[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22040-22057]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2944. A bill to provide that no funds may be expended by the 
United States Trade Representative to negotiate data exclusivity 
provisions for certain pharmaceutical products; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
regarding the way the trade policies of the United States affect the 
ability of developing countries to access to generic drugs.
  The bill addresses concerns that this Administration, through the 
United States Trade Representative, is pursuing policies that will make 
it even more difficult for developing countries to gain access to the 
drugs they need, particularly generics, to treat their public health 
problems like TB, HIV/AIDS and malaria. This is just wrong.
  The policies the Administration seeks to put in place are data 
exclusivity provisions. Such provisions tend to benefit drug 
manufacturers. As reported in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, 
when these provisions are included trade agreements they essentially 
bar countries from being able to get more affordable generic drugs for 
a period of time, usually five years.
  Trade agreements should be about promoting trade. People in 
developing nations who are suffering from such epidemic diseases should 
not be denied access to affordable medicines because of trade 
agreements.
  The purpose of what is known as the Doha Declaration was to clarify 
that trade rules on intellectual property would not interfere with the 
ability of developing countries to take measures to protect public 
health. The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit USTR from 
spending any funds in order to impose data exclusivity for drugs used 
to treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or other epidemics, or needed in 
circumstances of extreme urgency, or national emergency.
  I am not one to trample on the need to protect trade secrets, but I 
cannot condone policies that inhibit developing countries from being 
able to address their own public health needs. In today's world, it is 
shortsighted to think that infectious diseases cannot cross borders. By 
allowing developing countries access to generic drugs, we not only help 
improve health in those nations, we also help ourselves control these 
debilitating and often deadly diseases.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2944

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds appropriated or otherwise obligated to the United 
     States Trade Representative may not be expended to negotiate 
     data exclusivity provisions with any country with respect to 
     public health pharmaceutical products or to require actions 
     of another country which interfere with a country's access to 
     public health pharmaceutical products.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Data exclusivity provision.--The term ``data 
     exclusivity provision'' means a provision that restricts for 
     a set period of time a country from approving for sale 
     generic public health pharmaceutical products based on 
     original clinical data of public health pharmaceutical 
     products previously approved for sale.
       (2) Public health pharmaceutical products.--The term 
     ``public health pharmaceutical products'' means any patented 
     pharmaceutical product, or pharmaceutical product 
     manufactured through a patented process, needed to treat HIV/
     AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, or other epidemics, or needed in 
     circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency in 
     accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30 
     August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the 
     DOHA Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and 
     the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the 
     Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82) (collectively known as the 
     ``TRIPS/health solution'').
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2945. A bill to permanently eliminate a procedure under which the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives can waive 
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by convicted felons, drug 
offenders, and other disqualified individuals; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator 
Lautenberg, to introduce legislation to help ensure that convicted 
felons are not permitted to legally possess dangerous weapons. The bill 
would eliminate a discredited program under which convicted felons can 
apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, ATF, to seek a 
waiver that allows them to possess firearms or explosives.
  Under Federal law, those convicted of felonies generally are 
prohibited from possessing firearms. However, ATF is authorized to 
grant a waiver from this prohibition if it believes that an individual 
is not likely to act in a manner that threatens public safety.
  Interestingly, this waiver authority was enacted not to permit common 
criminals to obtain guns, but to assist a company called Winchester, 
which manufactures firearms. Winchester's parent company, Olin 
Mathieson Chemical Corporation, had been convicted of a felony 
involving a kickback scheme. As a result, Winchester was legally 
prohibited from shipping firearms in interstate commerce. The provision 
was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business.
  Because the provision was drafted broadly, however, the waiver 
provision applied to common criminals. Originally, waivers could not be 
granted to those convicted of firearms offenses. But in 1986, Congress 
expanded the law to allow even persons convicted of firearms offenses, 
and those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for 
a waiver.
  Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed more than 13,000 applications. 
These applications required some of ATF's best agents to abandon their 
law enforcement responsibilities and instead conduct extensive 
investigations on behalf of convicted felons. In the late 1980's, the 
cost of handling these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each 
waiver granted--costs borne by ordinary taxpayers.
  The Violence Policy Center investigated 100 cases in which a 
convicted felon had been allowed to legally possess firearms. In 41 
percent of those cases, the felon had been convicted of a crime of 
violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence 
included several homicides, sexual assaults and armed robberies.
  Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. In many cases, 
those who regained their gun privileges later used their guns to commit 
serious crimes, such as attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, and child 
molestation.
  This program makes no sense. It is not fair to taxpayers, who must 
foot the bill for ATF investigations. It is not fair to ATF agents, who 
have much more important things to do. And, most importantly, it is not 
fair to the public, whose safety is put at risk when convicted felons 
are allowed to carry guns.
  Fortunately, there has long been bipartisan support for blocking the 
program. Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of appropriated 
funds to implement it, and President Bush's budget proposes that the 
prohibition be retained. Yet funding bans in appropriations bills are 
stopgap measures that are effective for only a single fiscal year. It 
is time to eliminate the waiver program permanently.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation and ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2945

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

[[Page 22041]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No Guns for Felons Act''.

     SEC. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM CERTAIN FIREARMS 
                   PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 925(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``(other than a 
     natural person)'' before ``who is prohibited'';
       (2) in the fourth sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``person (other than a natural person) who 
     is a'' before ``licensed importer''; and
       (B) by striking ``his'' and inserting ``the person's''; and
       (3) in the fifth sentence, by inserting ``(1) the name of 
     the person, (2) the disability with respect to which the 
     relief is granted, (3) if the disability was imposed by 
     reason of a criminal conviction of the person, the crime for 
     which and the court in which the person was convicted, and 
     (4)'' before ``the reasons therefor''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to--
       (1) applications for administrative relief and actions for 
     judicial review that are pending on the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (2) applications for administrative relief filed, and 
     actions for judicial review brought, after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2947. A bill to provide additional protections for recipients of 
the earned income tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse 
Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit (EITC) benefits intended for 
working families are increasingly being reduced by the growing use of 
refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple digit interest 
rates. According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9 
billion intended to assist low-income families was received by 
commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax 
assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in 
2002. The interest rates and fees charged on refund anticipation loans 
(RALs) are not justified for the short length of time that these loans 
cover and the minimal risk they present. These loans carry little risk 
because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator (DI) is a 
service provided by the Internal Revenue Service that informs the 
lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or State taxes, child 
support, student loans, or other government obligations, which assists 
the tax preparer in ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain 
their full refund so that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the 
Treasury should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow 
tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working 
families.
  Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory 
lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 
25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured 
financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial 
service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send 
remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the 
unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to 
have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these 
high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the 
unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, 
a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education 
expenses.
  My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the 
involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the 
exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for 
saving and lending at mainstream financial services.
  My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC 
benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar 
restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended 
benefit.
  My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL 
providers. My legislation will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds 
to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, 
mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize federal tax refunds 
would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take 
future legal action if necessary in the future.
  I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a 
prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund 
anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of 
massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was 
discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was 
reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening 
for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially 
reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were 
expected go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has 
not occurred. The Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI 
is helping tax preparers make excessive profits of low- and moderate-
income taxpayers who utilize the service. If the Debt Indicator is 
removed, then the loans become riskier and the tax preparers may not 
aggressively market them among EITC filers. The IRS should not be 
aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income 
families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low-
income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, my 
bill removes the incentive to meet Congressionally mandated electronic 
filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill 
would prevent any electronically filed tax returns that resulted in tax 
refunds that were distributed by refund anticipation loans from being 
counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and 
Reform Act of 1998 that the IRS have at least 80 percent of all returns 
filed electronically by 2007.
  My bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. 
Electronic Transfer Accounts (ETA) are low-cost accounts at banks and 
credit unions that are intended for recipients of certain Federal 
benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other 
federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the 
eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will 
allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account 
without the need for a RAL.
  Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income 
taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at 
federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. 
Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union 
account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs 
and provides immediate access to the opportunities found at banks and 
credit unions.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Durbin 
for cosponsoring the legislation. I also thank Representative Jan 
Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention 
Act be printed following my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that 
the text of a support letter from the Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform Now, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumers Union, and the National Consumer Law 
Center, be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2947

       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 ``Taxpayer Abuse Prevention 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF DIVERSION OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to earned income tax credit) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Prevention of Diversion of Credit Benefits.--The 
     right of any individual to any future payment of the credit 
     under this section shall not be transferable or assignable, 
     at law or in equity, and none of the

[[Page 22042]]

     moneys paid or payable or right shall be subject to any 
     execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, offset, or other 
     legal process except for any outstanding Federal obligation. 
     Any waiver of the protections of this subsection shall be 
     deemed null, void, and of no effect.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DEBT COLLECTION OFFSET.

       (a) In General.--No person shall, directly or indirectly, 
     individually or in conjunction or in cooperation with another 
     person, engage in the collection of an outstanding or 
     delinquent debt for any creditor or assignee by means of 
     soliciting the execution of, processing, receiving, or 
     accepting an application or agreement for a refund 
     anticipation loan or refund anticipation check that contains 
     a provision permitting the creditor to repay, by offset or 
     other means, an outstanding or delinquent debt for that 
     creditor from the proceeds of the debtor's Federal tax 
     refund.
       (b) Refund Anticipation Loan.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the term ``refund anticipation loan'' means a loan of 
     money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer because of 
     the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax refund.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION.

       (a) In General.--Any person that provides a loan to a 
     taxpayer that is linked to or in anticipation of a Federal 
     tax refund for the taxpayer may not include mandatory 
     arbitration of disputes as a condition for providing such a 
     loan.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to loans made 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF DEBT INDICATOR PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall terminate the Debt 
     Indicator program announced in Internal Revenue Service 
     Notice 99-58.

     SEC. 6. DETERMINATION OF ELECTRONIC FILING GOALS.

       (a) In General.--Any electronically filed Federal tax 
     returns, that result in Federal tax refunds that are 
     distributed by refund anticipation loans, shall not be taken 
     into account in determining if the goals required under 
     section 2001(a)(2) of the Restructuring and Reform Act of 
     1998 that the Internal Revenue Service have at least 80 
     percent of all such returns filed electronically by 2007 are 
     achieved.
       (b) Refund Anticipation Loan.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the term ``refund anticipation loan'' means a loan of 
     money or of any other thing of value to a taxpayer because of 
     the taxpayer's anticipated receipt of a Federal tax refund.

