[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6079-S6087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johanns, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 3621. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for an exclusion for assistance provided to participants in certain 
veterinary student loan repayment or forgiveness programs; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with my friend, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, that will exempt 
Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, VMLRP, awards from Federal 
income taxation. I drafted this bipartisan bill with the intention of 
increasing veterinary services in underserved shortage areas that lack 
adequate veterinary expertise.
  The United States Department of Agriculture's, USDA, Veterinary 
Medicine Loan Repayment Program was authorized in 2003 by the National 
Veterinary Medical Services Act, NVMSA, to help qualified veterinarians 
offset a significant amount of the debt they accrue while pursuing 
their degrees if they in turn serve in high-priority veterinary 
shortage areas for a certain length of time. It also authorizes 
additional loan repayments for service in Federal emergency situations. 
However, the awards are currently taxed at a rate of 39 percent. This 
taxation is counterproductive and only delays delivery of veterinary 
services to areas that are in desperate need.
  In determining whether an area is eligible for assistance under the 
VMLRP, USDA has the ability to declare ``shortage situations,'' in 
which the Department makes declarations of veterinary shortage areas. 
Currently, there are two circumstances that lead to such designations. 
The first is by geography, when a given geographic area suffers a 
shortage of veterinarians overall. The second occurs when areas suffer 
a shortage of veterinarians who practice in a particular field of 
veterinary specialty. My home State of South Dakota currently has four 
designated shortage situations. Two of these designations are statewide 
designations noting a shortage of practitioners in veterinary 
specialties. On a national scale, there are 1,300 counties in the 
United States that have less than one food animal veterinarian per 
25,000 farm animals. Bear in mind, the demand for veterinarians across 
our country could increase 14 percent by 2016.
  South Dakota is truly a wonderful place to call home, but it is not 
always an easy place to earn a living. This is especially true for 
young people who are just starting out and are saddled with crushing 
levels of school debt. I have long fought for legislation that makes it 
easier for students to pay off their loans and to encourage others who 
may be reluctant to pursue higher education degrees, due to a lack of 
financial resources, especially when it comes to costly professional 
degrees including veterinary medicine. My legislation will help 
students pursue their educational goals, while also providing important 
services to underserved rural areas by enhancing the assistance 
veterinary graduates receive in exchange for meaningful public service.
  Agriculture is the top contributor to our South Dakota economy. For 
those farmers and ranchers who make their living in agriculture, this 
is more than a job; it is a way of life. Our ranchers, many of whom 
operate in very rural areas, rely on the access they have to qualified 
veterinarians to care for their livestock. Adequate access to 
veterinary care in rural areas is critical for both human and animal 
health, as well as animal welfare, disease surveillance, public safety 
and economic development across America. Everyone in America benefits 
from the veterinary services provided in even the most remote areas of 
our nation. As such, I am committed to doing all I can to help bring 
veterinarians to underserved parts of our state.
  I am proud to have fought for the establishment of the VMLRP program, 
and through my seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have 
worked year after year to secure its proper funding. Unfortunately, 
however, the taxes assessed on these benefits prevent us from using 
congressionally appropriated funding to the fullest extent. For every 
three veterinarians selected for the loan repayment awards, an 
additional veterinarian could also

[[Page S6080]]

be selected if the program was made exempt from taxes. Such a tax 
exemption is not without precedent; Congress exempted from taxation the 
assistance received by participants in the National Health Services 
Corps, NHSC, several years ago, and I hope that my colleagues will join 
me in extending this same type of assistance to veterinarians 
participating in the VMLRP program.
  It should be noted that 122 organizations from across our Nation have 
announced their support for a tax exemption for VMLRP, including the 
American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Equine 
Practitioners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep 
Industry, the National Farmers Union, and the South Dakota Veterinary 
Medical Association, South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Cattlemen's 
Association, South Dakota Stockgrowers Association and many others.
  Agriculture is the economic engine that drives our rural communities, 
and without viable family farms and ranchers, our small towns and Main 
Street businesses throughout South Dakota and our nation would face 
significant hardships. It is absolutely essential that our agricultural 
producers have access to the services they need to be successful and 
responsible, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program 
Enhancement Act will help make that possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Veterinary Medical Association Governmental 
           Relations Division,
                                                   Washington, DC.

Statement of Support for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program 
                            Enhancement Act

