2003.
Our bill was written with two key goals in mind. The Medicare Durable
Medical Equipment Access Act would preserve access to home medical
equipment in rural areas for older or disabled Americans who need this
equipment. In addition, the bill will allow small businesses that
provide homecare equipment to continue to participate in the Medicare
Program if they qualify and meet the competitively bid price.
Our legislation is identical to H.R. 3559 which was introduced
earlier this Congress by Congressmen David Hobson and John Tanner. That
bill has broad, bipartisan support and 132 House cosponsors.
As background, section 302(b)(I) of the MMA requires Medicare to
replace the current durable medical equipment payment methodology for
certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007
in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require
several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program.
First, the MMA requires the Secretary to include quality standards in
the competitive acquisition process and also allows the Secretary to
waive the application of quality standards if applying the standards
would delay implementation of the process. However, quality standards
are essential to ensuring that beneficiaries are not forced to use the
lowest-cost provider without consideration of the quality of the
medical equipment items provided. This bill would require the Secretary
to include quality standards before implementing competitive
acquisition.
Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas and urban
areas with low population density to ensure that competitive
acquisition is not implemented in areas that lack the health care
infrastructure to support it. This bill would require the Secretary to
exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people.
Third, the MMA created a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee
composed of stakeholders to advise the Secretary on the implementation
of competitive acquisition. However, the MMA does not apply the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to it. The purpose of FACA is to ensure
that advice rendered to the executive branch by advisory committees be
both objective and accessible to the public. This bill would apply FACA
to this oversight committee.
Fourth, the MMA allows the Secretary to contract with only as many
providers as the Secretary deems necessary to meet the demand of an
area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from
participating in Medicare for up to 3 years. This bill would allow
applicable small businesses that did not receive a contract to continue
to provide durable medical equipment in Medicare at the competitive
acquisition bid rate.
Fifth, the MMA explicitly prohibited administrative or judicial
review for competitive acquisition of DME. This means that providers do
not have legal recourse to appeal the bid amount or contracts. My bill
would restore appeal rights for competitive acquisition of DME. These
rights exist elsewhere in the Medicare program.
Sixth, under the MMA, the Secretary can only competitively acquire an
item if the Secretary believes that doing so would result in
significant savings to Medicare. It is important for the Secretary to
show that the savings from competitive acquisition justify constructing
a bureaucracy to implement the program. To that end, this bill would
require the Secretary to show that competitive acquisition would result
in savings of at least 10 percent.
Finally, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition
bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill
would require that, before doing so, the Secretary conduct a
comparability analysis of the two MSAs. This will help prevent any
applications of bid rates outside of an MSA that are inappropriate.
[[Page S9900]]
The new, market-based competitive acquisition program in Medicare is
designed to save money and make Medicare more efficient. In order to
achieve this goal, we need to preserve access to care and preserve the
cost-effective health care infrastructure that homecare represents.
This bill will help ensure that the market reforms enacted by the MMA
accomplish both cost savings and continued access to cost-effective
care.
Before I close, I would like to give a real life example from my home
state of Utah on why this legislation is needed and necessary. A small
provider of durable medical equipment in Utah approached me about how
current law will impact him. This company was established in 1997 with
just one employee. It has grown over the years by providing its
customers the products that they need to stay at home and out of the
hospitals.
When competitive bidding hits the State of Utah in 2007, this small
company will be forced to bid against large national companies. Much
larger companies compete with the smaller ones to provide medical
equipment such as wheelchairs, in home hospital beds, and home oxygen.
If my Utah company loses the bid, it will go out of business, as will
many of its smaller competitors in Utah. This company prides itself on
being able to provide customers with a high quality of service. The
owner of the company has asked me how he can continue to provide great
service when his company has been forced to bid to the lowest price
possible just to keep from going out of business.
Therefore, this legislation means a lot to small companies not just
in Utah, but all over the country, by allowing them to continue to
provide medical equipment to those who need it.
I heard from several small medical equipment companies in my home
State of Utah for several years on this issue and they made very
convincing arguments. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Durable
Medical Equipment Access Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to talk to
their constituents back home who own small durable medical equipment
companies. I am certain that these companies are experiencing concerns
similar to those shared with me.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that Medicare
beneficiaries will continue to receive quality care at affordable
prices for their medical supplies.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Hatch, in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment
(DME) Access Act. This bill responds to the concerns I heard from
seniors and suppliers in North Dakota about the negative impact
competitive bidding could have on the ability of DME suppliers in rural
States to remain viable. The bill we introduce today is designed to
preserve access to DME in rural areas.
The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) required Medicare to replace the
current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive
acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access
Act would require several modest changes to the competitive acquisition
program to help preserve access to medical equipment in rural areas.
First, our bill would build upon language in the MMA that allows the
Secretary to exempt rural areas to prevent these beneficiaries from
losing access to needed medical equipment. Specifically, it would
require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people.
Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to waive the application of
quality standards in the competitive acquisition process if applying
the standards would delay implementation. Our bill would ensure that
quality standards are included when determining the winning bid to
ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment.
Third, in creating the competitive acquisition program, the Secretary
may contract with only as many providers as deemed necessary to meet
demand in an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be
prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to three years. This
bill would allow certain small businesses to continue providing DME in
Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate, allowing them to
offer in-person care to Medicare beneficiaries.