     SEC. 7. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER 
                   ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The last sentence of section 3332(j) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``other 
     than any payment under section 32 of such Code'' after 
     ``1986''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 8. PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE ADVANCE EARNED 
                   INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, after consultation with such private, nonprofit, and 
     governmental entities as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, develop and implement a program to encourage the 
     greater utilization of the advance earned income tax credit.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than the date of the implementation 
     of the program described in subsection (a), and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives on the elements of 
     such program and progress achieved under such program.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     the program described in this section. Any sums so 
     appropriated shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 9. PROGRAM TO LINK TAXPAYERS WITH DIRECT DEPOSIT 
                   ACCOUNTS AT FEDERALLY INSURED DEPOSITORY 
                   INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall enter into cooperative agreements with 
     federally insured depository institutions to provide low- and 
     moderate-income taxpayers with the option of establishing 
     low-cost direct deposit accounts through the use of 
     appropriate tax forms.
       (b) Federally Insured Depository Institution.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term ``federally insured depository 
     institution'' means any insured depository institution (as 
     defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813)) and any insured credit union (as defined in 
     section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1752)).
       (c) Operation of Program.--In providing for the operation 
     of the program described in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     the Treasury is authorized--
       (1) to consult with such private and nonprofit 
     organizations and Federal, State, and local agencies as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary, and
       (2) to promulgate such regulations as necessary to 
     administer such program.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     the program described in this section. Any sums so 
     appropriated shall remain available until expended.
                                  ____



                             National Consumer Law Center Inc,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2004.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: The Association of Community 
     Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Children's Defense 
     Fund, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and 
     National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
     clients), write to support your bill, the ``Taxpayer Abuse 
     Prevention Act.'' By prohibiting lenders from making loans 
     against the Earned Income Tax Credit, this bill would greatly 
     reduce the scope of abuses caused by refund anticipation 
     loans (RALs), which carry effective annualized interest rates 
     of about 70% to over 700%.
       As you know, over 55% of consumers who receive RALs are 
     beneficiaries of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 2002, EITC 
     recipients paid about $749 million in loan and 
     ``administrative'' fees for RALs. These fees divert hundreds 
     of millions of EITC dollars, paid out of the U.S. Treasury, 
     into the coffers of multimillion dollar commercial 
     preparation chains and big banks. It's time to stop lenders 
     from making high cost, abusive loans using the precious 
     dollars intended to support working poor families.
       Furthermore, we support the ``Taxpayer Abuse Prevention 
     Act'' for its provisions that halt several of the most 
     egregious practices of RAL lenders, such as seizing 
     taxpayers' tax refunds as a form of debt collection and 
     slipping in mandatory arbitration clauses, which leave RAL 
     consumers without their day in court. Moreover, we appreciate 
     the termination of the IRS Debt Indicator program, which 
     would stop the IRS's practice of sharing taxpayer's personal 
     financial information in order to make RALs more profitable 
     for lenders. Finally, we applaud the provisions of the bill 
     that support linking unbanked taxpayers with bank accounts, 
     such as the provision to permit them to open Electronic 
     Transaction Accounts to receive federal tax refunds.
       Thank you again for all your efforts to combat taxpayer 
     abuse by the RAL industry.
           Sincerely,
     Maude Hurd,
       National President, Association of Community Organizations 
     for Reform Now.
     Jean Ann Fox,
       Director of Consumer Protection, Consumer Federation of 
     America.
     Chi Chi Wu,
       Staff Attorney, National Consumer Law Center.
     Deborah Cutler-Ortiz,
       Director of Family Income, Children's Defense Fund.
     Shelley Curran,
       Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2950. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
prohibit payments to States under the medicaid program for redispensing 
prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
close a gaping loophole in the Medicaid law that allows pharmacies to 
double bill the Medicaid program for prescription drugs.
  As you may know, many States are now encouraging or requiring health 
care facilities to return unused prescription drugs for Medicaid 
patients to pharmacies for re-dispensing as a way to save money. These 
drugs go unused because a nursing home patient has died, the 
prescription was incorrect, or the patient no longer needs the drugs.
  Certainly, we should encourage states and pharmacies to re-dispense 
rather than simply discard these prescription drugs. However, while 
some States, including Connecticut, Missouri, and Texas, have laws that 
require pharmacies that re-stock drugs

[[Page 22043]]

for re-dispensing to credit the State Medicaid program, many, including 
New Jersey, do not. This has resulted in pharmacy companies double 
charging Medicaid--for the sale and resale--of the restocked drugs.
  We have an obligation to close this loophole. At a time in which all 
50 States are proposing cuts to their Medicaid programs because of 
skyrocketing costs and the burden of these costs on the Federal 
Government continues to grow, we must eliminate such wasteful spending.
  The absence of any Federal or State law or regulation prohibiting 
this practice has left our courts with no option but to allow this 
practice to continue. For example, a recent Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals decision found that a New Jersey pharmacy company, Omnicare, 
had indeed double charged the State's Medicaid program when it charged 
Medicaid twice for the sale and resale of restocked drugs. Because 
there was no State or Federal law prohibiting such double charges, 
however, the court could not assess penalties against the company. 
Writing for the court, Judge Jane Roth said, ``We are constrained by a 
lack of a regulation. We believe that Congress and/or the New Jersey 
legislature might serve Medicaid well if this lack of regulation were 
corrected.''
  My legislation will close this loophole by prohibiting federal 
reimbursement for any prescription drugs that have been re-stocked. 
Recognizing that pharmacies that restock prescription drugs incur costs 
in verifying the integrity of the drugs and placing them back into the 
pharmacy's inventory, my legislation allows states to provide 
reasonable reimbursements to pharmacies for these costs.
  In closing, I want to state that I am open to working with the 
Administration to close this loophole. I think that the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid have the authority to close this loophole and I 
hope that they will take immediate action to address this problem. This 
practice of double billing is nothing short of fraud. Congress and the 
Administration have a duty to safeguard the Medicaid program from such 
fraud, waste, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to join me in the effort 
to do just that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2950

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT FOR REDISPENSING 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (20), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) with respect to any amount expended for redispensing 
     a prescribed drug, other than in accordance with guidance of 
     the Secretary that--
       ``(A) specifies the circumstances under which redispensing 
     of a prescribed drug shall be permissible; and
       ``(B) allows for a reasonable restocking fee that takes 
     into account the costs of inspection and inventory processes 
     for redispensing.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on the first day of the first fiscal year quarter 
     that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2951. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the 
City of Richfield, Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land 
Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels 
totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing 
of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the 
city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion 
measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the 
desk in the Senate.
  There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe 
merit some clarification and may even require future technical 
amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor 
changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get 
those clarifications on record.
  I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with 
Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee 
and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of 
this Congress.
  The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe 
of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the 
city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the 
Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to 
purchase land that has economic development potential.
  The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this 
parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the 
Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to 
the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private 
nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel 
of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the 
passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land 
was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more 
than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for 
nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The 
tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's 
offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the 
request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. 
However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance.
  The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land 
parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and 
Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first 
parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the 
United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh 
Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either 
owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more 
than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band 
Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, 
would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land 
has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally 
intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 
under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through 
an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for 
the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has 
formally requested correction of this error.
  The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be 
transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. 
The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held 
in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the 
Shivwits Band Community Center.
  Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current 
official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name 
which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern 
Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, 
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to 
the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.''
  I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with 
regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city 
of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment 
directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the 
Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has 
a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 
17, 1984, be made part of the reservation.

[[Page 22044]]

This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the 
tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure 
that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made 
part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or 
proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify 
that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their 
official consent to such a conveyance.
  This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the 
dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its 
airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally 
important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use 
the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic 
development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the 
tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments 
and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, 
its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is 
why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer 
these four small Paiute trust land parcels.
  Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute 
Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over 
the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of 
their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the 
tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe 
Restoration Act, which I sponsored.
  I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 
108th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 2953. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
Coordinated Environmental Health Network, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to 
authorize the development of the Coordinated Environmental Health 
Network. I am pleased to have Senators Chafee and Reid as cosponsors.
  Environmental public health tracking of chronic diseases began in FY 
2002 when the CDC awarded $17 million to 17 states and 3 local health 
departments to develop the Program and establish 3 Centers of 
Excellence. These funds were for capacity building and demonstration 
projects over 3 years. Efforts included correlation of asthma in young 
adults to air pollution from traffic exhaust or indoor air quality in 
schools, correlation of adverse pregnancy outcomes and air pollution 
measurements, PCBs in water supplies, etc and biomonitoring for blood 
lead and hair mercury with exposure databases. In FY 2003, CDC awarded 
$18.5 million to continue this program and expand to three additional 
states as in Florida to link statewide surveillance systems for asthma, 
autism, mental retardation, cancers, and birth defects with EPA's Toxic 
Release Inventory, statewide air monitoring data, and data from the 
statewide well water surveillance program. 24 states now have efforts 
to track asthma. FY 2004 funding reached $27 million, and an additional 
$28 million pending in the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor-Health and Human 
Services-Education Appropriations bill.
  Our bill would build on these efforts, and would eventually cover all 
priority chronic conditions including birth defects, developmental 
disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, autism, and mental retardation), 
asthma and chronic respiratory diseases, neurological diseases, such as 
Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease, and 
autoimmune diseases such as Lupus. It would also eventually reach as 
many of the States as possible; already the EPA and DHHS (CDC) have 
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate exposure databases 
with the CDC's nationwide chronic disease tracking network and the 
State grantees.
  Our current public health surveillance systems were developed when 
the major threats to health were infectious agents. Currently, 50 
infectious diseases are tracked on a national basis. However, chronic 
diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease are now the 
nation's number one killers, and there is evidence that rates of some 
chronic diseases and conditions are rising. More than 1.3 million new 
cancer cases were diagnosed in 2003. One in 33 U.S. babies born has a 
birth defect, and about 17 percent of children under 18 years of age 
have a developmental disability. In 2001, an estimated 31.3 million 
Americans reported having been diagnosed with asthma during their 
lifetime, and 14 million adults reported physician-diagnosed chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic diseases cost Americans 
$750,000,000,000 in health care expenses and lost productivity and 
affect 100 million Americans. Yet our systems for tracking chronic 
diseases are woefully underdeveloped.
  All across our nation are communities where disease clusters such as 
birth defects, cancers and asthma raise questions about the role of 
environmental factors in chronic diseases. In order to improve the 
health of our nation and lower health care costs, we need to develop 
the infrastructure to study the relationship between environment and 
chronic disease.
  The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act would create the 
infrastructure necessary to collect, analyze, and report data on the 
rate of disease and the presence of relevant environmental factors and 
exposures. The Network would also coordinate national, State, and local 
efforts to bolster our public health system's capacity to investigate 
and respond aggressively to environmental exposures that threaten 
health. In addition, the Coordinated Environmental Health Network will 
alert health officials when there is a sudden increase in any disease 
or condition, including those associated with a biological or chemical 
attack.
  Once fully operational, the network will coordinate national, state, 
and local efforts to inform communities, public health officials, 
researchers, and policymakers of potential environmental health risks, 
and to integrate this information with other parts of the public health 
system.
  The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act is supported by the 
Trust for America's Health, American Public Health Association, 
Citizens for a Cleaner Environment, March of Dimes, American Lung 
Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The Breast Cancer 
Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and many others.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2953

       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 ``Coordinated Environmental 
     Health Network Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) approximately 7 out of every 10 deaths in the United 
     States are attributable to chronic diseases;
       (2) with 100,000,000 people suffering from chronic diseases 
     each year, and $750,000,000,000 lost in health care costs as 
     a result, the national cost of chronic disease is extremely 
     high and must be appropriately addressed;
       (3) the rates of many chronic diseases, including asthma, 
     some birth defects, cancers, and autism, appear to be 
     increasing;
       (4) there is a growing amount of evidence that 
     environmental factors are strongly linked with specific 
     chronic disease;
       (5) a major gap in critical knowledge exists regarding the 
     prevalence and incidence of chronic diseases;
       (6) States, local communities, territories, and Indian 
     tribes need assistance with public health efforts that would 
     lead to prevention of chronic disease, including the 
     establishment and maintenance of necessary infrastructure for 
     disease and environmental hazard exposure surveillance; and

[[Page 22045]]

       (7) a Coordinated Environmental Health Network will help 
     target resources to areas of chronic disease prevention most 
     in need.
       (b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) develop, operate, and maintain a Coordinated 
     Environmental Health Network, State Environmental Health 
     Networks, and rapid response capabilities so that the Federal 
     Government, States, local governments, territories, and 
     Indian tribes can more effectively monitor, investigate, 
     respond to, research, and prevent increases in the incidence 
     and prevalence of certain chronic diseases and relevant 
     environmental and other risk factors;
       (2) provide information collected through the Coordinated 
     and State Environmental Health Networks to government 
     agencies, public health practitioners and researchers, policy 
     makers, and the public;
       (3) expand and coordinate among existing surveillance and 
     data collection systems and other infrastructure for chronic 
     diseases and relevant environmental, and other risk factors, 
     including those relevant to bioterrorism;
       (4) improve coordination between the areas of public 
     health, environmental protection, and chemical, radiological 
     and biological terrorism; and
       (5) provide necessary support to ensure the availability of 
     a sufficient number of well-trained environmental health and 
     public health personnel to participate and provide leadership 
     in the development and maintenance of the Coordinated and 
     State Environmental Health Networks.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

         ``TITLE XXIX--COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

     ``SEC. 2900. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Administrators.--The term `Administrators' means the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     Coordinating Center for Environmental Health, Injury 
     Prevention, and Occupational Health, and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(2) Committee.--The term `Committee' means the Advisory 
     Committee established under section 2901(d).
       ``(3) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(4) Medical privacy regulations.--The term `medical 
     privacy regulations' means the regulations promulgated under 
     section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996.
       ``(5) Coordinated network.--The term `Coordinated Network' 
     means the Coordinated Environmental Health Network 
     established under section 2901(a).
       ``(6) Priority chronic condition.--The term `priority 
     chronic condition' means a condition to be tracked in the 
     Coordinated Network and the State Networks, including birth 
     defects, developmental disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, 
     autism, and mental retardation), asthma and chronic 
     respiratory diseases, neurological diseases (such as 
     Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, 
     and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), autoimmune diseases (such 
     as lupus), cancer, juvenile diabetes, and such other priority 
     chronic conditions as the Secretary may specify.
       ``(7) State network.--The term `State Network' means a 
     State Environmental Health Network established under section 
     2901(b).
       ``(8) State.--The term `State' means a State, territory, or 
     Indian tribe that is eligible to receive a health tracking 
     grant under section 2901(b).