       The undersigned organizations urge Congress to pass the 
     Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program Enhancement Act, 
     which will provide a federal income tax exemption for 
     payments received under the Veterinary Medicine Loan 
     Repayment Program (VMLRP) and similar state programs.
       Since Congress passed the ``National Veterinary Medical 
     Services Act'' (H.R. 1397, P.L. 108-161) on December 6, 2003, 
     it has appropriated $9.6 million for awards. About $3.75 
     million will be used to pay taxes on the awards. Every dollar 
     spent on taxes is one less available for loan repayment 
     awards.
       The first VMLRP awards to veterinarians practicing food 
     supply medicine and veterinary public health in federally 
     designated shortage areas across the country will be granted 
     by the end of fiscal year 2010. Veterinarians selected for 
     participation will receive up to $25,000 annually to repay 
     eligible student loans in exchange for three years of 
     practice in an approved shortage area.
       Legislation amending the Internal Revenue Code to make loan 
     repayment awards tax exempt should take effect for taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2009. Each VMLRP award 
     including taxes for three years will cost approximately 
     $104,250 per veterinarian ($75,000 for loan repayment and 
     $29,250 for taxes). If VMLRP were tax exempt, one additional 
     veterinarian could be selected for every three awarded under 
     current law.
       There is precedent for tax exemption. The VMLRP's 
     counterpart program for human medicine, the National Health 
     Service Corps (NHSC) which provides loan repayment for 
     primary care medical, dental and mental health clinicians, 
     was made tax exempt by the ``American Jobs Creation Act of 
     2004'' (H.R. 4520, P.L. 108-357), enacted on October 22, 
     2004. Prior to that NHSC awards were treated as taxable 
     income.
       Exempting veterinary medical loan repayment and forgiveness 
     program awards from federal income taxation will lead to more 
     communities having access to needed veterinary care sooner 
     than they may otherwise. We strongly support Congress' 
     efforts to ensure that our nation's food animals are healthy, 
     that our food supply is safe and secure, and our public 
     health is protected.
           Sincerely,
         American Veterinary Medical Association, Academy of Rural 
           Veterinarians, Alabama Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Alaska Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal 
           Hospital Association, American Academy of Veterinary 
           Nutrition, American Association for Laboratory Animal 
           Science, American Association of Avian Pathologists, 
           American Association of Bovine Practitioners, American 
           Association of Corporate and Public Practice 
           Veterinarians, American Association of Equine 
           Practitioners, American Association of Feline 
           Practitioners, American Association of Food Hygiene 
           Veterinarians, American Association of Public Health 
           Veterinarians, American Association of Small Ruminant 
           Practitioners, American Association of Swine 
           Veterinarians, American Association of Veterinary 
           Clinicians, American Association of Veterinary 
           Laboratory Diagnosticians, American Association of Zoo 
           Veterinarians, American Board of Veterinary 
           Practitioners,
         American Board of Veterinary Toxicology, American College 
           of Laboratory Animal Medicine, American College of 
           Poultry Veterinarians, American College of 
           Theriogenologists, American College of Veterinary 
           Dermatology, American College of Veterinary 
           Pathologists, American College of Veterinary Radiology, 
           American Farm Bureau Federation ', American 
           Feed Industry Association, American Horse Council, 
           American Meat Institute, American Rabbit Breeders 
           Association, Inc., American Sheep Industry, American 
           Society of Animal Science, American Society of 
           Laboratory Animal Practitioners, American Veal 
           Association, Animal Agriculture Alliance's, Animal 
           Health Institute, Animal Welfare Institute, Arizona 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Arkansas Veterinary 
           Medical Association.
         Association for Women Veterinarians Foundation, 
           Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, 
           Association of Avian Veterinarians, Association of Zoos 
           & Aquariums, Bayer Animal Health, Boehringer Ingelheim 
           Vetmedica, Inc., California Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Center for Rural Affairs, Colorado 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Connecticut Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Delaware Veterinary Medical 
           Association, District of Columbia Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Elanco Animal Health (A Division of Eli 
           Lilly & Company), Federation for Animal Science 
           Societies, Florida Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Georgia Veterinary Medical Association, Hawaii 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Idaho Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Illinois State Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Indiana Veterinary Medical Association, 
           International Lama Registry.
         Iowa Veterinary Medical Association, Kansas City Animal 
           Health Corridor, Kansas Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, Livestock 
           Marketing Association, Louisiana Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Maine Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Maryland Veterinary Medical Association, Inc., 
           Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, Michigan 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Minnesota Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Mississippi Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Montana Veterinary Medical Association, National 
           Aquaculture Association, National Association of 
           Federal Veterinarians, National Association of State 
           Public Health Veterinarians, National Cattlemen's Beef 
           Association, National Chicken Council, National Council 
           of Farmer Cooperatives.
         National Dairy Herd Information Association, National 
           Farmers Union, National Livestock Producers 
           Association, National Milk Producers Federation, 
           National Pork Producers Council, National Renderers 
           Association, National Turkey Federation, Nebraska 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Nevada Veterinary 
           Medical Association, New Hampshire Veterinary Medical 
           Association, New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association, 
           North American Deer Farmers Association, North Carolina 
           Veterinary Medical Association, North Dakota Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Northeast States Association for 
           Agriculture Stewardship, Ohio Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Oregon Veterinary Medical Association, Pet Food 
           Institute, Puerto Rico Veterinary Medical Association 
           (Colegio de Medicos Veterinarios de Puerto Rico).
         Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association, Rhode Island 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Rocky Mountain Farmers 
           Union, Society for Theriogenology, South Carolina 
           Association of Veterinarians, South Dakota Stockgrowers 
           Association, South Dakota Veterinary Medical 
           Association, State Agriculture and Rural Leaders, 
           Student American Veterinary Medical Association, 
           Synbiotics Corporation, Tennessee Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Texas Veterinary Medical Association, Utah 
           Veterinary Medical Association, United Egg Producers, 
           United States Animal Health Association, Vermont 
           Veterinary Medical Association, Virginia Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Washington State Veterinary 
           Medical Association, Wisconsin Veterinary Medical 
           Association, Wyoming Veterinary Medical Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 3622. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to finalize a proposed rule to amend the spill 
prevention, control, and countermeasure rule to tailor and streamline 
the requirements for the dairy industry, and for other purposes;

[[Page S6081]]