Fourth, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition
bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill
would require that the Secretary compare the two to ensure that the bid
rates aren't inappropriately applied.
Finally, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would take
additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in
savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial
review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory
and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public.
These provisions are small steps, but they will ensure that
beneficiaries in rural areas have access to the medical equipment they
need. While we should pursue options for making the Medicare program
more efficient, we must also protect access to care. I believe this
bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge
all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 3921. A bill to modify the calculation of back pay for persons who
were approved for promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps
while interned as prisoners of war during World War II to take into
account changes in the Consumer Price Index; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the World War II
POW Pay Equity Act of 2006. This legislation would ensure that former
World War II Prisoners of War, or their surviving spouses, receive the
appropriate back pay for their honorable service, adjusted for
inflation.
Due to a technicality, Navy and Marine Corps POWs during World War II
were denied promotions while they were interned. The Fiscal Year 2001
National Defense Authorization Act included provisions to correct this
injustice. Unfortunately, this legislation did not specify an
adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes of our
``greatest generation'' were paid in 1942 dollars which roughly equated
to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly
compensate them for their dedicated service.
When our great Nation called upon these brave individuals, they
answered the call. Now they need our help to fix a technicality that
has denied them the full amount of the back-pay they are due, pay that
was earned in the harshest of environments. Many of these WWII veterans
suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving
WWII POWs is now less than 1,000, and there are approximately 400
surviving spouses. We cannot abandon those who were truly responsible
for defending the liberties we hold so dear. It would be shameful for
Congress and our Nation not to compensate fairly these veterans, as
this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment as
POWs.
The impact of this legislation goes well beyond those who have so
bravely gone before us in defense of our Nation. This is a readiness
issue as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of the manner
in which our Nation honors its veterans. President George Washington
reminded all of his fellow Americans of the keen relationship between
our Nation's veterans and those on active duty when he said, ``The
willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they
perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by
their country.'' That statement holds just as true today as it did over
200 years ago.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 3922. A bill to clarify the status of the Young Woman's Christian
Association Retirement Fund as a defined contribution plan for certain
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will
clarify the legal status of the Young Women's Christian Association's
Retirement Fund.
[[Page S9901]]
The YWCA Retirement Fund is one of the oldest pension plans serving
the retirement needs of women. This bill will help protect the
retirement security of thousands of YWCA employees nationwide who serve
well over a million users.
Whether it is providing day care for working mothers, keeping a
battered women's shelter open, or meeting the other pressing needs of
women in our communities, the YWCA has a long tradition of service.
Those who work at our local YWCAs deserve to know that their retirement
plan is secure.
Today, the YWCA Retirement Fund is a unique pension program. First,
approximately 90 percent of its participants are women. Second, it is a
multiple employer pension plan--one that relies on 300 local YWCAs to
make funding contributions. And lastly, since it was established in
1924, the pension plan's structure has remained generally unchanged--it
is partially a defined benefit plan, and partially a defined
contribution plan.
Recently, some employers have transformed their traditional defined
benefit pension plans into various types of ``hybrid'' plans, and in
the process, some have reduced the rate at which benefits accrue for
their older workers. Older workers have successfully challenged some of
these arrangements as age discriminatory. During its more than 80-year
history, the YWCA Retirement Fund has never treated any worker
differently based on age or longevity of employment. Most of the
controversy surrounding these plans focuses on how employers treat
certain participants when they convert their pre-existing pension
plans. But the YWCA pension program never converted--its basic
structure has remained the same since it was established 1924.
The success of some of these lawsuits has raised questions about
whether the YWCA pension plan could be found to be age discriminatory
merely on the basis of its design. This threat is particularly acute
given the fact that the YWCA Retirement Fund is a multiple employer
pension plan--a plan that relies on contributions from each local YWCA.
This enormous potential liability would be shared jointly by all local
YWCAs. Under current law, even the mere threat of lawsuit could cause
local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan.
If enacted, this legislation would merely classify the YWCA
retirement plan as a defined contribution plan only for the purpose of
testing for age discrimination--it would continue to protect
participants from being treated differently on the basis of age while
eliminating the potential crippling legal threat.
Legislation was enacted in 2004--Public Law 108-476--to clarify the
legal status of the YMCA pension plan, a plan that is similar to the
YWCA plan. Congress was right to protect the YMCA pension plan then and
now it is time to protect the pension plan serving our YWCAs.
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. 3922
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 ``YWCA Retirement Plan
Preservation Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION RULES.
(a) In General.--A pension plan described in subsection (b)
shall be treated as a defined contribution plan for purposes
of sections 204(b)(1)(H) and 204(b)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1054(b)(1)(H) and 1054(b)(2)) and section 4(i)(1) of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
623(i)(1)).
(b) Pension Plan Described.--A pension plan described in
this subsection is the plan subject to title IV of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 maintained by
the Young Women's Christian Association Retirement Fund, a
corporation created by an Act of the State of New York which
became law on April 12, 1924.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply in the case
of any civil action brought on or after September 21, 2006,
alleging a violation occurring before June 29, 2005, of
section 204(b)(1)(H) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(b)(1)(H)), section
4(i)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(29 U.S.C. 623(i)(1)), or both, with respect to the plan
described in subsection (b).