     ``SEC. 2901. ESTABLISHMENT OF COORDINATED AND STATE 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORKS.

       ``(a) Coordinated Environmental Health Network.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 36 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director and in consultation with the 
     Administrators, State and local health departments, and the 
     Committee, shall establish and operate a Coordinated 
     Environmental Health Network. In establishing and operating 
     the Coordinated Network, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) identify, build upon, expand, and coordinate among 
     existing data and surveillance systems, surveys, registries, 
     and other Federal public health and environmental 
     infrastructure wherever possible, including--
       ``(i) the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System;
       ``(ii) State birth defects surveillance systems as 
     supported under section 317C;
       ``(iii) State cancer registries as supported under part M 
     of title III;
       ``(iv) State asthma surveillance systems as supported under 
     section 317I;
       ``(v) the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey;
       ``(vi) the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System;
       ``(vii) the Hazardous Substance Release/Health Effects 
     Database;
       ``(viii) the Hazardous Substances Emergency Events 
     Surveillance System;
       ``(ix) the National Exposure Registry;
       ``(x) the Health Alert Network; and
       ``(xi) the State vital statistics systems as supported 
     under section 306;
       ``(B) provide for public access to an electronic national 
     database that accepts data from the State Networks on the 
     incidence and prevalence of priority chronic conditions and 
     relevant environmental and other factors, in a manner which 
     protects personal privacy consistent with the medical privacy 
     regulations;
       ``(C) not later than 36 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this title, and annually thereafter, prepare and 
     publish, in accordance with paragraph (2), a Coordinated 
     Environmental Health Network Report to provide the public 
     with the findings of the Coordinated Network;
       ``(D) operate and maintain a National Environmental Health 
     Rapid Response Service within the Epidemic Intelligence 
     Service to carry out the activities described in paragraph 
     (3);
       ``(E) provide for the establishment of State Networks, and 
     coordinate the State Networks as provided for under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(F) provide technical assistance to support the State 
     Networks, including providing--
       ``(i) training for environmental health investigators 
     appointed or hired under subsection (b)(3)(D);
       ``(ii) technical assistance as needed to States to build 
     necessary capacity and infrastructure for the establishment 
     of a State Network, including a computerized data collection, 
     reporting, and processing system, and additional assistance 
     identified by the States under subsection (b)(5)(C) as 
     necessary for infrastructure development; and
       ``(iii) such other technical assistance as the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Administrators, determines to be 
     necessary;
       ``(G) not later than 12 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this title, acting through the Director and 
     consulting with the Administrators, the Surgeon General, the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health, and States, 
     develop minimum standards and procedures in accordance with 
     paragraph (4) for data collection and reporting for the State 
     Networks, to be updated not less than annually thereafter; 
     and
       ``(H) in developing the minimum standards and procedures 
     under subparagraph (G), include mechanisms for allowing the 
     States to set priorities, and allocate resources accordingly, 
     among the factors described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C) of paragraph (4).
       ``(2) Coordinated environmental health network report.--
     Each Coordinated Environmental Health Network Report prepared 
     under paragraph (1)(C) shall include--
       ``(A) a statement of the activities carried out under this 
     title;
       ``(B) an analysis of the incidence, prevalence, and trends 
     of priority chronic conditions and potentially relevant 
     environmental and other factors by State and census tract (or 
     other political or administrative subdivision determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency) for the 
     calendar year preceding the year for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(C) the identification of gaps in the data of the 
     Coordinated Network, including diseases of concern and 
     environmental exposures not tracked; and
       ``(D) recommendations regarding high risk populations, 
     public health concerns, response and prevention strategies, 
     and additional tracking needs;
       ``(3) National environmental health rapid response 
     service.--The National Environmental Health Rapid Response 
     Service operated under paragraph (1)(D) shall--
       ``(A) work with environmental health investigators 
     appointed or hired under subsection (b)(3)(D) to develop and 
     implement strategies, protocols, and guidelines for the 
     coordinated, rapid responses to actual and perceived higher 
     than expected incidence and prevalence rates of priority 
     chronic conditions and to acute and potential environmental 
     hazards and exposures;
       ``(B) conduct investigations into higher than expected 
     incidence and prevalence rates of priority chronic conditions 
     or environmental exposures after an individual requests, 
     through a process established by the Secretary, the 
     intervention of the Service;
       ``(C) coordinate activities carried out under this title 
     with activities carried out under sections 319 through 319G; 
     and
       ``(D) coordinate activities carried out under this title 
     with the Administrators, the Surgeon General, and the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health.
       ``(4) Data collection and reporting by state networks.--The 
     minimum standards and procedures referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(G) shall include--
       ``(A) a list and definitions of the priority chronic 
     conditions to be tracked through the State Networks;
       ``(B) a list and definitions of relevant environmental 
     exposures of concern to be tracked, to the extent 
     practicable, through the State Networks, including--
       ``(i) hazardous air pollutants (as defined in section 
     302(g) of the Clean Air Act);
       ``(ii) air pollutants for which national primary ambient 
     air quality standards have

[[Page 22046]]

     been promulgated under section 109 of the Clean Air Act;
       ``(iii) pollutants or contaminants (as defined in section 
     101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980);
       ``(iv) toxic chemicals (as described in section 313 of the 
     Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986);
       ``(v) substances reported under the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act Inventory Update Rule as provided for in part 710 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or successor 
     regulations;
       ``(vi) pesticides (as defined in section 2(u) of the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act); and
       ``(vii) such other potentially relevant environmental 
     factors as the Secretary may specify;
       ``(C) a list and definitions of potentially relevant 
     behavioral, socioeconomic, demographic, and other risk 
     factors, including race, ethnic status, gender, age, 
     occupation, and primary language, to be tracked through the 
     State Networks;
       ``(D) procedures for the complete and timely collection and 
     reporting of data to the Coordinated Network by census tract, 
     or other political subdivision determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, regarding the factors 
     described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C);
       ``(E) procedures for making data available to the public 
     and researchers, and for reporting to the Coordinated 
     Network, while protecting the confidentiality of all personal 
     data reported, in accordance with medical privacy 
     regulations;
       ``(F) standards and procedures for the establishment and 
     maintenance of at least 7 regional biomonitoring 
     laboratories, including providing for an equitable geographic 
     distribution, by entering into cooperative agreements with 
     States, groups of States, and academic institutions or 
     consortia of academic institutions, in order to expand the 
     scope and amount of biomonitoring data collected by the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
       ``(G) criteria for the environmental health investigators 
     as required under subsection (b)(3)(D); and
       ``(H) procedures for record and data maintenance and 
     verification.
       ``(b) State Environmental Health Networks.--
       ``(1) Grants.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this title, the Secretary, acting through 
     the Director, in consultation with the Administrators, and 
     taking into consideration the findings of the Committee, 
     shall award grants to States, local governments, territories, 
     and Indian tribes for the establishment, maintenance, and 
     operation of State Environmental Health Networks in 
     accordance with the minimum standards and procedures 
     established by the Secretary under subsection (a)(4).
       ``(2) Specialized assistance.--The Coordinated Network 
     shall provide specialized assistance to grantees in the 
     establishment, maintenance, and operation of State Networks.
       ``(3) Requirements.--A State, local government, territory, 
     or Indian tribe receiving a grant under this subsection shall 
     use the grant--
       ``(A) to establish an environmental health network that 
     will provide--
       ``(i) for the complete tracking of the incidence, 
     prevalence, and trends of priority chronic conditions and 
     potentially relevant environmental and other factors as set 
     forth in subsection (a), as well as any additional priority 
     chronic conditions and potentially related environmental 
     exposures of concern to that State, local government, 
     territory, or Indian tribe;
       ``(ii) for identification of priority chronic conditions 
     and potentially relevant environmental and other factors that 
     disproportionately impact low income and minority 
     communities;
       ``(iii) for the protection of the confidentiality of all 
     personal data reported, in accordance with the medical 
     privacy regulations;
       ``(iv) a means by which confidential data may, in 
     accordance with Federal and State law, be disclosed to 
     researchers for the purposes of public health research;
       ``(v) the fullest possible public access to data collected 
     by the State Network or through the Coordinated Network, 
     while ensuring that individual privacy is protected in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(1)(B); and
       ``(vi) for the collection of exposure data through 
     biomonitoring and other methods, including the entering into 
     of cooperative agreements with the Coordinated Network in the 
     establishment of the regional biomonitoring laboratories;
       ``(B) to develop a publicly available plan for establishing 
     the State Network in order to meet minimum standards and 
     procedures as developed by the Coordinated Network under 
     subsection (a)(4), including the State's priorities within 
     the minimum standards, a timeline by which all the standards 
     will be met, and a plan for coordinating and expanding 
     existing data and surveillance systems within the State 
     including any pilot projects established through the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention prior to the date of the 
     enactment of this title;
       ``(C) to appoint a lead environmental health department or 
     agency that will be responsible for the development, 
     operation, and maintenance of the State Network, and ensure 
     the appropriate coordination among State and local agencies 
     regarding the development, operation, and maintenance of the 
     State Network;
       ``(D) to appoint or hire an environmental health 
     investigator who meets criteria established by the Secretary 
     under subsection (a)(4)(G) and who will coordinate the 
     development and maintenance of the rapid response protocol 
     established under subparagraph (E);
       ``(E) to establish a rapid response protocol, coordinated 
     by the grantee's environmental health investigator, in order 
     to respond in a timely manner to actual and perceived 
     incidence and prevalence rates of priority chronic diseases 
     that are higher than expected, acute and potential 
     environmental hazards and exposures, and other environmental 
     health concerns, including warning the public when emergent 
     public health concerns are detected through the State 
     Network, and concerns regarding vulnerable subpopulations and 
     disproportionately impacted subpopulations;
       ``(F) to establish an advisory committee to ensure local 
     community input to the State Network; and
       ``(G) to recruit and train public health officials to 
     continue to expand the State Network.
       ``(4) Limitation.--A State, local government, territory, or 
     Indian tribe that receives a grant under this section may not 
     use more than 10 percent of the funds made available through 
     the grant for administrative costs.
       ``(5) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, a 
     State, local government, territory, or Indian tribe shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such 
     form and manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Secretary may specify. The Secretary may not approve an 
     application for a grant under this subsection unless the 
     application--
       ``(A) contains assurances that the State, local government, 
     territory, or tribe will--
       ``(i) use the grant only in compliance with the 
     requirements of this title; and
       ``(ii) establish such fiscal control and fund accounting 
     procedures as may be necessary to ensure the proper 
     disbursement and accounting of Federal funds paid to the 
     State, local government, territory, or tribe under the grant;
       ``(B) contains the assurance that the State, local 
     government, territory, or tribe will establish a State 
     Network as required by this subsection; and
       ``(C) contains assurances that if the State, local 
     government, territory, or tribe is unable to meet all of the 
     requirements described in this subsection within the 
     prescribed time period, the State, local government, 
     territory, or tribe will use grant funds to increase the 
     public health infrastructure of the State, local government, 
     territory, or tribe, acting in cooperation with the 
     Coordinated Network, in order to implement and maintain a 
     State Network within 24 months of the receipt of such grant.
       ``(c) Pilot Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, a State, 
     local government, territory, or Indian tribe may apply for a 
     grant under this subsection to implement a pilot project that 
     is approved by the Secretary, acting through the Director and 
     in consultation with the Administrators and the Committee.
       ``(2) Activities.--A State, local government, territory, or 
     Indian tribe shall use amounts received under a grant under 
     this subsection to carry out a pilot project designed to 
     develop State Network enhancements and to develop programs to 
     address specific local and regional concerns, including--
       ``(A) the expansion of the State Network to include 
     additional chronic diseases or environmental exposures;
       ``(B) the conduct of investigations of local concerns of 
     increased incidence or prevalence of priority chronic 
     conditions and environmental exposures; and
       ``(C) the carrying out of other activities as determined to 
     be a priority by the State or consortium of regional States, 
     local government, territory, or tribe and the Secretary.
       ``(3) Results.--The Secretary may consider the results of 
     the pilot projects under this subsection for inclusion into 
     the Coordinated Network.
       ``(d) Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 3 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary acting 
     jointly with the Administrators, shall establish an Advisory 
     Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Advisory Committee shall be 
     composed of 16 members to be appointed by the Secretary. Each 
     member of the Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term, 
     except that the Secretary may appoint the initial members of 
     the Advisory Committee for lesser terms in order to comply 
     with the following sentence. In appointing the members of the 
     Advisory Committee, the Secretary shall ensure that the terms 
     of 5 or 6 members expire each year. The Advisory Committee 
     shall include at least 9