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. Pesident, I rise today to offer what I consider to 
be an enormously commonsense piece of legislation that is going to help 
our Nation's dairy farmers. No one can make up this stuff. If you can 
believe it, this legislation pertains to the EPA's regulation for 
oilspills. I said that right. What do oilspills have to do with dairy 
farmers, you might ask? Having grown up on a dairy farm myself, I 
didn't think they had much in common at all. But EPA apparently thinks 
differently on this issue than I do.
  The EPA currently enforces what are known as spill prevention control 
and countermeasure regulations, often referred to as SPCC regulations. 
The purpose of these regulations is to prevent any oil from discharging 
into U.S. waterways. It seems to make sense so far. Under SPCC 
regulations, facilities that store or use oil or fuel must put in place 
a prevention plan so oil does not spill--that makes sense so far--or, 
if oil does spill, it is contained safely onsite.
  I get all of that. These regulations have been in place since the 
passage of the Clean Water Act, dating back to the 1970s. We do not 
want oil spilling in our waterways. The regulations are meant to avoid 
such spills. I think everybody is probably with me so far.
  But there is one problem. Currently, EPA's definition of oil, under 
SPCC regulation, includes, of all things--milk. If that doesn't make 
you want to scratch your head, if that does not occur to you as 
strange--I have to tell you that is in fact what is going on here.
  Under the EPA regulations, milk containers could be subject to the 
same regulations as oil. Milk, which is made up of 80 percent water, 
which is an excellent source of calcium and protein--milk could be 
regulated in the same way as oil. That does not make any sense. I am no 
scientist but I don't think it takes a Ph.D. to see the difference 
between milk and oil. I have been drinking milk my entire life. As I 
said, I grew up on a dairy farm.
  People drink milk because it is good for them. So these regulations 
are perplexing just standing on their own. But when we get a little 
deeper it is even more confusing that EPA is getting involved in the 
regulation of milk at all.
  The Food and Drug Administration already regulates milk storage under 
what is called the pasteurized milk ordinance. Requiring milk storage 
facilities to also develop a SPCC plan would, of course, be costly, 
duplicative, and unnecessary.
  Luckily, there is still some time remaining for us to address this 
issue. In January of 2009, EPA proposed to exempt milk storage from 
SPCC regulations. Way to go, EPA. If the dairy industry gets this 
exemption, they will not have to develop a plan to prevent milk from 
spilling.
  Growing up on that dairy farm, I don't recall losing much sleep over 
a little spilled milk out of the bucket, so that is a step in the right 
direction. Unfortunately, and you will find this amazing, something 
that is so vested in common sense has taken over 1\1/2\ years after it 
was proposed. As I stand here today, the rule is not yet finalized. 
Every day we wait for an answer from EPA is a day closer to a deadline 
for compliance, which is November 10 of this year.
  So the deadline to develop a spill plan is approaching. But the dairy 
farmers still do not know whether they are going to need to comply. EPA 
has been claiming they will extend the deadline until they finalize the 
rule, but so far we have not seen any action.
  If they move at the same pace to extend the deadline as they have 
taken to finalize the proposed rule, then you can see producers and 
farmers are in big trouble. It has been over a year now. The dairy 
industry deserves a simple, straightforward answer from the EPA. This 
should not be tough, especially in the face of deadlines that are now 
only a few months away.
  Today, to address this problem, I am introducing legislation to 
compel EPA to act. My bill requires the EPA to finalize the proposed 
rule exempting milk containers within 30 days. It also protects dairy 
producers and milk processers by preventing EPA from punishing them 
until EPA actually provides clarification about what they are doing.
  Even though these farmers and rural businesses are facing a deadline 
in a few months, they still do not know what, if anything, they will 
need to do to comply, and that is not fair. This commonsense 
legislation would simply help us get an answer from the EPA. It is very 
concerning that anyone would ever equate milk handling with oil. That 
should not be what is happening. Milk and oil should not be in the same 
category.
  You know what. That is just good, old-fashioned farm common sense. 
But it seems EPA officials are once again out of touch with mainstream 
America. I encourage those officials to leave the Beltway. There are 
highways that take you out of Washington. I invite them to visit a 
Nebraska dairy farm with me. It will not take long for them to see the 
foolishness of this regulatory effort.
  Importantly, I urge them to act. Our Nation's dairy farmers have 
waited long enough with a cloud of regulatory uncertainty hanging over 
their heads. But until then, my hope is my colleagues will join me in 
this commonsense approach and deal with this problem.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Coburn, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 3624. A bill to encourage continued investment and innovation in 
communications networks by establishing a new, competition analysis-
based regulatory framework for the Federal Communications Commission; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Freedom for 
Consumer Choice Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, 
FCC, to prove that consumers are being harmed by the lack of choice 
before it imposes new regulations.
  Specifically, the proposed bill would require the FCC to weigh the 
potential cost of action against any benefits based on a showing of 
clear and convincing evidence that marketplace competition is not 
sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare, and an act or 
practice is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. I believe 
this framework, along with a 5-year sunset on any regulation, would 
foster a vibrant market for Internet services and content. This 
legislation is necessary to combat the FCC's latest assault on the 
Internet.
  In April, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 
that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority by regulating the 
Internet with so-called ``net neutrality'' rules. Yet, it seems the FCC 
just will not take no for an answer. Just over a month after the 
appeals court ruled it had overstepped its bounds, the FCC sought to 
re-categorize broadband services in an effort to more actively regulate 
the Internet and to establish a set of net neutrality principles. This 
regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars 
in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have 
resulted from an Internet governed by competition.
  The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this 
path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly 
net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently 
reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked 
the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough. 
The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can 
prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike.
  Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the 
opposite. Bandwidth is finite, like the finite number of lanes on a 
highway, and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate 
the burgeoning traffic. If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we 
will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: 
business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions 
prejudiced by corporations. The Internet is about the most competitive, 
efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy. There is 
a time and

[[Page S6082]]