______
Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3923. A bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States
district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases
among district judges; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce with Senator
Feinstein legislation to establish a pilot program that is intended to
enhance the level of expertise in patent cases among United States
district court judges. In conversations with a number of constituents
and both small and large companies in my home State of Utah, I have
found that one of the frequent complaints by those who had been
involved in patent litigation was that many district court judges had
relatively little expertise in patent law, and--partially as a result--
the decisions of trial courts are often overturned on appeal due to
technical errors in construing patent claims. Obviously, this is
frustrating for litigants, because it prolongs the uncertainty they
experience and makes an expensive appeal of the trial court's decision
much more likely. This bill seeks to address that problem by providing
a way to increase the level of expertise among district court judges in
patent cases.
The core provisions of this bill authorize a pilot project in at
least five judicial districts that have a significant patent litigation
caseload. Under the pilot program, judges in these districts will be
allowed to form a smaller pool of judges who are willing to accept a
larger portion of the patent litigation docket in the district. The
bill also authorizes additional resources to allow participating courts
to hire law clerks with expertise in patent law and to provide for
educational programs relating to patent law for the participating
judges. It is our intention that this program will allow these judges
to acquire greater experience in handling patent trials, decrease the
amount of time that patent cases take to resolve, and reduce reversals
on appeal by enhancing the level of experience and expertise of judges
and law clerks handling these cases. The project is authorized for at
least five judicial districts, to be designated by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, and will last for a 10 year period.
The bill also requires Administrative Office of the United States
Courts and the Federal Judicial Center to provide a report to Congress
on the results of the pilot program, along with additional information
that will allow Congress to determine whether this approach has had the
beneficial effects that we anticipate.
Those who are following the patent debates in Congress closely will
notice that this bill is very similar to a bill introduced in the House
by Representatives Issa and Schiff, and I would like to acknowledge
their work on this issue, as well as the work of other members of the
House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property. I would also like to thank my colleague from
California, Senator Feinstein, for her interest in this issue and for
her willingness to cosponsor this bill.
I should also note that further refinements to this language will
likely be necessary as it moves through the legislative process. In
particular, we need to include a provision which would preserve a
sufficient element of random assignment among judges. I understand some
of my Senate colleagues have reservations about including this
provision, but we will deal with that issue as the bill progresses.
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Feinstein and me
by supporting this legislation.
I yield the floor.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 3924. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
allow qualifying States to use all or any portion of their allotments
under the State Children's Health Insurance Program for certain
Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's
[[Page S9902]]
Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. I am delighted to have
Senator Murray, Bingaman, and Mikulski introduce this bill with me
today.
As health insurance costs continue to rise and the number of
employers that offer health coverage to their employees decline, our
safety net programs are all the more critical, especially for the
health of our children. It is more important than ever to sustain
existing health care coverage for our children--and, in fact, to expand
it. It's the best way to reduce costs and improve access. It's about
keeping children healthy.
New Census data released last month showed that the number of
uninsured has grown from 41.2 million in 2001 to 46.6 million in 2005.
These are largely working families--the number of fulltime workers
without any insurance increased to 17.7 percent in 2005 from 16.8
percent in 2002.
In Washington, our Medicaid program is currently providing coverage
for more than 500,000 children. Our State Children's Health Insurance
Program is providing coverage to another 11,000 children. But 100,000
of our kids in Washington State remain uninsured even though they are
eligible for one of the public programs.
One barrier to expanding kids' access to health care in Washington is
the funding rules that were put into place when SCHIP was enacted in
1997. In short, our state has been punished for its early innovation
for doing the right thing.
When SCHIP was enacted at the Federal level in 1997, Washington was
one of only four States already providing health coverage for children
at the level Federal lawmakers wanted SCHIP to reach. Under the
original Federal rules, Washington was not allowed to use new funds to
pay for children who were covered prior to SCHIP's implementation.
As a result, we have been penalized and prevented from fully using
our share of the funding. That is why in 2002 I worked to ensure a
temporary fix to the funding inequity and I have been fighting to make
this fix permanent ever since. And as a result of these temporary
fixes, Washington has been able to extend coverage to an additional
60,000 children and reinvest $47.3 million in children's health safety
net programs.
Despite this success, the State has still been forced to return over
percent of its share of Federal funding. Over the first decade of the
SCHIP program, Washington is expected to return $191 million in Federal
funds.
Let me say that again: we're returning millions of dollars to the
Federal Government and we still have 100,000 uninsured children in our
State--the majority of whom are eligible for these public programs.
It's unacceptable and it runs contrary to the central goal of the
SCHIP program. We need a permanent solution once and for all so that
Washington and the other States that expanded eligibility in their
Medicaid programs before the enactment of SCHIP in 1997 are no longer
penalized for their early innovation and their commitment to the health
of children.
This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and
Eligibility Act of 2006.
This legislation will give states the ability to use SCHIP funds more
efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children.
States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use their
entire SCHIP funds allotment to maintain access to health care coverage
for all low-income children in the state. The bill also ensures that
all of the qualifying States that have demonstrated a commitment to
providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in
the same manner to support children's health care coverage. Finally,
this bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest
eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements,
to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had
previously been covered above the mandatory level.
The requirements are best practices that have been tested and proven
all across our Nation: a simplified application process, twelve-month
continuous eligibility and easy access to enrollment staff are just a
few of the examples of actions that we have taken in Washington that
are proven to work. They result in more children having coverage and
accessing appropriate care. Many of our States are working to make the
program easier for children and families to navigate and now Congress
needs to make it easier for all States to access their SCHIP allotment
in order to expand and improve coverage to our youngest citizens.
Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our
great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies,
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to
build happy, healthy and productive lives. With the rising number of
uninsured and the ever-increasing healthcare costs, it is more
important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for
children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children
healthy. Removing barriers for innovative states and allowing them to
fully access their SCHIP allocation is a major step in achieving this
goal. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill 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. 3924
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE ALL OR ANY
PORTION OF THEIR SCHIP ALLOTMENTS FOR CERTAIN
MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)) is amended by
striking ``not more than 20 percent of any allotment under
section 2104 for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, or
2005'' and inserting ``all or any portion of any allotment
made to the State under section 2104 for a fiscal year''.
(b) Additional Requirements.--Section 2105(g)(2) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``a State, that, on'' and inserting ``a
State that is described in subparagraph (A) and satisfies all
of the requirements of subparagraph (B).
``(A) State described.--A State described in this
subparagraph is a State that, on''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph
are the following:
``(i) No reduction in medicaid or schip income
eligibility.--Since January 1, 2001, the State has not
reduced the income, assets, or resource requirements for
eligibility for medical assistance under title XIX or for
child health assistance under this title.
``(ii) No waiting list imposed.--The State does not impose
any numerical limitation, waiting list, or similar limitation
on the eligibility of children for medical assistance under
title XIX or child health assistance under this title and
does not limit the acceptance of applications for such
assistance.
``(iii) Provides assistance to all children who apply and
qualify.--The State provides medical assistance under title
XIX or child health assistance under this title to all
children in the State who apply for and meet the eligibility
standards for such assistance.
``(iv) Protection against inability to pay premiums or
copayments.--The State ensures that no child loses coverage
under title XIX or this title, or is denied needed care, as a
result of the child's parents' inability to pay any premiums
or cost-sharing required under such title.
``(v) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented
at least 3 of the following policies and procedures (relating
to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):
``(I) Simplified application form.--With respect to
children who are eligible for medical assistance under title
XIX, the State uses the same simplified application form
(including, if applicable, permitting application other than
in person) for purposes of establishing eligibility for
assistance under title XIX and this title.
``(II) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply
any asset test for eligibility under title XIX or this title
with respect to children.
``(III) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The
State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly
redetermined more often than once every year under this title
or for children eligible for medical assistance under title
XIX.
``(IV) Same verification and redetermination policies;
automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to
children who are eligible for medical assistance under
section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial
eligibility determinations and redeterminations of
eligibility using the same verification policies (including
with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and
frequency as the State uses for such purposes under this
title, and, as part of such redeterminations, provides for
the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of such
children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
[[Page S9903]]
``(V) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides
for the receipt and initial processing of applications for
benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at
facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under
section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers
described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section
1902(a)(55).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2006, and shall apply to
expenditures described in section 2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii)) that are
made after that date.
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 3925. A bill to provide certain authorities for the Secretary of
State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and for other purposes;
read the first time.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today at the
request of the executive branch and will be seeking unanimous consent
to request its passage as soon as possible. The Foreign Affairs
Management Authorities Act of 2006 contains provisions requested by the
State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors that will
enable the two agencies to carry out their work more efficiently and
effectively.
Title I of this bill creates a new pay for performance system for
Foreign Service officers with the rank of 01 and below and creates a
uniform worldwide pay scale. The American Foreign Service Association
supports these. I am including a letter from Anthony Holmes, the AFSA
President.
The Senior Foreign Service already participates in a pay for
performance plan as mandated in previously enacted law, Section
412(a)(2) PL108-447, Div. B. The legislation replaces ``within grade
increases'' with a requirement that, upon the introduction of the new
Foreign Service Schedule in April 2008, any further adjustments in pay
are tied to individual performance rather than longevity of service. It
directs the Secretary of State to pay to each member of the Service an
adjustment taking into account ``individual performance, contribution
to the mission of the Department, or both, under a rigorous performance
management system that makes meaningful distinctions based on relative
performance and that clearly links individual pay and performance under
precepts prescribed by the Secretary.'' Each Secretary/head of agency
utilizing the Foreign Service personnel system may implement this
section in a manner most suitable to the unique circumstances of his or
her agency. Poor performers would get no increase in pay. As with the
Senior Foreign Service, the pay for performance planned for the Foreign
Service would utilize multiple levels of performance distinctions.
Performance-based adjustments normally would be made only once in any
12-month period.
Title I also provides a number of employee protections. It
specifically guarantees a minimum funding pool for performance-based
pay adjustments to ensure that, in the aggregate, employees are not
disadvantaged by conversion to the new pay system. It authorizes
selection boards to rank order employees for the purpose of
recommending pay for performance salary adjustments, and requires
agencies that use selection boards for pay for performance to follow
the selection board rankings in allocating salary increases, except in
special circumstances. The legislation does not impact the negotiation
of procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected
employees with the employees' representative, the American Foreign
Service Association, AFSA.
Title I provides transitional authorities to the Secretary of State
for use during the interim period before April 2008 when the new
Foreign Service Schedule is established. It contains provisions that
govern the conversion of employees to the new schedule and it provides
for a one-year transition period from the current 14-step system. It
also gives the Secretary authority to establish transitional rules that
prevent a reduction in a member's rate of pay by reason of conversion
to the new system, among other measures that are to be applied to
provide for a smooth transition.