[[Page 22047]]

     members that have experience in the areas of--
       ``(A) public health;
       ``(B) the environment, especially toxic chemicals and human 
     exposure;
       ``(C) epidemiology; and
       ``(D) biomonitoring and other relevant exposure 
     technologies.
       ``(3) Reporting.--The Advisory Committee shall not later 
     than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this title, 
     and at least once every 12 months thereafter, report to 
     Congress on the progress of the Coordinated Network.
       ``(4) Hearings.--The Advisory Committee shall hold such 
     hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 
     testimony, and receive such evidence as the Committee 
     considers appropriate to carry out the objectives of the 
     Coordinated Network.
       ``(5) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
       ``(A) review and provide input for the Coordinated 
     Environmental Health Network Report prior to publication, and 
     make recommendations as to the progress of the Coordinated 
     Network, including identifying information gaps in the 
     network;
       ``(B) assist in developing the minimum standards and 
     procedures for the State Networks under subsection (a)(4); 
     and
       ``(C) provide ongoing public input to the Coordinated 
     Network.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

     ``SEC. 2902. INCREASING PUBLIC HEALTH PERSONNEL CAPACITY.

       ``(a) Schools or Programs of Public Health Centers of 
     Excellence.--
       ``(1) Grants.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Secretary 
     may award grants to at least 5 accredited schools or programs 
     of public health for the establishment, maintenance, and 
     operation of Centers of Excellence for research and 
     demonstration with respect to chronic conditions and relevant 
     environmental factors.
       ``(2) Activities.--A Center of Excellence established or 
     operated under paragraph (1) shall undertake research and 
     development projects in at least 1 of the following areas:
       ``(A) Investigating causal connections between chronic 
     conditions and environmental factors.
       ``(B) Increasing the understanding of the causes of higher 
     than expected incidence and prevalence rates of priority 
     chronic conditions and developing more effective intervention 
     methods for when such elevated rates occur.
       ``(C) Identifying additional chronic conditions and 
     environmental factors that could be tracked by the 
     Coordinated Network.
       ``(D) Improving translation of Coordinated Network tracking 
     results into effective prevention activities.
       ``(E) Improving the training of public health workforce in 
     environmental epidemiology.
       ``(F) Establishing links to the Coordinated Network and the 
     State Networks to identify associations that warrant further 
     study.
       ``(3) Requirements for centers of excellence.--To be 
     eligible to receive a grant under paragraph (1), a school or 
     program of public health shall provide assurances that the 
     school or program--
       ``(A) meets the minimum requirements as established by the 
     Secretary in consultation with the Director;
       ``(B) maintains privacy for public health information if 
     appropriate to the project; and
       ``(C) makes public information regarding the findings and 
     results of the programs.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(b) John H. Chafee Public Health Scholar Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award scholarships, 
     to be known as John H. Chafee Public Health Scholarships, to 
     eligible students who are enrolled in an accredited school of 
     public health or medicine. The Secretary shall determine both 
     the criteria and eligibility requirements for such 
     scholarships, after consultation with the Committee.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,500,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(c) Applied Epidemiology Fellowship Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, shall enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the Council of State and 
     Territorial Epidemiologists to train and place, in State and 
     local health departments, applied epidemiology fellows to 
     enhance State and local epidemiology capacity in the areas of 
     environmental health, chronic disease, and birth defects and 
     development disabilities.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,500,000 
     for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary in 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

     ``SEC. 2903. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Internal Monitoring and Coordination Regarding CDC.--
     The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall place 
     primary responsibility for the coordination of the programs 
     established under this title in the Office of the Director. 
     The officers or employees of the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention who are assigned responsibility for monitoring 
     and coordinating the activities carried out under this title 
     by the Director shall include officers or employees within 
     the Office of the Director.
       ``(b) Funding Through Appropriations Account for Public 
     Health Improvement.--All authorizations of appropriations 
     established in this title are authorizations exclusively for 
     appropriations to the account that, among appropriations 
     accounts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     is designated `Public Health Improvement'.
       ``(c) Date Certain for Obligation of Appropriations.--With 
     respect to the process of receiving applications for and 
     making awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and 
     contracts under this title, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall to the extent practicable design the process 
     to ensure that amounts appropriated under this title for such 
     awards for a fiscal year are obligated not later than the 
     beginning of the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, subject 
     to compliance with section 1512 of title 31, United States 
     Code (relating to deficiency or supplemental appropriations), 
     and other applicable law regarding appropriations accounting.
       ``(d) Coordination With Agency for Toxic Substances and 
     Disease Registry.--In carrying out this title, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director, shall coordinate activities and 
     responses with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry.
       ``(e) Coordination With Existing Pilot Projects Through 
     CDC.--The Secretary shall integrate the enactment of this 
     title with all environmental health tracking pilot projects 
     funded prior to the date of enactment of this title.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2954. A bill to authorize the exchange of certain land in Grand 
and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. Bennett. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Utah 
Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2004, together with my colleague 
Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of critical 
lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah and will 
help provide important funding for Utah's school children. In Utah we 
treasure the education of our children. A key component of our 
education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands 
scattered throughout the State. These lands are dedicated to the 
support of public education. Revenue from Utah school trust lands, 
whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing or mineral development, 
is placed in the State School Fund. This fund is a permanent income 
producing endowment created by Congress upon statehood to fund public 
education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are trapped 
within federal ownership patterns that make it impossible for 
responsible development. It is critical to both the state of Utah and 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that we consolidate their 
respective lands to ensure that both public agencies are permitted to 
fulfill their mandates.
  The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in 
our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the 
financial well being of our education system. These efforts serve a 
dual purpose as they help the Federal land management agencies to 
consolidate federal lands in environmentally sensitive areas that can 
then be reasonably managed. We see this exchange as a win-win solution 
for the State of Utah and its school children, as well as the 
Department of the Interior as the caretaker of our public lands.
  Beginning in 1998 Congress passed the first major Utah school trust 
land exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again 
in 2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000 
acres. I was proud to be instrumental in those efforts, and the bill we 
are introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward 
giving the school children the deal they were promised in 1896 when 
Utah was admitted to the Union.
  The School Trust of Utah currently owns some of the most spectacular

[[Page 22048]]

lands in America, located along the Colorado River in southeastern 
Utah. This legislation will ensure that places like Westwater Canyon of 
the Colorado River, the world famous Kokopelli and Slickrock biking 
trails, some of the largest natural rock arches in the United States, 
wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for Arches National Park will be 
traded into Federal ownership and for the benefit of future 
generations. At the same time, the school children of Utah will receive 
mineral and development lands that are not environmentally sensitive, 
in locations where responsible development makes sense. This will be an 
equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000 acres exchanged on 
either side, with both taxpayers and the school children of Utah 
receiving a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a 
valuation process that is transparent to the public, yet will ensure 
the exchange process occurs in a timely manner.
  This legislation represents a truly collaborative process. We have 
convened all of the players to give us input into this legislation: 
local government, the State, the recreation community, the 
environmental community and other interested parties. At the same time 
we are working closely with the Department of Interior. We introduce 
this bill at this late date in this Congress to begin the legislative 
portion of our efforts. The state has been working with all of these 
groups over the past year at a grass-roots level to address concerns. 
As with all legislation this will be a perfecting process and 
introduction today marks the beginning of our efforts to work with the 
appropriate committees and the Department of Interior to craft a 
product over the next few months that will be ready to move at the 
beginning of the next Congress.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support our efforts to fund the 
education of our children in Utah and to protect some of this Nation's 
truly great lands. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land 
Exchange Act of 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 2956. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to direct the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to provide a support system 
for members of the Armed Forces who incur severe disabilities; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill of great 
importance to our most severely injured troops who are carrying the 
battle to the terrorists. This legislation will assist the Department 
of Defense by granting reprogramming authority to the Army to transfer 
funds to the Army's Disabled Soldier Support System (DS3) and by 
expanding the program to cover all the Armed Services.
  The Disabled Soldier Support System this legislation will support was 
established just this year by the former Vice Chief of Staff of the 
Army, General George W. Casey, who realized after visiting severely 
wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Hospital that more support was 
needed to help these soldiers make the transition from military to 
civilian life.
  The program the Army currently has in place is budgeted for $ one 
million and has a staff of less than 10 people. It is reported to have 
helped over 200 soldiers but we have a much larger group of seriously 
wounded troops that need our help. Of the nearly 7,000 troops who have 
been wounded approximately 57 percent were so severely injured that 
they will not be able to return to active duty.
  The Administration is doing all it can but we know that the 
bureaucracy is sometimes slow to respond and react rapidly to changing 
conditions. The Army is not the only Service Component with a growing 
patient load. That is why this legislation will expand this worthy 
program to all branches of the Armed Services.
  The patriots who are wounded while serving in support of our defense 
deserve the best care and assistance this Nation can deliver. That is 
why I am honored to submit this legislation today. It is my hope that 
my colleagues will put their full support behind this legislation and 
find a way to get it passed when we return later this year.
  I thank my co-sponsors Senator's Kennedy, Burns and Nelson of Florida 
along with Congressman ``Dutch'' Ruppersberger who introduced this 
legislation in the House in early September and Steve Robinson, 
National Gulf War Resource Center, who referred Congressman 
Ruppersberger to my office.
  While the current debate continues regarding U.S. foreign policy 
there is no debate about doing all that is necessary to help our troops 
prevail on the battlefield--or to help those who are severely wounded 
on the field of battle to recover and make the transition from military 
to civilian life.
  As the Chairman of VA-HUD I continue to work with my distinguished 
colleague Senator Mikulski to make the transition from the military 
support system to the VA support system as seamless as possible. This 
legislation will help improve the support system in the Department of 
Defense and make the work we are doing with the VA that much easier.
  This legislation is vital for the welfare of our troops, their loved 
ones and families, and for the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this 
bill and work to get it passed before years end.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 2957. A bill to encourage the promotion of democracy, free, fair, 
and transparent elections, and respect for human rights and the rule of 
law in Ukraine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the 
Ukraine Democracy and Fair Elections Act of 2004, designed to promote 
free, fair and transparent elections in Ukraine. Like the United 
States, Ukraine is currently in the midst of a presidential election 
campaign. There is, however, one glaring contrast--all indications are 
that the campaign in Ukraine is not fair, not free and not transparent.
  The U.S. government has sent a number of high level officials to 
Ukraine to tell retiring President Kuchma and Ukraine's Prime Minister 
Viktor Yanukovych--who is Kuchma's endorsed presidential candidate--
that free and fair elections are essential to Ukraine's standing with 
the United States. Similarly, European governments have called upon 
Ukraine to hold free and fair elections. But, unfortunately, it appears 
that abuses of Ukraine's campaign laws are rapidly escalating.
  Ukrainian government officials have continued, without pause, an 
aggressive offensive against their opposition. Together with oligarch 
beneficiaries of the Kuchma-Yanukovych government they have denied the 
opposition access to national media, they have intimidated campaign 
workers and opposition supporters at work and at home, they have tried 
to prohibit opposition assemblies, and have stopped buses on the way to 
opposition rallies. They make a mockery of Ukrainian laws by using 
government resources to promote the Yanukovych candidacy, and they are 
aggressively manipulating Ukrainian election laws to ensure that they 
control the election commission at each of the 40,000 polling place in 
the country.
  What is at stake here is the future of democracy and perhaps 
independence in Ukraine as well as significant United States national 
interests in a region that we helped liberate from Communist tyranny 
just 15 years ago.
  The legislation that I am introducing would prevent senior government 
officials, who are personally involved in suppressing free and fair 
elections in Ukraine, from obtaining visas to the United States, and 
would seize the assets of these corrupt officials, unless the U.S. 
President certifies the elections as free and fair. The objective is to 
target directly those individuals responsible for the corruption, not 
the Ukrainian people as a whole. I would note that similar legislation 
has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative 
Dana Rohrabacher of California.