place for federal economic regulation, but during a recession is not 
the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place.
  Let me conclude my remarks by pointing out that the Freedom for 
Consumer Choice Act is intended as a starting point for this debate. No 
doubt further refinements will be made to this bill during the 
legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward 
and hope that my colleagues can join efforts to refine and enact this 
important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 3625. A bill to enhance public safety by making more spectrum 
available to public safety agencies, to facilitate the development of a 
public safety broadband network, to provide for the spectrum needs of 
public safety agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator 
McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a 
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications 
network for our nation's first responders that is secure, robust and 
resilient.
  As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has 
more capability than those of the brave men and women who put their 
lives on the line for us each and every day and that's just wrong.
  Today we introduce the First Responders Protection Act of 2010, which 
will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety 
entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate 
effectively in an emergency.
  I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 
organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 
7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on 
Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups 
include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs 
Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County 
Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, 
APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National 
Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, 
the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, 
the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the 
International City/County Management Association.
  Today public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that 
prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, 
and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for 
granted in today's commercial communications.
  Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a 
nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that 
could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9/11 
and Hurricane Katrina.
  But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to 
send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile 
devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they 
will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and 
know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it.
  I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission 
has proposed, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then 
to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a 
crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications 
that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.
  The First Responders Protection Act of 2010 will ensure that the D 
Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that 
currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill 
would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist 
with the costs of constructing networks and up to $5.5 billion for an 
operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance of networks. 
These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of a 
different band of spectrum to commercial carriers.
  Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a 
major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. I urge 
my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by 
promptly passing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman 
Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010. 
This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band 
to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the 
construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable 
communications network, and ensure proper governance.
  In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the 
``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety 
entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a 
bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted 
down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005--a month before 
Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. 
Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the 
television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. 
However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.
  Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been 
implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I 
can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this 
spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would 
be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion 
chief at the base of the World Trade Center? Recently, in Arizona, we 
had a horrible murder committed in a rural area along the border. 
Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever has stated that the lack of 
interoperable communications between the sheriffs' department and other 
law enforcement officers hindered the immediate investigation into 
tracking the suspect.
  In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public 
safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a 
network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder 
met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for 
public safety's needs. The FCC has announced its intention auction this 
spectrum to a commercial provider.
  Once this spectrum is auctioned, it will be impossible to ever get it 
back. That is why Congress must act now and provide the remaining 
spectrum directly to public safety. This legislation would do just 
that.
  Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum 
to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously 
approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents 38 national 
public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to 
local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network 
build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving 
lives know what communications systems and technology are best for 
them. Not Washington.
  Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the 
construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable 
communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a 
commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our nation's 
burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.
  As we approach the 9 year commemoration of the horrific events on 
September 11 and the 5-year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of 
Hurricane Katrina, it is disgraceful that police officers, sheriffs and 
fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable 
communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and 
funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and 
ensuring local control and conscientious governance.
  This legislation is supported by the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the 
National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the 
Major County Sheriffs

[[Page S6083]]

Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association 
of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the 
National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors 
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council 
of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the 
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the 
International City/County Management Association.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in providing public safety with the 
interoperable communications network they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 3626. A bill to encourage the implementation of thermal energy 
infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Thermal 
Renewable Energy and Efficiency, or TREEA, Act, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Bond. I want to thank him for working with me on this bill, 
which is inspired by models in both of our states. It is good policy 
for the environment, for creating jobs, and for increasing the 
efficiency of heating and cooling--a major yet often ignored part of 
our Nation's energy consumption.
  As we think about carbon emissions and energy use, most of the 
conversation focuses on moving away from fossil fuels in the electric 
power sector. But over 30 percent of our country's energy use goes 
toward thermal energy--heating or cooling our homes, public buildings, 
or industrial facilities. Thermal energy is enormously important for my 
state of Minnesota, whether we're talking about heating in the midst of 
a cold snowy winter or air conditioning on a blazing summer day, when 
additional plants have to kick in to meet the demand.
  Unfortunately, as we talk about changing the way we produce and use 
energy, thermal energy is usually ignored. We talk about producing 
significantly more of our electricity from renewables like solar, 
geothermal, or biomass. But what we forget is that we can much more 
efficiently produce thermal from these sources than we can from 
electricity. After all, when we are talking about energy efficiency, we 
are talking about how much of the energy produced from a given fuel is 
not lost as heat. Well, that heat has a value. That is heat that can 
heat the homes and buildings in Minnesota when it's 30 below zero.
  That is what District energy systems have done in Minnesota and 
around the country. They supply hot water or steam and chilled water to 
buildings through underground pipes for space heating, domestic hot 
water, air conditioning, and industrial processes. There are tremendous 
efficiencies in heating and cooling buildings this way. Each building 
doesn't have to have its own boiler, and instead of burning fuel to 
produce electricity to heat a building, you take the heat directly from 
the fuel and put it to productive use.
  When you use renewable fuel to produce thermal energy--whether it's 
biomass, geothermal, or solar-thermal--you cut down on greenhouse gas 
emissions at the same time. So capturing and efficiently using thermal 
energy is a win-win-win. It is a win for the environment through lower 
greenhouse gas emissions and much higher fuel efficiency. It is a win 
for consumers and businesses, who get low, stable heating prices. It is 
a win for the economy, because building and maintaining these systems 
creates jobs.
  Minnesota is a national leader in thermal energy--in St. Paul, we 
have the largest District Energy system in North America. Most of the 
buildings in downtown St. Paul are heated and cooled using energy that 
literally comes from residents' backyards--tree trimmings and other 
waste wood.
  What does this mean? It means less electricity usage for heating and 
cooling, which frees up strain on the grid during hot summer days and 
freezing winter nights. It means stable heating prices for consumers 
and businesses--thermal systems are flexible in their fuel and can 
switch to the lowest cost fuel at any time. And if these systems run on 
renewable fuels, it means less pollution contributing to global 
warming.
  But there are some barriers to overcome. Right now, the renewable 
energy production tax credit is only available for electricity 
generated from renewables. We need to recognize the usefulness of 
thermal energy as well, and hence extend the production credit to the 
generation of thermal energy from renewables. That is exactly what our 
bill does: it allows thermal-only or combined heat and power facilities 
to access the production tax credit for their thermal energy, if it's 
produced from renewables.
  We also need to make some tweaks to existing financing structures 
like tax exempt bonds. Currently, these can be used for financing 
district energy piping distribution systems, but not the plant 
facilities for producing the heating and cooling. Our bill would change 
this. Finally, we need to make sure that the grant programs authorized 
in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act are structured in a 
way that actually is helpful to thermal and combined heat and power 
facilities. Our bill raises the grant caps for those programs to more 
realistic levels that will allow large, more efficient projects to 
qualify.
  This legislation is ultimately about being smarter on how we use 
energy. It increases our energy efficiency, helps reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, and creates clean energy jobs. That is why it has the 
support of environmental groups, labor groups, the district energy and 
combined heat and power industry, and organizations promoting energy 
efficiency.
  I am very proud to be introducing this bill with my friend from 
Missouri, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to 
make these modest changes to improve our use of thermal energy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3626

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Thermal 
     Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act of 2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. Statement of policy.