In a long needed reform, Title I also provides uniform compensation
for worldwide service by April 2008. It eliminates the disparity in pay
between those serving in Washington, DC, and other domestic posts who
receive locality pay increases and those serving overseas who do not.
The discrepancy has skewed incentives to serve overseas and is
inconsistent with mandatory worldwide and rotational assignment
requirements. The Department estimates the cost of its three-stage
transition to the new pay system to be $32 million in its 2007 budget,
$64 million in 2008, and $32 million in 2009. The legislation provides
for pay conversion and establishes temporary rules for the period
leading up to April 2008 as the transition takes place.
As Secretary Rice works to fill difficult posts around the world,
including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as our diplomats come
increasingly under fire in tough places, it is common sense to
restructure a pay system that, without reform, provides disincentives
to serving overseas. The Foreign Service must know that our country
stands behind them, appreciates their service, and is grateful for the
contributions they make to the security of our country and the well-
being of our citizens.
Title II contains a number of provisions that are contained in S.600,
still being held on the Senate calendar. It also contains provisions
that were requested by the executive branch subsequent to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee's passage of S. 600. The provisions in
Title II of this legislation are as follows:
Section 201. Education allowances modifies current law to: 1. permit
payment of certain fees required by overseas schools for successful
completion of a course or grade; 2. allow for travel to the United
States for children in kindergarten through 12th grade when schools at
post are not adequate; 3. allow for education travel to a school
outside the United States for children at the secondary and college
level; 4. provide for educational travel at the graduate level for
children who are still dependents (students older than 22 would be
ineligible for such travel); and 5. allow the option of storing a
child's personal effects near the school during their trip to post,
rather than transporting the effects back and forth.
Section 202. Fraud Prevention and Detection Account broadens the
Secretary of State's authority to use a portion of fees collected for
H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visas to investigate fraud in other visa categories,
including fraud in connection with terrorist activities. Allowing an
expanded use of the funds will assist the Department in developing a
system that concentrates on H and L visa fraud, but will potentially
reduce fraud among all visa classifications and increase the U.S.
ability to disrupt terrorist travel.
Section 203. Extension of Privileges and Immunities extends
diplomatic privileges and immunities to the African Union Mission to
the United States and to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy
See, and to members of both of these missions.
Section 204. International Litigation Fund allows the Department to
retain awards of costs and attorneys' fees when defending against
international claims in addition to amounts currently allowed to be
retained when it successfully prosecutes a claim.
Section 205. Personal Services Contracting; BBG, the legislation
extends for one year a pilot program allowing the BBG to hire 60 U.S.
citizens or foreign nationals on contract rather than as full-time
government employees. Such authority gives the BBG the flexibility to
hire, for the short or medium-term, broadcasters and on-air hosts in
difficult languages, some with many dialects. The BBG uses the
authority, for example, for surge capacity in Urdu and Arabic.
Inspector General, this section also establishes a limited authority
for the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to
hire personal service contractors (PSCs) to augment its ability to
conduct oversight of programs and operations related to Afghanistan and
Iraq. No more than 20 PSCs may be hired at any one time and, absent
exceptional circumstances, the contract length for each PSC may not
exceed two years. The Inspector General anticipates a need for
additional staff once the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction's (SIGIR's) portfolio is either partially or fully
transferred to the State Department. The OIG also expects an increase
in short-term staffing needs to
[[Page S9904]]
carry out oversight responsibilities related to Afghanistan.
Section 206. Facilitating Service in Iraq and Afghanistan is a
technical correction to an inadvertent drafting error in section
1602(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234).
The intent behind section 1602(a) was to provide the Secretary of State
with additional authority to waive annuity limitations on reemployed
Foreign Service annuitants to support U.S. efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. As enacted, however, section 1602(a) has the unintended
effect of cutting back significantly on the Secretary of State's pre-
existing authority to waive Foreign Service annuity limitations in an
emergency involving a direct threat to life or property or other
unusual circumstances, without regard to geographic location. This
technical correction restores the Secretary's pre-existing authority
and provides the intended additional authorities with respect to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
Section 207. Discontinuance of Duplicative or Obsolete Reports
discontinues a number of reports that have been overtaken by events or
contain material that is covered in other executive branch submissions
to the Congress.
I ask my colleagues to give favorable and speedy consideration to
this measure.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Foreign
Service Association,
Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.
Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Lugar: On behalf of the 14,000 members of the
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), please accept
out sincere appreciation for your leadership during the 109th
Session on a number of fronts of vital importance to our
members and to the United States. In particular, AFSA is
grateful for your determination to address the existing pay
disparity between Washington-based Foreign Service personnel
and those on assignment overseas. As you know, this pay
equity issue has been our highest priority for many years.
I want you to know the great importance that AFSA attaches
to passing legislation this year that will make the changes
necessary to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to permit a
unified worldwide pay schedule. We realize that there are
many issues that you and your colleagues are currently
grappling with and will try to get passed before the mid-term
election recess next week. Our great fear, one that we hope
you can help us avoid, is that our modest bill, so important
to our members, will be shunted aside with the
rationalization that it can always be taken up again later.