[[Page 22049]]

  I hope this will send a clear message that we stand with the free and 
democratic people of Ukraine, but not with those who would pervert 
democracy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 2960. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a 
traffic incident management program; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that calls for a small Federal commitment that would make a 
huge impact on the daily lives of all Americans. This legislation, the 
Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act, authorizes $1 billion per year over 
the next 6 years, which can make a major dent in the amount of time we 
sit in traffic everyday.
  In February, the Senate approved a six-year highway reauthorization 
bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act of 2004, SAFETEA, which authorized $318 billion through 2009 
for the Federal highway and transit program. I voted against the bill 
for many reasons, but the main reason I could not support the 
legislation is that the bill did not meet the funding levels identified 
by the U.S. Department of Transportation's needs assessment. The USDOT 
identified a $375 billion Federal commitment as necessary to maintain 
the current condition and level of congestion on our highways. Just 
maintain, not improve.
  Additionally, SAFETEA did not contain any specific programs to target 
congestion relief. SAFETEA targets funding to construction to add 
highway capacity. Although adding capacity to our highway and transit 
system is very important, we will never build our way out of 
congestion. We must also look at ways to operate and manage the current 
system and use resources more efficiently. We must focus on managing 
the demand on our road network, especially in larger urban areas, 
through innovative approaches and use of new technology. A combination 
of operational improvements, including freeway ramp metering, traffic 
signal coordination, traveler information and incident management can 
accomplish major improvements in daily travel with a small price tag.
  Now it looks as though a 6-year highway bill reauthorization will not 
be completed this year and the 109th Congress will have to start the 
process from scratch. This is a golden opportunity for the Senate to 
review the SAFETEA bill and support positive changes to target more 
funds to congestion relief.
  Mr. President, according to the Texas Transportation Institute, TTI, 
at Texas A&M University, which conducts an annual Urban Mobility Report 
to study the state of America's urban transportation networks, gridlock 
cost Americans $63 billion in 2002 in wasted fuel and lost time. This 
is a significant loss that burdens families, individuals, and 
businesses. More than 2 in 5 adults report that congestion is a problem 
in their community. This number is even higher in major cities.
  Such concern is not surprising, considering that the average resident 
of many cities in my state experience some of the worst congestion. 
Every year a typical resident of Miami and Orlando will lose over 51 
hours stuck in traffic. Lost time and wasted fuel will cost each of 
these Floridians over $900. In 1982, only 11 hours were lost. This is 
not only a Florida problem. Nor is it only a problem here in Washington 
DC, or in New York City or Chicago. Even in small urban areas, delay 
during peak traveling hours grew 200 percent in the past 20 years. 
Across the country, residents of smaller cities like Pensacola, 
Charleston, and Colorado Springs could save hundreds of dollars by 
making our current road system more efficient.
  The Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would establish a Federal 
incident management program to provide funding to states for regional 
projects to mitigate the effects of traffic congestion on our roads.
  Incident management programs would save taxpayers money by allowing 
our roadways to operate at a more optimal level. When a stalled vehicle 
or traffic accident blocks a lane of traffic, our roads are not 
operating efficiently. The Federal Highway Administration estimates 
that every blocked lane creates an average of four minutes of traffic 
delay. Furthermore, up to one-third of traffic accidents are secondary 
to earlier incidents. What this means is that incidents that are not 
cleared quickly run a higher risk of causing more accidents and 
increasing delay even further. Results find that 55 percent of 
congestion in urban areas and 100 percent of congestion in rural areas 
are caused by incidents such as traffic accidents and stalled vehicles.
  Incident management programs vary across the country, but include the 
cooperative effort of multiple agencies, such as city and county 
governments, regional planning councils, local police and firefighters, 
HAZMAT teams and emergency medical services to detect and verify 
incidents, manage the scene, and clear the obstruction in a safe 
manner. In many cases the incident management patrols are the first to 
arrive on the scene of an accident, and they coordinate Emergency 
Medical Services, tow trucks, law enforcement and other service 
providers. Additionally, they are able to funnel information to a 
central traffic command, which can provide important real-time 
information to the traveling public.
  Some incident management programs offer needed assistance to 
travelers by providing services such as a free gallon of gas, changing 
a flat tire, a cell phone call, water for an overheated radiator, and 
charging a dead battery. In Florida, one way that we have addressed 
incident management is through a program called Road Rangers. Road 
Ranger trucks continuously rove the expressways looking for stranded 
motorists, debris, traffic accidents or other incidents. In 2002, this 
program utilized 83 vehicles and performed 279,525 service assists.
  This bill would authorize $1 billion per year through 2010, from the 
Highway Trust Fund to create and improve programs like Road Rangers. 
The funds would be distributed to the states based on their amount of 
urbanized areas with greater than 300,000 people. The state would then 
be required to allocate the funds to those targeted urban areas. There 
are roughly 100 urbanized areas with a population of 300,000 or higher 
in 42 states. Urban areas would be required to develop an incident 
management plan before receiving direct funding for their program. This 
way, all of the stakeholders in a region will have an opportunity to 
participate in the design and operation of the incident management 
program. The only way it can work is with regional cooperation. The 
Rush Hour Congestion Relief Act of 2004 would fund initiatives like the 
current pilot program in Orlando to provide radio and 
telecommunications equipment to enhance coordination between Florida 
Highway Patrol and Road Rangers. It will also provide needed funding 
for incident management training. In 2001, 59 percent of all police 
casualties occurred during a response to a traffic incident. Funding 
under this bill would give first responders the tools and training 
necessary to reduce that risk.
  I am proud to introduce this bill today because incident management 
works. According to the TTI, incident management has already reduced 
delay on our roads by 170 million hours. Had we employed these programs 
to all of our congested highways, American would have spent 239 million 
less hours on the road. To put this into perspective, it would take the 
construction of over 200 miles of a six-lane highway to achieve the 
same level of time savings.
  Not only are these programs effective, they save far more than they 
cost. In States like Minnesota, annual savings from incident management 
was estimated at $1.4 million, while program operations amounted to 
only $600,000. In Denver, their Courtesy Patrol program has been 
estimated to save 10.5 to 16.9 times more than it cost. Although adding 
capacity to our highway and transit network is important, it is very 
expensive and takes many years to complete. This approach provides a 
real solution, which will make a huge impact on congestion in a short 
amount of time.
  Finally, the Rush Hour congestion Relief Act is supported by our 
nation's

[[Page 22050]]

local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and transit 
providers, who are on the front lines of the daily congestion battle. 
The act has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, 
National League of Cities, National Association of Regional Councils, 
Association for Commuter Transportation, and the Surface Transportation 
Policy Project.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to ensure safe and 
open roads.
  I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2960

       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 ``Rush Hour Congestion Relief 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 138 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 139. Traffic incident management program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a traffic incident management program in accordance 
     with this section to assist States and localities in--
       ``(1) regional traffic incident management program 
     planning; and
       ``(2) carrying out projects to mitigate the effects of 
     traffic delays resulting from accidents, breakdowns, and 
     other non-recurring incidents on highways.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Funds apportioned to a State under 
     this section may be used for--
       ``(1) regional collaboration and coordination activities 
     that lead to regional traffic incident management policies, 
     programs, plans, procedures, and agreements;
       ``(2) purchase or lease of telecommunications equipment for 
     first responders as part of the development of a regional 
     traffic incident management program;
       ``(3) purchase or lease of equipment to support the 
     clearance of traffic incidents;
       ``(4) payments to contractors for towing and recovery 
     services as part of a regional traffic incident management 
     program;
       ``(5) rental of vehicle storage or staging areas 
     immediately adjacent to roadways as part of a regional 
     traffic incident management program;
       ``(6) traffic service patrols as part of a regional traffic 
     incident management program;
       ``(7) enhanced hazardous materials incident response;
       ``(8) traffic management systems in support of traffic 
     incident management;
       ``(9) traffic incident management training;
       ``(10) crash investigation equipment;
       ``(11) other activities under a regional traffic incident 
     management plan; and
       ``(12) statewide incident reporting systems.
       ``(c) Regional Traffic Incident Management Plan.--
       ``(1) Plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     funds apportioned under this section may not be obligated for 
     an urbanized area with a population greater than 300,000 
     until such time as a regional traffic incident management 
     plan is developed for the urbanized area.
       ``(B) Funds for plan.--An urbanized area described in 
     subparagraph (A) may use funds apportioned under this section 
     to develop the regional traffic incident management plan in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Plan development.--
       ``(A) Collaboration.--Any urbanized area described in 
     paragraph (1) that receives funds apportioned under this 
     section shall engage in regional collaboration and 
     coordination activities to develop the regional traffic 
     incident management plan required for the urbanized area 
     under that paragraph.
       ``(B) Plan elements.--The regional traffic incident 
     management plan for an urbanized area under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       ``(i) a strategy, adopted by transportation, public safety, 
     and appropriate private sector participants, for funding, 
     implementing, managing, operating, and evaluating the traffic 
     incident management program initiatives and activities for 
     the urbanized area in a manner that ensures regional 
     coordination of those initiatives and activities;
       ``(ii) an estimate of the impact of the plan on traffic 
     delays; and
       ``(iii) a description of the means by which traffic 
     incident management information will be shared among 
     operators, service providers, public safety officials, and 
     the general public.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section 
     $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010.
       ``(2) Apportionment among states.--Funds made available 
     under paragraph (1) shall be apportioned among the States in 
     the proportion that--
       ``(A) the aggregate population of the State, or part of the 
     State, in urbanized areas with a population greater than 
     300,000; bears to
       ``(B) the total population of all States, or parts of all 
     States, in those urbanized areas.
       ``(3) Distribution within states.--Funds apportioned to a 
     State under paragraph (2) shall be made available to carry 
     out projects and activities under regional traffic incident 
     management plans in each urbanized area in the State with a 
     population greater than 300,000 in the proportion that--
       ``(A) the population of the urbanized area, or part of the 
     urbanized area, in the State; bears to
       ``(B) the total population of all urbanized areas in the 
     State.
       ``(e) Determination of Populations.--For the purpose of 
     determining populations of areas under this section, the 
     Secretary shall use information from the most current 
     decennial census, as supplied by the Secretary of 
     Commerce.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 138 the 
     following:

``139. Traffic incident management program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2963. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify 
and reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement, 
construction, and modification of broadcast transmission facilities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dodd):
  2964. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify and 
reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement, 
construction, and modification of personal wireless services 
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as in years past, I am offering today two 
pieces of legislation that would close a loophole in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act, and as in years past I am pleased that I am 
joined by Senators Jeffords and Dodd.
  The catalog of complaints about the 1996 act continues to grow, and 
as it becomes more apparent that this flawed statute is in need of 
repair, I grow ever more proud that I was one of five Senators to have 
voted against that law.
  In the coming Congress, we will be revisiting the 1996 Act. While we 
should rightly examine the various provisions related to telephone 
competition, broadband, and subscriber television rates, there are 
other important issues that we need to address.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act contained a provision that allowed 
the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the decisions of local 
authorities as to the placement of cell phone towers. In 1997, the 
Federal Communications Commission seized on the legislative loophole, 
proposing an expansive new rule that prevented State and local zoning 
laws from regulating the placement of cellular and broadcast towers 
based on environmental considerations, aviation safety, or other 
locally determined matters. Local and State governments were no longer 
empowered to shape the appearance of their communities.
  I fought this proposed rule and was joined by many Vermonters, 
including former-Governor Dean, the Vermont Environmental Board, 
mayors, zoning officials, and numerous others. We took our case to the 
Supreme Court and filed an amicus brief, arguing that the preemption of 
that local power to regulate land use was a clear violation of the U.S. 
Constitution. It is unfortunate that the Court would not hear that 
case. It is time to give that control back to the local governments by 
enacting my legislation.
  The two bills that we are reintroducing today will not tip the 
scales, but they will even them out a bit. They will allow local 
officials to use State and local regulations to work with the Federal 
Government in order to develop the best solutions for the placement of 
cell phone and broadcast towers.
  Communities across the country understand the growing demand for 
cellular services will result in new towers,