 TITLE I--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN 
                           RENEWABLE SOURCES

Sec. 101. Extension of renewable electricity credit to thermal energy.

                    TITLE II--EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS

Sec. 201. Exempt facility bonds.

TITLE III--ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

Sec. 301. Definition of institutional entity.
Sec. 302. Availability of grants.
Sec. 303. Authorization of appropriations for grants.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) approximately 30 percent of the total quantity of 
     energy consumed in the United States is used to provide 
     thermal energy for heating and cooling building space, 
     domestic hot water, and industrial processes;
       (2) thermal energy is an essential, but often overlooked, 
     segment of the national energy mix;
       (3) district energy systems use 1 or more central plants to 
     provide thermal energy to multiple buildings that range in 
     size from campus applications to systems heating entire towns 
     or cities;
       (4) district energy systems provide sustainable thermal 
     energy infrastructure by producing and distributing thermal 
     energy from combined heat power, sources of industrial or 
     municipal surplus heat, and from renewable sources such as 
     biomass, geothermal, and solar energy;
       (5) as of 2009, the United States had approximately 2,500 
     operating district energy systems;
       (6) district energy systems provide advantages that support 
     secure, affordable, renewable, and sustainable energy for the 
     United States, including--
       (A) use of local fuels or waste heat sources that keep jobs 
     and energy dollars in local economies;
       (B) stable, predictable energy costs for businesses and 
     industry;
       (C) reduction in reliance on fossil fuels;
       (D) reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases; and
       (E) flexibility to modify fuel sources in response to 
     future changes in fuel availability and prices and 
     development of new technologies;
       (7) district energy helps cut peak power demand and reduce 
     power transmission and distribution system constraints by--

[[Page S6084]]

       (A) meeting air conditioning demand through delivery of 
     chilled water produced with heat from combined heat and power 
     or other energy sources; and
       (B) shifting power demand through thermal storage and, with 
     combined heat and power, generating power near load centers;
       (8) combined heat and power systems increase energy 
     efficiency of power plants by capturing thermal energy and 
     using the thermal energy to provide heating and cooling, more 
     than doubling the efficiency of conventional power plants;
       (9) according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if the 
     United States was able to increase combined heat and power 
     from approximately 9 percent of total electric generation 
     capacity to 20 percent by 2030, the increase would--
       (A) save as much energy as half of all household energy 
     consumption;
       (B) create approximately 1,000,000 new jobs;
       (C) avoid more than 800,000,000 metric tons of carbon 
     dioxide emissions annually, which is equivalent to taking 
     half of all United States passenger vehicles off the road; 
     and
       (D) save hundreds of millions of barrels of oil equivalent; 
     and
       (10) constraints to significant expansion of district 
     energy and combined heat and power include--
       (A) the lack of economic value in the energy marketplace 
     for the environmental, grid support, energy security, and 
     local economic development benefits of district energy 
     systems;
       (B) relatively high project development costs due to the 
     variety of institutional, legal, and technical issues that 
     must be addressed; and
       (C) the high costs of debt service, particularly in the 
     early years of systems development before a broad base of 
     customers has connected.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to encourage the implementation 
     of thermal energy infrastructure order to--
       (1) increase energy efficiency;
       (2) increase use of renewable energy resources;
       (3) revitalize the infrastructure of the cities and 
     institutions of the United States;
       (4) reduce local and regional air pollution;
       (5) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases;
       (6) reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants; and
       (7) enhance power grid reliability and overall energy 
     supply reliability and energy security.

     SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States that, in energy 
     policy development and program implementation, the following 
     factors should be considered:
       (1) Thermal energy represents a significant part of the 
     energy requirements of the United States, providing building 
     heating and cooling, domestic hot water, and industrial 
     process energy.
       (2) There are many opportunities for meeting thermal energy 
     requirements directly through renewable energy sources or 
     recycled energy (such as recovered waste heat), without 
     generation of electricity.
       (3) Policies and incentives for encouraging renewable 
     energy and energy efficiency should address thermal energy as 
     well as electricity.
       (4) District energy systems provide an important means of 
     delivering sustainable thermal energy to consumers, and 
     provide energy security benefits, by--
       (A) cutting peak power demand;
       (B) reducing power transmission and distribution system 
     constraints; and
       (C) providing flexibility to modify fuel sources in 
     response to future changes in fuel availabilities and prices 
     and development of new technologies.

 TITLE I--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN 
                           RENEWABLE SOURCES

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY CREDIT TO 
                   THERMAL ENERGY.