Mr. Chairman, we are afraid that your colleagues are in
danger of missing an exceptional, perhaps unique, opportunity
to resolve this pay equity issue and to guarantee a win/win
outcome for all concerned by creating a model pay-for-
performance personnel system for the Foreign Service that
will be a shining example for the rest of the federal
government.
The current inequity is profoundly unfair and undermines
the moral of our Country's diplomatic corps. The U.S. Foreign
Service must have all the tools it needs to implement our
diplomatic and national security priorities around the globe,
often under extremely challenging circumstances. One vital
tool our nation can provide the men and women of the Foreign
Service and their families is the validation of their
essential efforts abroad that ending this pay disparity would
provide. With the increasing difficulty of service overseas
and continuing threats against American officials abroad,
this measure would be the single most important morale
booster that the Congress could provide, Conversely, a lack
of immediate action on the proposed legislation would be a
profound disappointment to our members.
Mr, Chairman, I know that you fully understand that Foreign
Service members should not be penalized for serving abroad
with a 17.5 percent pay cut. That simply isn't right. It is
our sincere hope that you can persuade Congress to act on
this issue now or a crucial opportunity will be lost.
Again, thank you for your leadership. AFSA is most grateful
for your support and friendship.
Sincerely,
J. Anthony Holmes,
President.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 3926. A bill to provide for the energy, economic, and national
security of America, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I gave a speech a couple weeks ago about
the situation in the Middle East. I want to just do a reprise of that
in brief to discuss the context of introducing today what we call the
Empower America: Securing America's Energy Future Act.
It comes from the basis that I believe we are facing in this
country--a threat. We are, in my opinion, already in the very early
stages of a world war. We can act now to make this threat--which I
believe is a serious one but not yet fully actualized--less severe if
we do certain things. One of them, as you will hear at the conclusion
of my remarks, will be focusing on our energy situation here at home.
One of the things I hear as a frustration of so many people I talk to
in Pennsylvania is they look at the conflicts we are in in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and other places in the world, and they don't see an end or a
strategy of how we succeed. I suggest that part of that strategy is in
creating energy security and developing a whole host of energy
resources in this country so that we are not dependent upon--or as
dependent upon foreign sources of energy and that we develop the new
technologies that will allow America to continue to grow and keep
prices down, and not just because I want to keep them down for
consumers, which is great, but so we are not providing enormous riches
for people to develop nuclear weapons and turn around and harm the
United States and our allies.
I believe the threat we face can be analyzed in a three-pronged
approach. As I said on the floor last week or the week before, we face
a threat, an enemy most people refer to as terrorists. I do not refer
to them as terrorists; I refer to them as who they are: radical Islamic
fascists. They have an ideology. These are not people who kill for the
purpose of killing. They don't kill because of hatred. They kill
because they have a belief, an objective.
I know that for a year or two, the President, right after 9/11,
referred to these terrorists as ``cowards.'' I notice that he doesn't
do that anymore. I don't know of anybody who does that anymore. There
is a reason: They are not cowards at all. These are people with great
conviction. Some would even say that, in a demented way, they have
great courage. But they are certainly not cowards. Calling them cowards
gives the wrong impression to the American people that we are fighting
a foe who is afraid of us or afraid of something. The problem is they
seem to be afraid of very little when it comes to this world. They are
willing to give up their lives. In fact, they want to give up their
lives, and their objective, by the way, is to take as many other lives
in the process. The object in this war is not territory; the object of
this war is submission and death.
So we are not dealing with a group of cowards. When we tell the
American public we are dealing with cowards, they don't think this is a
serious enemy that can defeat us. America would never lose to a group
of cowards. But we can lose to a group of fanatical, zealous Islamists,
who have a clear mission and a clear methodology by which to accomplish
that mission.
These are people who are very serious about what they want to do,
whether it is radical Sunnis or radical Shias. They have an objective
and a common enemy--as does the radical left, represented so comically,
in my opinion, so ridiculously, by the speech of Hugo Chavez yesterday
at the United Nations. What do Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, President of Iran,
and Hugo Chavez have in common? Nothing except their hatred of
everything this country holds dear--freedom, democracy, and individual
human rights. That is what they hate. I would suggest they have as much
in common as Mussolini and Hitler and Tojo. They had very little in
common ideologically. The Japanese believed in the superiority of the
Japanese race and wanted to conquer and rule the world. Hitler didn't
believe in that, but they formed an alliance because there was a common
enemy.
That is the case here. We are seeing it. It is, hopefully, a
frightening sight put on display over the last couple of days at the
United Nations, as this character of a President, this ridiculous
diatribe Hugo Chavez presented to the U.N. received applause from many
around the world--most leaders around the world. This is a serious
threat. We can look at it and put it in political terms and say we went
to war for the wrong reason and this or that wasn't true. But that is
looking in the rearview mirror when we have a huge
[[Page S9905]]
threat. So they have an ideology and a common enemy.