[[Page 22051]]

and they welcome the improvement in service that this increased 
infrastructure will bring. However, they also want to make sure that 
their towns do not become little more than pincushions for new cellular 
towers. These goals are not mutually exclusive.
  I thank again Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd, and I urge my 
colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2963

       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 ``Local Control of Broadcast 
     Towers Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The placement, construction, and modification of 
     broadcast transmission facilities near residential 
     communities and facilities such as schools can greatly reduce 
     the value of residential properties, destroy the views from 
     properties, produce radio frequency interference, raise 
     concerns about potential long-term health effects of such 
     facilities, and reduce substantially the desire to live in 
     the areas of such facilities.
       (2) States and local governments have traditionally 
     regulated development and should be able to exercise control 
     over the placement, construction, and modification of 
     broadcast transmission facilities through the use of zoning 
     and other land use regulations relating to the protection of 
     the environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes 
     policies to govern interstate and international 
     communications by television, radio, wire, satellite, and 
     cable. The Commission ensures compliance of such activities 
     with applicable Federal laws, including the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic 
     Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such activities.
       (4) The Commission defers to State and local authorities 
     which regulate the placement, construction, and modification 
     of broadcast transmission facilities through the use of 
     zoning, construction and building, and environmental and 
     safety regulations in order to protect the environment and 
     the health, safety, and general welfare of communities and 
     the public.
       (5) On August 19, 1997, the Commission issued a proposed 
     rule, MM Docket No. 97-182, which would preempt the 
     application of most State and local zoning, environmental, 
     construction and building, and other regulations affecting 
     the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities.
       (6) The telecommunications industry and its experts should 
     be expected to have access to the best and most recent 
     technical information and should therefore be held to the 
     highest standards in terms of their representations, 
     assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to confirm that 
     State and local governments are the appropriate entities--
       (1) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of broadcast transmission facilities consistent 
     with State and local zoning, construction and building, 
     environmental, and land use regulations;
       (2) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of broadcast transmission facilities so that 
     their placement, construction, or modification will not 
     interfere with the safe and efficient use of public airspace 
     or otherwise compromise or endanger the health, safety, and 
     general welfare of the public; and
       (3) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the 
     placement, construction, or modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities, and providers of services using such 
     facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of 
     representations and statements placed in the record of 
     hearings for such permits, licenses, or approvals.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION 
                   OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST 
                   TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or 
     otherwise directly or indirectly implement any portion of the 
     proposed rule set forth in ``Preemption of State and Local 
     Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on Siting, Placement and 
     Construction of Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities'', 
     MM Docket No. 97-182, released August 19, 1997.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND 
                   MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION 
                   FACILITIES.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 340. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST 
                   TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Authority To Require Least Intrusive Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State or local government may deny an 
     application to place, construct, or modify broadcast 
     transmission facilities on the basis that alternative 
     technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of 
     delivering broadcast signals comparable to that proposed to 
     be delivered by such facilities in a manner that is less 
     intrusive to the community concerned than such facilities.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining under paragraph (1) 
     the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or 
     structures for the transmission of broadcast signals, a State 
     or local government may consider the aesthetics of such 
     technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental 
     impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the 
     radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such 
     technologies, systems, or structures.
       ``(3) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of the 
     exercise of the authority in paragraph (1), the burden shall 
     be on the applicant.
       ``(b) Radio Interference.--A State or local government may 
     regulate the location, height, or modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities in order to address the effects of 
     radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on 
     local communities and the public.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Studies and Documentation.--No 
     provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State 
     or local government from--
       ``(1) requiring a person seeking authority to place, 
     construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities to 
     produce--
       ``(A) environmental, biological, and health studies, 
     engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance 
     of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits, 
     radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with 
     applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects 
     of such facilities on the environment, public health and 
     safety, and the general welfare of the community and the 
     public; and
       ``(B) documentation of the compliance of such facilities 
     with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety 
     standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects 
     effecting navigable airspace; or
       ``(2) refusing to grant authority to such person to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction 
     of such government if such person fails to produce studies, 
     reports, or documentation required under paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a 
     State or local government to ensure compliance with or 
     otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or 
     representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an 
     applicant with the State or local government for authority to 
     place, construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities 
     within the jurisdiction of the State or local government.
       ``(e) Broadcast Transmission Facility Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `broadcast transmission facility' means the 
     equipment, or any portion thereof, with which a broadcaster 
     transmits and receives the radiofrequency waves that carry 
     the services of the broadcaster, regardless of whether the 
     equipment is sited on one or more towers or other structures 
     owned by a person or entity other than the broadcaster, and 
     includes the location of such equipment.''.

                                S. 2964

       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 ``Local Control of Cellular 
     Towers Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The placement, construction, and modification of 
     personal wireless services facilities (also known as wireless 
     facilities) near residential communities and facilities such 
     as schools can greatly reduce the value of residential 
     properties, destroy the views from properties, produce radio 
     frequency interference, raise concerns about potential long-
     term health effects of such facilities, and reduce 
     substantially the desire to live in the areas of such 
     facilities.
       (2) States and local governments have traditionally 
     regulated development and should be able to exercise control 
     over the placement, construction, and modification of 
     wireless facilities through the use of zoning and other land 
     use regulations relating to the protection of the 
     environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes 
     policies to govern interstate and international 
     communications by television, radio, wire, satellite, and 
     cable. The Commission ensures the compliance of such 
     activities with a variety of Federal laws, including the 
     National Environmental Policy

[[Page 22052]]

     Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act, in 
     its decision-making on such activities.
       (4) Under section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A)), the Commission defers to State 
     and local authorities that regulate the placement, 
     construction, and modification of wireless facilities through 
     the use of zoning and other land use regulations.
       (5) Alternative technologies for the placement, 
     construction, and modification of wireless facilities may 
     meet the needs of a wireless services provider in a less 
     intrusive manner than the technologies proposed by the 
     wireless services provider, including the use of small towers 
     that do not require blinking aircraft safety lights, break 
     skylines, or protrude above tree canopies.
       (6) It is in the interest of the Nation that the 
     requirements of the Commission with respect to the 
     application of State and local ordinances to the placement, 
     construction and modification of wireless facilities (for 
     example WT Docket No. 97-192, ET Docket No. 93-62, RM-8577, 
     and FCC 97-303, 62 FR 47960) be modified so as--
       (A) to permit State and local governments to exercise their 
     zoning and other land use authorities to regulate the 
     placement, construction, and modification of such facilities; 
     and
       (B) to place the burden of proof in civil actions, and in 
     actions before the Commission and State and local authorities 
     relating to the placement, construction, and modification of 
     such facilities, on the person that seeks to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities.
       (7) PCS-Over-Cable, PCS-Over-Fiber Optic, and satellite 
     telecommunications systems, including Low-Earth Orbit 
     satellites, offer a significant opportunity to provide so-
     called ``911'' emergency telephone service throughout much of 
     the United States without unduly intruding into or effecting 
     the environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (8) The Federal Aviation Administration must rely upon 
     State and local governments to regulate the placement, 
     construction, and modification of telecommunications 
     facilities near airports or high-volume air traffic areas 
     such as corridors of airspace or commonly used flyways. The 
     proposed rules of the Commission to preempt State and local 
     zoning and other land-use regulations for the siting of such 
     facilities will have a serious negative impact on aviation 
     safety, airport capacity and investment, the efficient use of 
     navigable airspace, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (9) The telecommunications industry and its experts should 
     be expected to have access to the best and most recent 
     technical information and should therefore be held to the 
     highest standards in terms of their representations, 
     assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To repeal certain limitations on State and local 
     authority regarding the placement, construction, and 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities under 
     section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
       (2) To permit State and local governments--
       (A) to regulate the placement, construction, or 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities with 
     respect to their impacts on land use, including radio 
     frequency interference and radio frequency radiation, in 
     order to protect the environment, public health and safety, 
     and the general welfare of the community and the public;
       (B) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities so that 
     they will not interfere with the safe and efficient use of 
     public airspace or otherwise compromise or endanger the 
     public health and safety and the general welfare of the 
     community and the public; and
       (C) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the 
     placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless 
     services facilities, and providers of services using such 
     facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of 
     representations and statements placed in the record of 
     hearings for permits, licenses, or approvals for such 
     facilities.

     SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL 
                   WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES.

       (a) Limitations on State and Local Regulation of 
     Facilities.--Subparagraph (B) of section 332(c)(7) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (iv);
       (2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
       (3) in clause (iv), as so redesignated--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``may, within 30 
     days'' and all that follows through the end of the sentence 
     and inserting ``may commence an action in any court of 
     competent jurisdiction. Such action shall be commenced within 
     30 days after such action or failure to act unless the State 
     concerned has established a different period for the 
     commencement of such action.''; and
       (B) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In any such action in which a person seeking to 
     place, construct, or modify a personal wireless services 
     facility is a party, such person shall bear the burden of 
     proof, regardless of who commences such action.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule Regarding Relief From 
     State and Local Regulation of Facilities.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or otherwise 
     directly or indirectly implement any portion of the proposed 
     rule set forth in ``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for 
     Relief From State and Local Regulation Pursuant to Section 
     332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934'', WT 
     Docket No. 97-192, released August 25, 1997.
       (c) Authority Over Placement, Construction, and 
     Modification of Facilities.--Such section 332(c)(7) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Additional limitations.--
       ``(i) Authority to require least intrusive facilities.--

       ``(I) In general.--A State or local government may deny an 
     application to place, construct, or modify personal wireless 
     services facilities on the basis that alternative 
     technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of 
     delivering a personal wireless services signal comparable to 
     that proposed to be delivered by such facilities in a manner 
     that is less intrusive to the community concerned than such 
     facilities.
       ``(II) Considerations.--In determining under subclause (I) 
     the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or 
     structures for personal wireless services facilities, a State 
     or local government may consider the aesthetics of such 
     technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental 
     impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the 
     radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such 
     technologies, systems, or structures.
       ``(III) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of 
     the exercise of the authority in subclause (I), the burden 
     shall be on the applicant.

       ``(ii) Radio interference.--A State or local government may 
     regulate the location, height, or modification of personal 
     wireless services facilities in order to address the effects 
     of radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on 
     local communities and the public.
       ``(iii) Authority to require studies and documentation.--No 
     provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State 
     or local government from--

       ``(I) requiring a person seeking authority to place, 
     construct, or modify personal wireless services facilities to 
     produce--

       ``(aa) environmental, biological, and health studies, 
     engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance 
     of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits, 
     radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with 
     applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects 
     of such facilities on the environment, public health and 
     safety, and the general welfare of the community and the 
     public; and
       ``(bb) documentation of the compliance of such facilities 
     with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety 
     standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects 
     effecting navigable airspace; or

       ``(II) refusing to grant authority to such person to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction 
     of such government if such person fails to produce studies, 
     reports, or documentation required under subclause (I).

       ``(iv) Construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph may be 
     construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a 
     State or local government to ensure compliance with or 
     otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or 
     representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an 
     applicant with the State or local government for authority to 
     place, construct, or modify personal wireless services 
     facilities within the jurisdiction of the State or local 
     government.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2966. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a nonrefundable tax credit against income tax for individuals who 
purchase a residential safe storage device for the safe storage of 
firearms; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Safety and 
Home Protection Act of 2004, to provide a limited tax credit for 
individuals who purchase a gun safe to store firearms in their homes. 
Under this legislation, taxpayers would receive a 25 percent credit up 
to $250 for the cost of purchasing, shipping, and installing a gun 
safe.
  We have seen passionate debates in the Senate on political issues 
involving guns, but there is no dispute about the

[[Page 22053]]

importance of preventing firearms accidents and theft. We all want to 
make sure guns do not fall into the hands of people who would mishandle 
them and cause accidental harm, or who intend to abuse them for 
criminal purposes. Responsible gun owners share those concerns and take 
safety issues seriously.
  The firearms industry has responded by offering a variety of devices 
designed to enhance secure storage and safe use of firearms. Gun safes 
have demonstrated their effectiveness in stopping unauthorized access 
to their contents, not only protecting valuable guns but also 
preventing their accidental or criminal misuse.
  With more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the United 
States, this Nation clearly has an interest in encouraging safe gun 
storage. The Child Safety and Home Protection Act of 2004 serves that 
goal by allowing individuals to keep a little bit of their own hard-
earned dollars to make a key investment in gun safety through the 
purchase and installation of a gun safe.
  I say to all my colleagues: If you believe, as I do, that the right 
to keep and bear arms carries with it a responsibility to use firearms 
safely and lawfully, I hope you will join me in supporting this 
important measure to promote secure gun storage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2966

       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 ``Child Protection and Home 
     Safety Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL GUN SAFE PURCHASES.