       (a) Credit to Include Production of Thermal Energy.--
     Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Credit for Production of Thermal Energy.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) produces thermal energy from a qualified energy 
     resource described in subparagraph (B), (C), (D), (G), (I), 
     or (J) of subsection (c)(1) at a qualified facility described 
     in paragraph (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (11), or (12) of 
     subsection (d), and
       ``(B) makes an election under this subsection with respect 
     to such facility,
     subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `each 3,412 
     Btus of thermal energy (or fraction thereof)' for `the 
     kilowatt hours of electricity' in paragraph (2) thereof.
       ``(2) Thermal energy.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `thermal energy' means heat (in the form of hot water or 
     steam) or cooling (in the form of chilled water or ice).
       ``(3) Additional qualifications.--
       ``(A) Combined heat and power facility.--In the case of a 
     facility producing both electricity and thermal energy, such 
     facility shall not be treated as a qualified facility unless 
     such facility--
       ``(i) meets the requirements of section 48(c)(3)(A) 
     (without regard to clause (iv) thereof), and
       ``(ii) was originally placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency 
     Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years after such 
     date.
       ``(B) Thermal facility.--In the case of a facility 
     producing only thermal energy, such facility shall not be 
     treated as a qualified facility unless such facility--
       ``(i) has an energy efficiency percentage (as determined 
     under section 48(c)(3)(C)) in excess of 60 percent, and
       ``(ii) was originally placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and Efficiency 
     Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years after such 
     date.
       ``(4) Denial of double benefit.--If an election under this 
     subsection is in effect with respect to any facility, no 
     credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to 
     the production of electricity at such facility.
       ``(5) Election.--
       ``(A) In general.--An election under this subsection shall 
     specify the facility to which the election applies and shall 
     be in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations 
     prescribe.
       ``(B) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this 
     subsection may not be revoked except with the consent of the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Naturally Occurring Cold Water Sources Treated as 
     Qualified Energy Resource.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (H),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) 
     and inserting ``, and'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(J) naturally occurring cold water sources which are used 
     to provide thermal energy for air conditioning.''.
       (c) Qualified Facilities.--Section 45(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Natural air conditioning system facility.--In the 
     case of a facility providing thermal energy for air 
     conditioning from naturally occurring cold water sources, the 
     term `qualified facility' means any facility owned by the 
     taxpayer which is originally placed in service after the date 
     of the enactment of the Thermal Renewable Energy and 
     Efficiency Act of 2010, and before the date which is 5 years 
     after such date.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 45(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting ``or thermal energy'' after 
     ``electricity''.
       (2) Section 45(c)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``or thermal energy'' after ``electricity''.
       (3) Section 45(d) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or 
     thermal energy'' after ``electricity'' each place it appears 
     in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), and (11).
       (4) Section 45(e) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or 
     thermal energy'' after ``electricity'' each place it appears 
     in paragraphs (1), (4), and (9).
       (5) The heading of section 45 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``and thermal energy'' after ``electricity''.
       (6) The item relating to section 45 in the table of 
     sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 
     1 of such Code is amended by inserting ``and thermal energy'' 
     after ``Electricity''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to energy produced and sold after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE II--EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS

     SEC. 201. EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.

       (a) Definition of Local District Heating and Cooling 
     Facilities.--Subparagraph (A) of section 142(g)(2) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``a 
     pipeline or network (which may be connected to a heating or 
     cooling source) providing hot water, chilled water, or 
     steam'' and inserting ``equipment for producing thermal 
     energy in the form of hot water, chilled water or steam, 
     distributing that thermal energy in pipelines and 
     transferring the thermal energy''.
       (b) Public Use Requirement.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing that a local district heating or 
     cooling facility will be treated in all events as serving a 
     general public use for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.

TITLE III--ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR INSTITUTIONS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONAL ENTITY.

       Section 399A(a)(5) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(a)(5)) is amended by inserting a 
     ``not-for-profit district energy system,'' after 
     ``utility,''.

     SEC. 302. AVAILABILITY OF GRANTS.

       Section 399A(f) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``$50,000'' and 
     inserting ``$90,000'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``$90,000'' and 
     inserting ``$150,000''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``$250,000'' and 
     inserting ``$600,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``60 percent'' and 
     inserting ``30 percent''.

[[Page S6085]]

     SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS.