Secondly, they have a very effective methodology by which to conduct
this war. It is one that doesn't require the kind of coordination and
resources a traditional military campaign would require. They don't
need to conquer land, to hold ground; they simply need to kill people
every day. And they do--every day. And we cover it in America every
day. American people watch it every day. And every day, the resolve of
the American people is eroded. The resolve of the American people is
eroded because--I will use the words of Osama bin Laden--because we
Americans love life and the radical Islamists love death. That is how
he said he would defeat us, because of America's and the West's love
for life and respect for life, their attachment to this world, to the
modern world, and the radical Islamist's attachment not to this world
at all but to death, which, in their minds, means life--a better life
with Allah. That is their objective, their methodology. Their
methodology is to prey upon what they believe is the weakness of
America, what they believe is the weakness of the West, which is the
fact that we respect life, love life, we have human rights, and we
believe in freedom. We believe it is our objective in this world to
make it a better world. They don't care about that at all. So terror is
a uniquely effective tactic that fits well into their culture of death
and is particularly effective against our culture of life.
In addition, they are trying to develop a new weapon; that is, a
nuclear weapon. Iran has made it very clear and Chavez has announced
his intention to develop a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
to use, in the words of Ahmadi-Nejad, ``to wipe Israel off the face of
the earth'' and use that weaponry to get the rest of the Western World
to submit to their radical, fanatical brand of Islam.
This is their ultimate threat. This is the ultimate tactic of death
and terror--to have a country that is committed publicly to using
nuclear weapons not to defend itself, not to gain an earthly dominion
over the world, but to cause mass chaos and destruction, in the case of
Iran, for a religious purpose, because what they seek to accomplish is
the return of the Hidden or 12th Imam. That is the 12th descendant of
the Prophet Muhammad who, in the late 800s, went into hiding, according
to the Shia religion, and is destined to return as the messiah of the
Islamic faith at the end of times--the end of times meaning Armageddon.
The interesting twist that the radical Shia project onto the world
stage today is they believe it is their obligation to bring about the
return of the Hidden or 12th Imam by causing a modern-day Armageddon.
That is what they believe. You may not have heard this before, but let
me assure you, that is what they believe. That is what they say. That
is what they talk about all the time, that this is their objective. It
is a messianic vision; they are being compelled by their faith.
Some pass it off as a bunch of dictators who are just using religion
to prop themselves up, to maintain control, or to try to dominate
bigger areas of the world. Well, that would be bad enough. That would
be dangerous enough. But I think we underestimate them when we say
that. I think we underestimate President Ahmadi-Nejad and the ruling
mullahs of Iran when we say that. I believe they are true believers,
and I don't think we can afford the luxury of not believing that they
believe this. I don't think we can dismiss them as another group of
two-bit tyrants. These are two-bit tyrants who have billions upon
billions of dollars and have allies like North Korea, who have access
to nuclear technology. They have scientists from Russia who left Russia
because there is nothing for them to do, and they are in Tehran today
developing rocketry and the nuclear capability to project that power.
Some would say I am beating the drums of war. No. I am accurately
describing the situation at hand. Some disagree with me, and they are
welcome to. Do you want to take that chance? Do you want to take the
chance of having a nuclear weapon? They are clear about their intention
of developing it. Do you want to take that chance? I don't.
How did this happen? Radical Islam has been present in the Middle
East for a long time. We have not heard much from them except when? In
the last 30, 40 years. Why? The price of oil. It is oil, to begin with,
and now the high price of oil. It gives them the resources to not only
feed the people to keep them in power but to produce weapons to project
power. The only reason, again, they have those resources is because of
this one three-letter word--oil--which brings me back to the beginning
of this discussion.
If we are going to defeat radical fascist Islam, then we have to have
a strategy to take resources away from them so they cannot project the
power they can today. The only way to do that is by developing a more
secure energy future for America and reducing our dependency on that
oil, which would reduce the price of energy around the world. We need
to encourage not only alternative energy production in this country; we
have to do so around the world. We have to do so around the world by
using alternative technology such as, for example, as I talk about in
the bill, coal.
One of the greatest new energy consumers in the world is China. They
don't have a lot of oil, but they have a lot of coal. So it is an
opportunity for us, with coal to gas and coal to liquid fuels
technology, developing and commercializing that technology. And it is
not just going to be coal to liquid fuels, but if you talk to folks in
the business who are developing these plants right now--and one is
being developed in Pennsylvania, which I have been involved with--they
believe they can use all sorts of organic matter, such as waste
products, to blend in with the coal to be able to produce liquid fuel.
We need to have that technology in America, and they need to have
that technology, and they are developing it, by the way, in China. We
need to create from the vast amount of energy opportunities that we
have in America and around the world new technologies so oil becomes
less of a valuable commodity. This is one concrete way we can fight the
war on radical Islamic fascism.
I have put together a bill that talks about making--it does, if it
would be passed--a huge investment, a huge investment in alternative
technologies, a huge investment in coal, a huge investment in
renewables to create a more secure energy future for America. We can no
longer talk about how we are going to do this or that we will do it at
some future date. We must act now, quickly. We need to provide support
for the commercialization of this technology. We are not going to see
energy produced at $20 a barrel, the equivalent of oil. We are not
going to see it done at $30 or $40 a barrel. It may be more expensive.
We have to make sure we provide proper support in loan guarantees,
incentives, and tax credits to make this a profitable venture and a
secure venture for people to invest in.
This is not something that normally I have come to the Chamber and
said that this is the Government's job. This is national security. This
is not about subsidizing big business. This is about producing energy
here for the security of our country. We either make the investment
here or we pay a horrible price, human as well as financial, in the
future.
We need to think big, and we need to think now. That is why--when I
spoke about the comments the Senator from Louisiana made before I came
to the floor on opening up OCS--it is unconscionable for us to look at
the national security situation we look at today, to look at the
subsidies we are providing to our enemies and say: Oh, oh, we can't
explore for oil in Alaska or OCS. Oh, we are worried about the
environment.