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

     ``SEC. 25C. PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL GUN SAFES.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 25 
     percent of the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer during 
     such taxable year for the purchase of a qualified residential 
     gun safe.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed under subsection 
     (a) with respect to any qualified residential gun safe shall 
     not exceed $250.
       ``(2) Carryforward of unused credit.--If the credit 
     allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds 
     the limitation imposed by section 26(a) for such taxable year 
     reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under this 
     subpart (other than this section and section 23), such excess 
     shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to 
     the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable 
     year. No credit may be carried forward under this subsection 
     to any taxable year following the third taxable year after 
     the taxable year in which the purchase or purchases are made. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, credits shall be 
     treated as used on a first-in first-out basis.
       ``(c) Qualified Residential Gun Safe.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified residential gun safe' means any 
     container not intended for the display of firearms which is 
     specifically designed to store or safeguard firearms from 
     unauthorized access and which meets a performance standard 
     for an adequate security level. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, compliance with such performance standard must be 
     established by objective testing.
       ``(d) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be 
     allowed under this chapter with respect to any expense which 
     is taken into account in determining the credit under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the 
     taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the 
     credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the 
     taxpayer and taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for the 
     taxable year.
       ``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 7703.
       ``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may 
     elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to ensure that residential 
     gun safes qualifying for the credit meet design and 
     performance standards sufficient to ensure the provisions of 
     this section are carried out.
       ``(g) Statutory Construction; Evidence; Use of 
     Information.--
       ``(1) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed--
       ``(A) as creating a cause of action against any firearms 
     dealer or any other person for any civil liability, or
       ``(B) as establishing any standard of care.
       ``(2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, evidence regarding the use or nonuse by a taxpayer of 
     the tax credit under this section shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity for the purposes of establishing liability based 
     on a civil action brought on any theory for harm caused by a 
     product or by negligence, or for purposes of drawing an 
     inference that the taxpayer owns a firearm.
       ``(3) Use of Information.--No database identifying gun 
     owners may be created using information from tax returns on 
     which the credit under this section is claimed.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6501(m) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``25C(e),'' 
     before ``30(d)(4),''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter I of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 25B the following new item:

``25C. Purchase of residential gun safes.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2967. A bill to provide for the implementation of a Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan 
legislation, ``The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act,'' with 
Senator Rockefeller. Green chemistry is a science-based approach to 
pollution prevention, seeking to reduce the chemical impact on the 
environment by developing non-toxic technology. The American chemical, 
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as the American 
Chemical Society, support this legislation, which promises to speed the 
development of environmentally benign chemical technology. I would like 
to request that a letter in support of this legislation from Dr. 
Michael J. Eckardt, Vice President for Research at the University of 
Maine, be printed in the Record
  Green chemistry research and development improves technology used in 
industrial procedures and promotes the design of safer chemicals, the 
use of sustainable resources, the use of biotechnology alternatives to 
chemistry-based solutions, and an understanding of the chemical aspects 
of renewable energy. Clearly, there is a need to promote this emerging 
field, still relatively unknown, which furnishes both economic and 
environmental rewards--proving that the two are not, in fact, mutually 
exclusive.
  The legislation establishes a Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry 
research, development, demonstration, education, and technology 
transfer activities, through an interagency working group consisting of 
the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The program would provide sustained support through 
merit-based competitive research grants, research and development 
partnerships between universities, industry and nonprofit 
organizations, and research and development conducted at federal 
laboratories.
  Green chemistry R&D benefits all regions of our country, but let me 
share with you an example of how one company, Correct Deck, located in 
Biddeford, Maine, has successfully used green chemistry technology to 
grow its business. As you may know, the Environmental Protection Agency 
has issued a stricter arsenic regulation due to concerns about the 
public health effects posed by the chemical, which is commonly found in 
wood that has been treated to repel insects before being used for 
constructing outdoor decks and playground equipment. These EPA 
regulations will take effect in 2006.

[[Page 22054]]

Correct Deck, taking advantage of a technology brought about through 
green chemistry research and development, manufactures a wood 
composite--a blend of sawdust and plastic--that closely resembles the 
boarding used on wood decks. Yet this composite does not splinter, 
requires less maintenance than wood, is not susceptible to termites, 
and most importantly, contains no harmful chemicals. By staying ahead 
of the curve, Correct Deck has seen sales of its wood composite 
skyrocket, and has since been striving to meet the ballooning demand 
for non-arsenic treated products for decks. Thus an environmental 
benefit also proves profitable.
  The breadth of green chemistry's positive impact on our lives extends 
far beyond decks. Also in the process of development are next-
generation pesticides that target specific insects while avoiding harm 
to other species, and, through steadfast commitment to avoiding 
environmental harm, are designed to degrade into harmless materials 
after serving their purpose, rather than dangerously persisting in the 
environment. Green chemistry R&D is also discovering methods for using 
carbon dioxide as a feedstock for industrial processes, rather than as 
a harmful byproduct, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  I could continue, but the windfalls are just too many to enumerate 
here. From removing public health threats, to enhancing worker safety, 
to contributing to the battle against human-induced global warming, the 
multiple benefits of green chemistry research and development are truly 
exciting, which is why this legislation has strong support from both 
environmentalists and the chemical industry. One of many chemical 
company executives singing the praises of green chemistry R&D, David 
Buzzelli of Dow Chemical Company aptly stated, ``Green chemistry 
technology is testament that when we merge our environmental commitment 
with innovative chemistry, we can create results that benefit our 
customers and society.''
  My colleagues, by passing this bipartisan legislation and thereby 
coordinating and supporting ongoing green chemistry research and 
development, we speed these benefits along to all Americans by acting 
both as stalwart environmental stewards and innovative supporters of 
environmentally friendly industrial processes. I strongly urge you to 
support this legislation--and to consider the business opportunities 
and environmental benefits that the promising field of green chemistry 
could bring to your respective states.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      The University of Maine,

                                    Orono, ME, September 13, 2004.
     Hon. Olympia Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: We request your support for legislation 
     pending in the Senate to provide for the implementation of a 
     green chemistry research and development program. The 
     University of Maine is a member of the New England Green 
     Chemistry Consortium and we are working with several 
     businesses in Maine to introduce green chemistry 
     manufacturing techniques and processes to improve 
     manufacturing productivity and help the environment. Federal 
     investments in green chemistry research and development would 
     support the University's efforts to advance green chemistry 
     practices in Maine and the New England states.
       As you may know, on April 21, 2004 the House of 
     Representatives passed HR 3970, the Great Chemistry Research 
     and Development Act. The bill was referred to the Senate 
     Commerce Committee on April 22. We request your support for 
     this legislation in the Senate.
       Federally funded research at the University of Maine on 
     green chemistry technologies would enhance our work in the 
     area of natural resource processing. Specifically, UM would 
     expand work on interfacial aspects of polymeric based 
     composite materials, including primarily paper, and wood 
     composites. The paper industry would benefit from development 
     of solvent free release coatings, coatings for solvent free 
     inks, and water based gravure printing. UM would also expand 
     its work to help Maine's emerging extruded wood/thermoplastic 
     composites industry develop new water based coatings and 
     adhesive systems to replace current solvent based methods and 
     chemistries that involve formaldehyde.
       Thank you for considering this request and for your 
     continued support for research at the University of Maine.
           Sincerely yours,
                                        Michael J. Eckardt, Ph.D.,
                                      Vice President for Research.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Warner, Mr. Daschle, 
        Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 2968. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to address the 
shortage of influenza vaccine, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2968

       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 ``Emergency Flu Response Act 
     of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. EMERGENCY FLU RESPONSE.

       Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                    ``Subtitle 3--Influenza Vaccine

     ``SEC. 2141. DEFINITION.

       ``In this subtitle, the term `priority group' means a group 
     described as a priority group for vaccination with influenza 
     vaccine in recommendations entitled `Interim Influenza 
     Vaccination Recommendations - 2004-2005 Influenza Season', 
     dated October 5, 2004, or any successor to such 
     recommendations issued by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 2142. EMERGENCY ACCESS TO INFLUENZA VACCINE.

       ``(a) Declaration of Emergency.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under section 564(b)(1)(C) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-
     3(b)(1)(C)), the Secretary shall immediately declare the 
     shortage of influenza vaccine in the United States for the 
     2004-2005 influenza season to be an emergency justifying an 
     authorization for a product under section 564 of such Act (21 
     U.S.C. 360bbb).
       ``(2) Determination.--For the purpose of making 
     determinations under section 564(b)(1)(C) of such Act to 
     carry out paragraph (1), the Secretary--
       ``(A) shall deem the shortage to be a public health 
     emergency described in such section; and
       ``(B) shall deem influenza virus to be a biological agent.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     considered to invoke the authorities described in section 
     319, or to limit the ability of the Secretary to invoke such 
     authorities.
       ``(b) Seeking Influenza Vaccine.--The Secretary shall 
     promptly consult with the health ministries of Canada, 
     countries that are members of the European Union as of 
     January 1, 2003, Japan, and Switzerland to assess the 
     availability of influenza vaccine for the 2004-2005 influenza 
     season that--
       ``(1) has been approved, licensed, or otherwise cleared for 
     marketing by the relevant regulatory agency in such a 
     country; and
       ``(2) is in excess of the needs in such country for the 
     vaccination of persons at high risk for complications from 
     influenza.
       ``(c) Issuance of Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promptly evaluate 
     available influenza vaccine (as identified under subsection 
     (b)) to determine whether the vaccine meets the criteria for 
     issuance of an authorization under section 564(c) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(c)).
       ``(2) Criteria.--For the purpose of making determinations 
     under section 564(c) of such Act to carry out paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) shall deem influenza virus to be an agent that can 
     cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and
       ``(B) shall deem the shortage described in subsection 
     (a)(1) to be sufficient evidence that there is no alternative 
     described in section 564(c)(3).
       ``(d) Vaccine Purchase.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004, 
     the Secretary shall purchase, at a reasonable price, 
     available influenza vaccine identified under subsection (b) 
     for which the Secretary has issued an authorization under 
     section 564(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(c)).
       ``(e) Vaccine Distribution.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall promptly import and 
     distribute any influenza vaccine purchased under subsection 
     (d), giving first priority to persons in priority groups.

[[Page 22055]]

       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.

     ``SEC. 2143. EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO VACCINE SHORTAGES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award a grant to 
     each State to allow such State to develop and implement a 
     plan to respond to the shortage of influenza vaccine in the 
     United States for the 2004-2005 influenza season.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall use the funds made available through a 
     grant under subsection (a) to develop--
       ``(1) a voluntary plan to ensure that the influenza vaccine 
     is, to the maximum extent possible, administered to priority 
     groups;
       ``(2) a system to notify health care providers about 
     revisions in guidelines for administering influenza vaccine;
       ``(3) an awareness campaign to inform the public about 
     recommendations concerning groups that are priority groups 
     for vaccination with influenza vaccine; and
       ``(4) procedures to allow for the voluntary donation of 
     vaccine as described in section 2145.
       ``(c) Amount.--The amount of a grant under subsection (a) 
     shall be proportional to the population of the State and the 
     severity of the shortage of influenza vaccine in such State, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.

     ``SEC. 2144. EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF THE NATION'S INFLUENZA 
                   VACCINE SUPPLY.