       Section 399A(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-1(i)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``$250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013'' 
     and inserting ``$500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 
     through 2015''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COBURN:
  S. 3627. A bill to ensure that United States global HIV/AIDS 
assistance prioritizes saving lives by focusing on access to treatment; 
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the introduction 
of S. 3627, The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act of 2010. This important 
piece of legislation will make crucial improvements to our approach to 
bilateral global AIDS efforts. As a practicing physician and former co-
chair of President Bush's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, I have 
introduced this bill to ensure that our global AIDS continue to 
prioritize life-saving medical treatment and reduce the transmission of 
the disease from mother to child.
  The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--known as PEPFAR--has 
been wildly successful and has begun to reverse the course of the AIDS 
epidemic worldwide. Two and half million HIV/AIDS patients from 30 
different countries currently have access to lifesaving treatment 
because of PEPFAR. A 2009 report found that from 2004-2007 as many as 
1.2 million lives had been saved because of the program.
  In 2008, Congress and the President in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
fashion passed the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization 
Act of 2008 to continue the important life-saving work of the PEPFAR 
program.
  It is of grave concern, then, that our fight against AIDS is now at 
risk of failure. A recent New York Times article, ``At Front Lines, 
AIDS War Is Falling Apart,'' details how hundreds of thousands of 
patients are being denied promised care in countries such as Uganda--a 
country once held up as PEPFAR's success story. Government officials 
have confirmed the rationing of treatment slots and have advised their 
partners to support ``an equitable system of triage for total ART 
[antiretroviral drug treatment]
slots. . . .''
  Former UNAIDS chief Dr. Piot remarked about past success and doubts 
about the future: ``Then, we were at a tipping point in the right 
direction,'' he explained. ``Now I'm afraid we're at a tipping point in 
the wrong direction.''
  We must not lose sight of the fact that HIV/AIDS is a disease that we 
can diagnose, treat, and prevent. Not only does treatment save lives--
it is the best prevention tool we have. Treatment lowers viral loads, 
which reduces the likelihood of individuals spreading the disease by as 
much as 92 percent. Treatment reduces transmission among partners, 
eliminates baby AIDS, and keeps those with HIV in the medical system 
where they can receive proper counseling and care. And the availability 
of treatment is integral to promoting HIV/AIDS testing and early 
diagnosis.
  With the U.S. spending more than $6.7 billion on global AIDS efforts, 
we are not losing the war on AIDS due to lack of commitment or 
resources. Instead, we are losing because of misplaced priorities.
  We can eliminate the tragedies of baby AIDS and AIDS orphans and 
prevent the spread of HIV by focusing on saving lives by expanding 
access to treatment.
  It costs less than $300 a year to keep someone with HIV healthy and 
alive, about the same price to cover the airfare to send each of the 
25,000 participants to the ongoing AIDS conference in Vienna. If saving 
lives is truly our priority, we must ask every time we spend a dollar 
intended for AIDS relief if that dollar would be better spent paying 
for lifesaving treatment that would keep a mother alive, a family 
together, or a baby born free of the virus.
  If you ask Africans what PEPFAR is, they will tell you it is about 
AIDS treatment. It is the treatment component of PEPFAR that has made 
it the most successful U.S. humanitarian effort in history because it 
has literally saved the lives of millions, preserved families and 
communities, and rescued countless babies from being born with an AIDS 
death sentence.
  The PEPFAR program's long-term success relies on the promise of life-
saving medical treatment to those in need. Unfortunately, according to 
a recent report the recent moratorium on new enrollees in the program 
has already caused an estimated 3,000 deaths.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act strengthens the current policy that 
requires a majority of all funding under PEPFAR be spent on life-saving 
HIV/AIDS treatment. Specifically, this legislation would increase the 
treatment allocation to 75 percent of all PEPFAR funding. It also sets 
the modest goal that by 2013 we treat 5 million people with HIV/AIDS.
  Many claim that we cannot treat our way out of this epidemic, but 
they ignore the simple truth that treatment is prevention. Analysts 
from the World Health Organization published research arguing we can 
drastically reduce the transmission of AIDS and virtually halt the 
widening epidemic in Africa within a decade through aggressive routine 
testing and early treatment.
  Other prevention efforts remain an important component of the 
program. Without the reliable promise of access to treatment, however, 
the PEPFAR program will not enjoy long-term success. This legislation 
ensures that the PEPFAR program fulfills its promises, saves the most 
lives possible, and reduces transmission of the disease.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act also allocates a small percentage 
of funding for the critical diagnostic screening that must be ramped up 
dramatically if we are to locate and treat every infected person in the 
countries where PEPFAR operates. Finally, the bill acknowledges that 
every baby infected with HIV by her mother during birth or 
breastfeeding is a largely preventable tragedy. The bill would target 
baby AIDS for complete elimination with 100 percent coverage with the 
medical protocols that prevent almost all instances of mother-to-child 
HIV transmission.
  The Save Lives First Act requires recipients of funding to spend no 
more than $500 in annual PEPFAR funding per patient they treat. As 
recently as 2008, documents provided by the administration show that 
the PEPFAR program spent $1,100 in annual treatment costs per patient. 
This is unacceptable--inefficiencies come at the cost of human lives by 
limiting the number of patients PEPFAR can treat.
  The most commonly prescribed drug regimen costs just $64 per year and 
many organizations are providing care to patients for no more than $250 
per year. For example, Doctors Without Borders has had remarkable 
success in achieving treatment efficiencies and now reports that its 
per-patient treatment costs in Malawi were only $237 per year.
  While costs may vary from country to country--and patient to 
patient--it is both reasonable and important that every funding 
recipient under PEPFAR limit their aggregate per patient expenditures 
to $500 per patient. The costs of drug regimens continue to fall 
dramatically, and PEPFAR must take advantage by providing treatment to 
more individuals.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act would require that any funding 
recipient under PEPFAR be limited to a treatment allocation of $500 per 
patient treated. This act would also set the modest goal that PEPFAR 
would treat 5 million patients by 2013. If the program's per patient 
expenditures were down to $500 per patient, the program should actually 
treat 6 million patients by 2013, and if everyone were as cost-
effective as Doctors Without Borders, we could be treating 10 million 
patients.
  In the rare instance of a country in which per patient expenditures 
remain above $500 per patient, it is more than reasonable to assume 
that these more developed countries have the resources--along with 
other global partners--to ensure that the per patient treatment 
expenditures ensure access to the highest-quality treatment for each 
patient.
  Everyone can agree that dollars provided to HIV/AIDS treatment should 
go directly to patient care--not bloated administrative budgets. A 
common way of protecting this important principle is to limit the 
administrative budget for PEPFAR funding recipients.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act limits administrative overhead to 
10 percent of total expenditures for every

[[Page S6086]]

