[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23717-23722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2988. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide medicare beneficiaries with access to information concerning 
the quality of care provided by skilled nursing facilities and to 
provide incentives to skilled nursing facilities to improve the quality 
of care provided by those facilities by linking the amount of payment 
under the medicare program to quality reporting and performance 
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing 
today, the Long Term Care Quality and Consumer Information Act.

[[Page 23718]]

  I hope that this bill will spark a serious debate about how we pay 
for quality care. This proposal establishes a voluntary system under 
which nursing homes providing better quality of care would receive 
higher payment and in turn would provide more information about the 
quality of care provided. Information would include nurse staffing 
ratios and would be made public to consumers and their families.
  Historically, Americans have been paying the same for quality health 
care as for mediocre care. Efforts have been made by some in the 
private sector to better recognize and incentivize those providers who 
consistently provide higher level of care. The Institute of Medicine 
(IOM), in its report ``Leading by Example,'' declared the government 
should take the lead in improving health care by giving financial 
rewards to hospitals and doctors who improve care for beneficiaries in 
six Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans 
Health Administration. The IOM report also said the government should 
collect and make available to the public data comparing the quality of 
care among providers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
has begun pilot programs. I think nursing homes should also be an area 
in which we explore payment policies that regard those providing a 
higher quality of care.
  I look forward to continuing the discussion with all stakeholders 
about these concepts so we can assure a high level of care and find 
ways to help providers improve the level of care they provide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2989. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an 
affirmative defense for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with 
the laws of the various States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and 
Jeffords to introduce the Truth in Trials Act. This is a narrowly 
tailored bill that would allow defendants in Federal criminal trials 
regarding medicinal marijuana to introduce evidence that their 
marijuana-related activity was performed in compliance with State law 
regarding the medical use of marijuana. It also would provide 
defendants in such trials with an affirmative defense if they 
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their activities 
complied with State law.
  Let me be clear. This legislation does not legalize marijuana. It 
does not even legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. It only is 
meant to address the conflict between State and Federal law with regard 
to medical marijuana. Under this legislation, defendants in the ten 
States with medicinal marijuana laws could be found not guilty of 
violating Federal law if their actions are done in compliance with 
State law.
  Why is this legislation necessary?
  Over the past 8 years, ten States have passed referendums or enacted 
laws authorizing medical marijuana in those States. The first of these 
states was California. In 1996, voters in California passed the 
California Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, to 
allow seriously ill people who have a doctor's recommendation to 
cultivate and use marijuana as a form of treatment.
  However, in 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration began 
aggressively targeting medical marijuana providers in California and 
these other States--regardless of the fact that these individuals were 
complying with State law.
  Consider who these so-called criminals are that the DEA is targeting 
and arresting.
  The city of Oakland enacted a medicinal marijuana ordinance, as 
permitted by California law, and Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana to be sold 
for medicinal uses under the auspices of this ordinance. Even though 
Mr. Rosenthal was acting as an officer of the city, in February 2002, 
DEA agents raided his facility and arrested him of marijuana 
cultivation and conspiracy.
  Since Federal law does not recognize ``medical necessity'' as a 
defense, Mr. Rosenthal was not allowed to tell the jury that he was 
growing the marijuana for medicinal purposes. The prosecutors took this 
opportunity to present Mr. Rosenthal as a big-time drug dealer, and the 
jury had no choice but to convict Mr. Rosenthal.
  After the trial, the jurors learned that Mr. Rosenthal was growing 
medical marijuana and complained that they had been misled by the 
court. Five jurors immediately issued a public apology to him and 
demanded a new trial. Their statement said, ``In this trial, the 
prosecution was allowed to put all of the evidence and testimony on one 
of the scales, while the defense was not allowed to put its evidence 
and testimony on the other side. Therefore we were not allowed as a 
jury to properly weight the case.''
  During the sentencing phase of the trial, nine of the twelve jurors 
asked that Mr. Rosenthal not be imprisoned because they had convicted 
him ``without having all the evidence.'' Due to these unique 
circumstances, the judge sentenced Mr. Rosenthal to one day in prison 
and a $1,000 fine, the most lenient sentence allowed under the law. 
Yet, the prosecutor, who had asked for a six-and-a-half-year sentence, 
has appealed this sentence.
  Another example is the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a 
nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers, 85 percent of 
whom are terminally ill with cancer or AIDS. One member of this 
organization is Suzanne Pfeil, who suffers from post-polio syndrome and 
experiences extreme pain and muscle spasticity. She is allergic to 
opiates and does not tolerate many pharmaceutical drugs, so her 
physician recommended medicinal marijuana, in accordance with 
California State law. Here, in her own words, is what happened to her 
in 2002:

       At dawn on September 5th, 2002, I awoke to five federal 
     agents pointing assault rifles at my head, I did not hear 
     them come in because my respirator is rather loud. They 
     yelled at me to put my hands in the air and to stand up 
     ``NOW.'' I tried to explain to them that I needed to put my 
     hands down on the bed in order to sit up because I am 
     paralyzed. They again shouted at me to stand up. I pointed to 
     my crutches and braces beside the bed and said, ``I'm sorry, 
     I can't stand up without my crutches and braces and I 
     normally use a wheelchair.'' At that point they ripped the 
     covers off the bed and finally realized what I was trying to 
     explain amid their shouts and guns. They handcuffed me behind 
     my back and left me on the bed. The DEA then proceeded to 
     confiscate medication recommended to me by my physician under 
     California State Law Proposition 215. My crime? I am a member 
     of the WAMM, the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a 
     nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers working 
     together to provide free medication and hospice services to 
     approximately 250 seriously ill and dying members. The DEA 
     then destroyed our collective garden and arrested our 
     Director Valerie Corral, who is an epileptic, and her 
     caregiver and husband Michael Corral.

  This conflict between State and Federal law is a serious one, and one 
that will be addressed by the Supreme Court later this year in the case 
of Ashcroft v. Raich. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
rule in this case that is unconstitutional to prosecute medicinal 
marijuana users under federal law in states with medicinal marijuana 
laws, as long as the marijuana is not sold or transported across state 
lines.
  The Truth in Trials Act is consistent with this Circuit Court ruling, 
which I hope the Supreme Court will uphold, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 2992. A bill to liquidate and distribute duties collected on 
certain softwood lumber from Canada; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also 
with resolve.
  After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and 
Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber 
trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly 
given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing, 
though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the 
fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement.
  There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal 
an

[[Page 23719]]

imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected by 
U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute 
wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation. 
The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a 
bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S. 
International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than 
whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA 
obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this 
dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the 
notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber 
subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial 
advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including 
this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue.
  In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to 
this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated 
settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and 
finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber 
policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from 
the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us 
there.
  Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible 
for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated 
settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including 
the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation 
appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of 
resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the 
legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the 
parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that 
is what we will do.
  Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that 
would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating 
the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the 
antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian 
softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be 
distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously 
injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these 
duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S. 
law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the 
hilt.
  I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to 
the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is 
not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of 
this legislation.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart because it 
has been more than four years since the expiration of the Canadian 
Softwood Lumber Agreement and we have very little to show for it except 
a U.S. industry that is still a victim of the situation.
  This is an issue that I have been involved with since I came to 
Congress and in that time we have seen three separate disputes 
resulting in two negotiated agreements that have also come and gone. We 
are now in the middle of our fourth dispute with no settlement 
agreement in sight.
  While the two countries were close to reaching an agreement last 
year, little has happened since to reach a resolution. Meanwhile, with 
each log truck that comes across the border from Canada, another light 
at a U.S. timber company goes out permanently.
  In order to ensure a future for U.S. timber companies, I am joining 
Senator Baucus, in introducing the Softwood Lumber Duties Liquidation 
Act.
  Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible 
for liquidation. The duties were first imposed in May 2002, when the 
U.S. slapped antidumping and countervailing tariffs amounting to more 
than 27 percent on Canada imports. The Commerce Department had 
determined that Canadian timber policies amounted to an unfair subsidy 
and led to the dumping of artificially cheap softwood lumber into the 
U.S. market. Meanwhile, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled 
that the subsidies and dumped imports injured the U.S. lumber industry, 
warranting the imposition of tariffs.
  That being said, it is time that all parties come together in honest 
faith and work towards establishing a settlement that is free and fair 
in its framework. Anything less would be unjust to producers and 
consumers on both sides of the border.
  I am hopeful for a resolution. However, in the meantime, I, along 
with Senator Baucus, will continue to uphold U.S. laws and the 
determinations of our trade agencies to help ensure fair trade and 
protect our industries from illegally subsidized products.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 2993. A bill to establish a National Commission on the 
Infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the 
National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2004. For the past year, 
both bodies of Congress and the Administration have been in a numbers 
debate--disagreeing over the appropriate level of Federal expenditures 
for surface transportation, highways and public transit, for the next 
six years.
  What this dispute misses are the real issues: 1. What is the state of 
our surface transportation systems and other public infrastructure? 2. 
What will the expenditure levels in the bills under consideration do to 
affect that state? 3. What do the American people want in terms of 
maintenance, access, congestion, and serviceability of our highways, 
bridges, public transit, schools, water and sewer systems, and other 
infrastructure sectors?
  Now, we have passed an 8 month surface transportation extension 
because the White House and both bodies of Congress could not even 
agree on a $318 billion funding level--$57 billion lower than what was 
recommended by the United States Department of Transportation to 
maintain our surface transportation. These inadequate levels of funding 
that were being discussed proves that surface transportation and 
infrastructure is not a priority of this Congress. This is the precise 
reason we must establish an infrastructure commission to assess the 
problems of our nation's infrastructure and recommend solutions. This 
Congress must understand that a component of America's economic 
competitiveness lies within our infrastructure.
  The reality is that our Nation is in the midst of an infrastructure 
crisis. In almost every one of these areas, America is losing ground at 
an alarming pace and inadequate funding on the part of the federal 
government is the leading cause.
  The infrastructure deficit interferes with our personal lives on a 
daily basis. Increased congestion means longer commutes to and from 
work. Unrepaired potholes means greater wear and tear on our vehicles. 
Deteriorating water lines means greater exposure to lead in our 
drinking water.
  Crumbling schools means our children do not receive the quality 
education they deserve. We cannot expect our children to be productive 
if their schools' basic amenities do not meet the fundamental standards 
needed for effective learning. A 2003 report by the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, who I am happy to say support this piece of 
legislation, in addition to the Associated General Contractors of 
America and the American Public Works Association, had schools rated as 
a D- and estimated that 75% of school buildings are inadequate to meet 
the needs of school children.
  An even greater threat is over the horizon. This infrastructure 
deficit will erode our economic productivity advantage, the principle 
hope for Americans to maintain our standard of living in the face of 
fierce global competition. U.S. productivity, and the high standard of 
living that results, is dependent upon efficient transportation systems 
and healthy workers.
  We are not efficient if our goods are shipped on trucks that are 
stuck in congested traffic. We are not efficient