       ``(a) Manufacturers.--Not later than 15 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004 and 
     every 30 days thereafter, any person who manufactures 
     influenza vaccine for introduction into interstate commerce 
     shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a summary report 
     that lists--
       ``(1) each client, both public and private, who purchased 
     influenza vaccine from the manufacturer during the period 
     covered by the report; and
       ``(2) the number of doses of influenza vaccine sold to each 
     client during the period.
       ``(b) State Public Health Agencies.--To be eligible to 
     receive a grant under section 2143(a), a State through its 
     public health agency shall, not later than 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004 
     and every 30 days thereafter, prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a summary report describing--
       ``(1) the number of doses of influenza vaccine available in 
     the State during the period covered by the report;
       ``(2) the number of such doses that were given to each 
     priority group during that period; and
       ``(3) to the extent that such information is readily 
     obtainable by the State, the manner in which such doses were 
     distributed to consumers during such period, such as by 
     distribution through public health agencies or private health 
     care providers.

     ``SEC. 2145. CLEARINGHOUSES FOR VOLUNTARY DONATION OF 
                   INFLUENZA VACCINE.

       ``The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and each 
     State public health agency described in section 2144(b), 
     shall establish a clearinghouse to--
       ``(1) enable persons to voluntarily donate influenza 
     vaccine doses; and
       ``(2) distribute the doses for administration to 
     individuals in priority groups.

     ``SEC. 2146. PURCHASES OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     through which the Secretary may--
       ``(1) purchase from private employers, vaccine wholesalers, 
     and other appropriate individuals and entities, doses of 
     influenza vaccine that are not needed for the vaccination of 
     priority groups; and
       ``(2) distribute the doses purchased under paragraph (1) 
     for administration to individuals in priority areas.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.

     ``SEC. 2147. USE OF INFLUENZA VACCINE.

       ``(a) Executive Branch.--The head of each Executive agency 
     (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code) 
     shall ensure that any influenza vaccine in the possession of 
     the head of the agency shall--
       ``(1) be administered only to employees of the agency who 
     are in priority groups; and
       ``(2) provide to the Secretary any doses of the vaccine 
     that are not needed for the vaccination of individuals in 
     priority groups, so that the Secretary can distribute the 
     doses for administration to individuals in the priority 
     groups.
       ``(b) Legislative Branch.--The Attending Physician of the 
     Capitol shall ensure that any influenza vaccine in the 
     possession of the Attending Physician shall--
       ``(1) be administered only to employees of the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government who are in priority groups; 
     and
       ``(2) provide to the Secretary any doses of the vaccine 
     that are not needed for the vaccination of individuals in 
     priority groups, so that the Secretary can distribute the 
     doses for administration to individuals in the priority 
     groups.

     ``SEC. 2148. ENHANCING EXISTING COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST 
                   INFLUENZA.

       ``(a) Authorization to Purchase.--The Secretary may, 
     subject to amounts appropriated under subsection (d), 
     purchase at a reasonable negotiated price, such additional 
     amounts of any drug approved by the Commissioner of Food and 
     Drugs to treat influenza as are determined necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Addition to Stockpile.--The Secretary shall include 
     any drug purchased under subsection (a) in the stockpile 
     established under section 121 of the Public Health Security 
     and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
       ``(c) Increasing the Effectiveness of Existing Vaccine 
     Supplies.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health, shall conduct a clinical trial 
     or trials to determine whether influenza vaccine can be 
     diluted and continue to retain its effectiveness in 
     preventing influenza in individuals in priority groups.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005.

     ``SEC. 2149. NATIONAL QUARANTINE COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established the National 
     Quarantine Compensation Program to be administered by the 
     Secretary under which compensation shall be paid to 
     individuals who are subjected to an order of quarantine 
     issued by a Federal or State health agency.
       ``(b) Amount.--An individual's compensation under the 
     National Quarantine Compensation Program shall be equal to 
     wages lost as a result of such individual being subjected to 
     the quarantine.
       ``(c) Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated and there are hereby appropriated to carry out 
     subsections (a) and (b) such sums as may be necessary.

     ``SEC. 2150. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS RELATING TO 
                   FEDERALLY MANDATED HEALTH-RELATED QUARANTINE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Employer.--The term `employer'--
       ``(A) means any person engaged in commerce or in any 
     industry or activity affecting commerce; and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i)(I) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in 
     the interest of a person described in subparagraph (A) to any 
     of the employees of such person; or
       ``(II) any successor in interest of a person described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) any public agency, as defined in section 3(x) of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(x));
       ``(iii) the Government Accountability Office, the 
     Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress; and
       ``(iv) all other legislative branch entities identified as 
     employing offices in the Congressional Accountability Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
       ``(2) Employment benefits.--The term `employment benefits' 
     means all benefits provided or made available to employees by 
     an employer, including group life insurance, health 
     insurance, disability insurance, sick leave, annual leave, 
     educational benefits, and pensions, regardless of whether 
     such benefits are provided by a practice or written policy of 
     an employer or through an employee benefit plan, as defined 
     in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002).
       ``(3) Secretary.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Labor.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--In the case of actions brought regarding 
     employees--
       ``(i) of the Government Accountability Office, the term 
     `Secretary' means the Comptroller General of the United 
     States;
       ``(ii) of the Government Printing Office, the term 
     `Secretary' means the Public Printer;
       ``(iii) of the Library of Congress, the term `Secretary' 
     means the Librarian of Congress; and
       ``(iv) of any other legislative branch employer, the term 
     `Secretary' means the Office of Compliance.
       ``(b) Employment Rights, Benefits, and Protection from 
     Discrimination.--
       ``(1) Restoration to position.--Any individual subjected to 
     an order of quarantine issued by a Federal or State health 
     agency shall be entitled, on return from such quarantine--
       ``(A) to be restored by the employer of such individual to 
     the position of employment held by the individual when the 
     quarantine of such individual commenced; or
       ``(B) to be restored to an equivalent position with 
     equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and 
     conditions of employment.
       ``(2) Benefits.--An individual restored to such 
     individual's position, or equivalent position, pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be entitled to the seniority and other 
     rights and benefits that the individual had on the date when 
     the quarantine of such individual commenced, plus the 
     additional seniority and rights and benefits that the 
     individual would have attained had the individual not been

[[Page 22056]]

     subjected to a federally mandated health-related quarantine.
       ``(3) Protection from discrimination.--It shall be unlawful 
     for an employer to discharge or in any other manner 
     discriminate against any individual on the basis of such 
     individual's being, or having been, subjected to a federally 
     mandated health-related quarantine.
       ``(c) Investigative Authority; Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure compliance 
     with the provisions of subsection (b) and enforce violations 
     of subsection (b).
       ``(2) Same authorities.--In order to carry out paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall have the same authorities as 
     provided to the Secretary under sections 106 and 107 of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 209 and 210) 
     to ensure compliance with and enforce violations of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
       ``(d) State and Local Laws.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to supersede any provision of any State or local 
     law that provides greater rights than the rights established 
     under this section.''.

     ``SEC. 2151. ASSURING THAT INDIVIDUALS IN PRIORITY GROUPS 
                   RECEIVE VACCINES.

       ``(a) Determinations.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of the Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004, 
     and every 30 days thereafter, the Secretary shall review the 
     effectiveness of measures taken under sections 2142 through 
     2147 and determine whether the measures have ensured the 
     distribution of influenza vaccine for administration to 
     individuals in priority groups. If the Secretary determines 
     that the measures have not ensured that distribution, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(1) may take the actions described in subsection (b) if 
     the Secretary determines that such actions are needed to 
     protect the public health; and
       ``(2) shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress 
     of such determination.
       ``(b) Assuring the Individuals in Priority Groups Receive 
     Vaccines.--On making the determination described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may require that a person, not 
     including a person that is a manufacturer of influenza 
     vaccine, who possesses influenza vaccine sell such person's 
     supply of the influenza vaccine to the Federal Government, as 
     an exercise of the Federal Government's power to take private 
     property for public use, for just compensation.
       ``(c) Prioritization.--The Secretary shall distribute the 
     doses of influenza vaccine obtained under subsection (b) in a 
     manner determined appropriate by the Secretary to ensure that 
     such vaccine is administered to individual in priority 
     groups.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Jack 
Reed in introducing the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' I 
commend him for his leadership on this important issue. I also commend 
our colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, for their thoughtful 
proposal.
  The Emergency Flu Response Act gives the nation's health agencies the 
tools they need to respond to the current shortage of flu vaccine, to 
protect the public health from the danger of influenza and to maximize 
the value of our reduced vaccine stocks.
  During last year's flu season, we experienced unprecedented public 
demand for the flu vaccine. Fears that last year's flu strain was more 
virulent than those of previous years fueled the public's demand and 
resulted in the administration of all 87 million doses produced. 
Anticipating a similar demand for this upcoming flu season, the two 
companies that manufacture the flu vaccine planned to produce 100 
million doses for the United States.
  On Tuesday, one of those companies lost its license due to 
manufacturing concerns and is unable to ship approximately 48 million 
doses. In one day, America lost about half the country's supply of the 
flu vaccine--and fifteen States have lost their entire supply of 
influenza vaccine for adults.
  Clearly, Congress should take action to strengthen the Nation's 
supply of flu vaccine. My colleagues, Senator Bayh and Senator Craig, 
have offered thoughtful proposals on strengthening the flu vaccine 
supply in future years, and these proposals merit careful consideration 
by Congress. Many members of our Health committee have also shown great 
leadership on vaccine issues.
  Due to the long period of time necessary to produce more vaccine, 
however, measures to increase the supply of new vaccine will have 
little effect on the current shortage.
  We must make every effort to see whether additional flu vaccine can 
be found. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to seek to purchase additional vaccines available in Europe, Canada or 
Japan, and directs the FDA to review those vaccines using the flexible 
and expedited review process provided under the Project BioShield 
legislation. We should also provide NIH with the resources and the 
clear direction to determine whether existing flu vaccine stocks can be 
diluted and still retain their effectiveness. NIH provided a valuable 
service to the nation by conducting similar studies with smallpox 
vaccine.
  These measures may increase the effective supply of vaccine available 
to the nation, but even these measures may not be sufficient to meet 
the nation's needs. With flu season imminent, Congress must take steps 
immediately to give our health agencies the resources and authority 
they need to make best use of the supply currently available.
  Our health professionals should make sure that those most at risk for 
complications from flu get vaccinated first. We must learn from the 
lessons from last year's flu season and use that knowledge to ensure 
that at Americans at highest risk have priority access to the flu shot.
  We must act quickly. We know that there are 54 million doses 
available and we need to ensure that every one of them reaches those at 
highest risk of complications from flu. The bill provides funding for 
states to develop plans to effectively distribute vaccines to high 
priority groups. It also requires the tracking of available vaccines, 
so that doses can be directed to those who need it most.
  Many employers contract directly with vaccine manufacturers to 
provide a supply of vaccines for their workforce. Our bill establishes 
a vaccine clearinghouse to facilitate the voluntary donation of vaccine 
from individuals or companies with employees at low risk of infection 
to individuals at high risk. Further, this bill gives HHS the ability 
to purchase vaccine back from employers and wholesalers for 
redistribution.
  The Federal government should set an example of good vaccination 
practices. Our bill requires Federal Departments and the Attending 
Physician of the Capitol to abide by CDC recommendations on who should 
receive vaccine. If Members of Congress and their staffs cannot reserve 
flu vaccine for those most in need, how can we ask the American public 
to do so?
  We must also learn from Canada's experience with the SARS outbreak in 
Toronto last year. During that outbreak, many people were forced to 
remain home from work to prevent the spread of SARS. Some lost their 
wages during that time, and some even lost their jobs. Even more 
worrisome is that some people ignored the quarantine orders out of fear 
of repercussions at work. Our bill will assure that those who lose 
wages in complying with a Federal or State quarantine order will be 
fully compensated, and will be protected from losing their employment 
or related benefits.
  Finally, we must recognize that voluntary measures may not be enough 
to avert a crisis. For this reason, the legislation gives HHS emergency 
authority to require that vaccine supplies be administered to those in 
highest need if it determines that voluntary measures have failed, and 
that to do otherwise would pose a significant danger to the public 
health.
  Let's not let history repeat itself. We need to be prepared for flu 
vaccine shortages and influenza pandemics in the future, and we need to 
respond effectively to the current shortage. I urge my colleagues to 
support the ``Emergency Flu Response Act of 2004.'' We face a crisis, 
and Congress should not delay in enacting this needed legislation.

[[Page 22057]]



                          ____________________