funding recipient under the program. The bill also limits the State 
Department's administrative budget for PEPFAR to 10 percent of total 
funding.
  Again, treatment is prevention. But this strategy relies on 
identifying HIV positive individuals who are unaware of their status 
and linking them to treatment and counseling. The first step to any 
prevention strategy is an aggressive testing strategy. Unfortunately, 
only about 40 percent of people with HIV in developing countries are 
aware of their status.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act sets aside 5 percent of PEPFAR 
funding to dramatically ramp up rapid HIV diagnosis to identify people 
who do not yet know their HIV status in order to get people into 
treatment and early reduce their transmission rates through treatment 
and education.
  This bill also sets a target of conducting 1 billion rapid tests by 
2013 and sets aside 25 percent of testing money to help countries 
implement a policy of universal, opt-out rapid HIV testing.
  Rapid testing and access to treatment are particularly important to 
end baby AIDS, babies being born infected with HIV or becoming infected 
during their first year through breastfeeding, once and for all.
  An estimated 430,000 children were born in 2008 newly infected with 
HIV, mainly through mother to child transmission. About 90 percent of 
these infections occurred in Africa. Only 28 percent of pregnant women 
in Sub-Saharan Africa received an HIV test in 2008. Moreover, the World 
Health Organization reports that access to AIDS drugs is severely 
limited in developing countries, with fewer than 10 percent of pregnant 
women with HIV in those countries having access to medication for their 
own health.
  Of course, dramatic gains are seen when universal testing of pregnant 
women and newborns is provided along with appropriate prophylaxis of 
infections that are that are identified through testing. In the United 
States, new cases of baby AIDS have been virtually eliminated. Studies 
have found that 99 percent of babies were born uninfected if an 
infected mother was diagnosed and proper treatment was administered.
  Botswana, a country that used to have HIV infection rates as high as 
50 percent of child-bearing-aged women, instituted these interventions. 
Ninety-two percent of pregnant women in the country are now being 
tested and the drop in HIV-positive mothers delivering infected babies 
dropped from 35 percent to 4 percent from 2004-2007, with 13,000 HIV-
infected moms being identified annually.
  Prevention of mother-to-child-transmission, PMTCT, is cheap per life 
saved: as of 2008, estimated costs of PMTCT drugs to prevent the spread 
of HIV for (1) mother/child pair was US$167--generics--and US$318--
branded--and the price of drugs and treatment have only declined since.
  The HIV/AIDS Save Lives First Act sets a target of eliminating baby 
AIDS in all PEPFAR countries by 2013, and sets out expectations for how 
to work towards that target by screening 100 percent of pregnant women 
and newborns in PEPFAR countries and providing prophylactic or ARV 
treatment for all HIV-positive moms or babies.
  By emphasizing providing lifesaving treatment under the PEPFAR 
program, we can continue the enormous success we have had in saving 
lives and preventing the spread of this terrible disease. It is my 
sincere hope that my colleagues adopt these common sense policy changes 
that will significantly reduce human suffering, keep families together, 
and save millions of lives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to a balanced budget; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my growing alarm 
about the excessive amount of government spending that is adding to our 
national debt at an exponential rate. We simply cannot continue to add 
these annual trillion dollar-plus deficits to the amount to be repaid 
by those in generations to come. Today, I am introducing a measure that 
would ensure that the futures of our children and grandchildren will 
not be crippled by the reckless spending of those who control Congress 
and the White House today. After long study of this disturbing trend, I 
have concluded that the best way to get a handle on this deficit 
spending is by amending the Constitution by requiring each Congress to 
put forth a balanced budget.
  Amending the Constitution is no small task, nor is it a trifling 
matter. Though hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to the 
Constitution have been proposed, this founding document has been 
amended only 27 times in our nation's history. Amending it now to deal 
with overspending may appear to be a monumental undertaking. However, 
Utahns and other Americans across the nation have spoken loud and 
clear--no more excessive government spending that will add to the debt 
to be borne by the next generation.
  The liberals in Congress have had their turn over the past couple of 
years to try to revitalize our economy, and we still remain with 
trillion dollar-plus deficits coupled with a stagnant unemployment rate 
of nearly 10 percent.
  The economy did not turn sour yesterday. It went south nearly two 
years ago, and the major accomplishments of the current Administration 
and its congressional allies is to enact an ineffective $1.1 trillion 
stimulus bill, an exacerbation of our entitlement crisis through the 
trillion dollar-plus health care bill, and an invasive and job-killing 
financial regulatory bill. All of these further harmed our nation's 
fiscal health.
  The measure I am proposing is straightforward. It would simply 
require Congress to submit a budget where the total outlays could not 
exceed total revenues. It would require Treasury to use any surplus to 
pay down the Nation's debt. Any tax increase would have to be approved 
by two-thirds of the Members of Congress.
  I realize that requiring a balanced budget will not necessarily end 
the outrageous government spending that has occurred over recent years, 
but it will at least provide Congress with a stronger incentive for 
fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets are about more than sound 
fiscal policy; they are a moral responsibility that government often 
fails to meet. Individuals and families who live wildly beyond their 
means face dire consequences. Government should have to live by the 
same standards, especially since this money belongs to the people. The 
Constitution is the most important tool by which the people place 
limits on government and it appears that the Constitution is what it 
will take for the government to live within its means.
  The outstanding public debt is now over $13 trillion. That equates 
roughly to $42,000 for each American. This year we are estimated to add 
another $1.3 trillion, which is about what we added last year. This is 
more than $41,000 added to the debt every second. Most of this spending 
is going towards increasing the size of the Federal Government, 
creating and expanding government programs, and providing more 
entitlements.
  Economists agree that our Nation must get our outrageous deficit 
under control. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently 
released its Long-Term Budget Outlook. In this report, the CBO projects 
that the national debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this 
year, the highest since the end of World War II. To put this in 
perspective, at the end of 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP and the 
historic average has been around 36 percent.
  The CBO also projects that deficits will average about $600 billion 
annually from 2011 through 2020 and the national debt to grow by 67 
percent by 2020. Congress needs to act now.
  If anyone is still questioning whether this enormous debt poses a 
threat to our economy, the warning signs are clear. The World Bank 
cautioned that we could have a double dip recession if the financial 
markets lose confidence in our ability to repay our debt. Federal 
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Budget 
Committee and said ``unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to 
fiscal responsibility, in the long run, we will have neither financial 
stability nor healthy economic growth.''
  On Monday, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden scolding 
Republicans for what he believed was an effort to prevent the 
unemployed from receiving benefits. What he has failed

[[Page S6087]]

to acknowledge is that both sides--Democrats and Republicans alike--
agree on extending the additional unemployment insurance. What fiscal 
conservatives object to adding another $30 billion plus to the deficit. 
The President said ``It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this 
recession hostage to Washington politics.'' This same logic and 
rhetoric can be applied to our children and grandchildren who will be 
held hostage by, and have to pay for, the irresponsible government 
spending this Congress passes today.
  It is time for solutions and not just rhetoric. I believe that we can 
achieve a balanced budget while promoting economic growth. We have the 
strongest economy in the world, for now. Let us not have our 
indebtedness create misery for us and generations to come.

                          ____________________