I am worried about the environment, too. In my State of Pennsylvania,
in the western part of our State, we drill 3,000 gas wells a year--
3,000--on farms, in neighborhoods, outside neighborhoods, in people's
backyards. At Oakmont Country Club, which is where the U.S. Open is
going to be played, they are going to drill a gas well right next to
Oakmont Country Club. That is pretty much an environmental area. Nobody
wants to pollute Oakmont Country Club. We are going to drill a gas well
there.
Yet there are people on this floor who won't drill those wells in
Alaska where nobody goes, where nobody is. As a result, our country is
at risk. We feed an enemy huge resources to combat us
[[Page S9906]]
in their attempt to destroy us. It is unconscionable for us, a country
that produces oil and gas cleaner and more efficiently than any other
country in the world, to allow our enemy to hold us, not just hostage,
but to gain resources to destroy us because we placate an interest
group who funds, campaigns, and influences voters.
I know many in this Chamber and many in this country do not believe
we are at war or do not believe this war is serious. Time will tell. I
think, unfortunately, time will tell us in a relatively short period of
time how serious this is, and we will look back on this time as we
stood year after year for the past 10 years twiddling our thumbs, not
doing what we can do to provide a more secure energy future for this
country, and we will look back in horror of the blinders, of the scales
we had on our eyes that we could not see the threat before us.
We must do something. The bill I am introducing today is a
comprehensive package that does a lot to make America a safer country,
first and foremost, from a national security perspective and, secondly,
from an economic perspective.
I know we only have a week left. The Senator from Louisiana talked
about trying to get a bill done. Let's get something done. I plead for
us to get something done to create some new sources of energy for this
country, to put some downward pressure on world market prices. It is
essential for us to do so.
We need to make this commitment for the future of our country.
______
By Mrs. BOXER.
S. 3927. A bill to require the placement of blast-resistant cargo
containers on all commercial passenger aircraft; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was pleased that the Senate leadership
finally agreed to consider a port security bill last week. It is high
time we did more about security at our ports.
Our ports are a soft target. We knew this before 9/11 and many
experts have warned us since that terrible day that our ports are
vulnerable to attack.
Since the port security bill was signed into law at the end of 2002,
we have not moved forward on port security, and it remains dangerously
underfunded. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have spent only $816 million on
port security grants, despite Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion
is needed over 10 years.
Addressing port security is critical. However, security for other
transportation modes is important, but the Republican leadership wanted
us to do port security and nothing else.
Through the efforts of many Senators, provisions for rail and transit
security were included. But, the final bill the Senate approved does
not contain any major provisions for aviation security. Yes, aviation
security has improved greatly in the last five years. But, as we
recently found out with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the
British authorities, there are still holes in the system.
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has implemented new
security procedures since we learned of the London terror plot to
detonate liquid explosives on flights from Great Britain to the United
States. While I support these new procedures, TSA is asking passengers
to give up their lip gloss, yet we are not examining cargo loaded on
board our passenger planes.
I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security will launch a
pilot program at San Francisco Airport, SFO, this October to check all
commercial cargo for explosives on passenger flights.
We should be doing this at every airport to ensure the security of
the flying public and the solvency of the airline industry. But until
that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast
resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This
was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
For several years, I have been working to get these containers on
planes.
Currently, TSA is undertaking a pilot project using these containers,
some of which are made with Kevlar, for cargo. But we must move past
pilot programs.
We should use blast-resistant containers for cargo on all passenger
planes. That is why I an introducing a bill to do just that.
The 9/11 Commission recommended, TSA should require that every
passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened
container to carry any suspect cargo. Therefore, all passenger planes
should have at least one blast-resistant container for cargo.
To place one blast-resistant container on each plane, it would cost
about $75 million--this is equal to the cost of a little more than 5
hours in Iraq. Imagine the impact on the security of the country and
the financial outlook for the airline industry if a plane were to
explode during a flight.
We owe this to the American people. We cannot allow terrorists to
exploit holes in our aviation security system.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3928. A bill to provide for the Office of Domestic Preparedness of
the Department of Homeland Security to provide grants to local
governments for public awareness education relating to preparedness for
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and influenza pandemic; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in the last 5 years, Americans have faced
both devastating terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We have also
been warned that an avian flu pandemic is a strong possibility.
In California, we have had fires, floods, mudslides, and
earthquakes--thankfully not the big one.
We have learned that disasters are inevitable. Being prepared is
crucial--especially when the American people cannot rely on the Federal
Government, which was demonstrated by the poor Federal response in
Hurricane Katrina. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff has even said, People should be prepared to sustain themselves
for up to 72 hours after a disaster.
Therefore, being prepared and knowing how to respond in the days
following a natural disaster is extremely important. However, people do
not know how to prepare, and, unfortunately, local governments may lack
the resources to educate their residents.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County officials
could not afford to distribute pamphlets on earthquake preparedness for
individuals with special needs.
That is why I am pleased to introduce legislation that will provide
grants, through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Domestic Preparedness, to local governments to educate the public about
how to deal with natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and an influenza
pandemic.
It is important that we work to make sure that local communities are
able to prepare their citizens to deal with future disasters.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.
____________________