[[Page 23720]]

if our harbors are unable to accommodate the newest generation of 
freighters. And our workers cannot be productive if our sewer and water 
lines are in such disrepair that it affects their health.
  In 1984, Congress established the National Council on Public Works 
Improvement to report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure. They 
found that investment in America's infrastructure was barely keeping up 
with yearly depreciation and that the system would not be able to 
adequately respond to increased demand. Their 1988 final report warned 
that without increased investment, America would be faced with an 
``infrastructure crisis.''
  Sixteen years later and after the major economic boom of the 1990's, 
we have failed to maintain, let alone improve, America's 
infrastructure. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. In the 
1988 report, the national infrastructure grade was a ``C.'' The ASCE 
2003 Report Card for America's Infrastructure demoted the overall grade 
to a ``D+.'' It is evident that there has been a deterioration in 
several aspects of our infrastructure since the 1988 report.
  In 1988, roads received a grade of a C+. In 2003, roads were 
downgraded to a D+.
  In 1988, water resources and water supply was given a B and B- 
respectively. In 2003, drinking water received a D and navigable 
waterways received a D+.
  This deterioration has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy. 
Public dollars invested in infrastructure increases the productivity of 
private investment, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the global 
economy.
  What should we do? In the short run, any infrastructure bill passed 
prior to the development of a long-term plan should be for 3 years or 
less in duration. This is the only way to keep the political heat on 
the White House and the Congress. Our recent experience with 6-year 
authorization bills, such as the highway bill, demonstrates the Jekyll 
and Hyde approach we have taken toward infrastructure. There is a 
moderate peak of attention when the legislation is up for 
reauthorization, then, more than a half a decade of disinterest.
  Also in the short run, Congress must restrain itself from using the 
surface transportation act and other infrastructure legislation as a 
field of turkeys with the gobblers to be brought home to voters. The 
ability of Congress to restrain itself would be enormously enhanced if 
the relevant federal agencies would immediately get to the task of 
developing nation-wide standards of need, so that the Congress would 
have a standard against which to allocate resources. Like the United 
States Department of Transportation, other agencies need to assess 
their needs and report back to the Congress and the White House one 
year prior to the expiration of the current laws.
  In the long run, we must come to grips with this burgeoning 
infrastructure deficit. One model could be the National Highway Act of 
the 1950s, when under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the 
states and the federal government came together to jointly finance and 
construct an interstate highway system, a system which has transformed 
our nation. President Eisenhower recognized that the highway system 
would benefit the entire nation, and called on Congress to support his 
vision. In his words, ``. . . the uniting forces of our communication 
and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we 
bear--United States.'' Today, his words still resonate. Improving 
infrastructure should be a cause around which we can all unite. If we 
act, the entire country benefits; if we fail to act, the entire country 
suffers.
  This new infrastructure initiative could use many of Eisenhower's 
same principles and apply them to rebuild America and protect and 
advance our nation's social and economic future. The establishment of 
this national commission on infrastructure to report to the President 
and the Congress in 2\1/2\ years would be a step in the right 
direction.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation to ensure that 
the nation's infrastructure will one day meet current and future 
demands and more importantly, facilitate economic growth.
  Mr. President, 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. 2993

       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 ``National Infrastructure 
     Improvement Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Acquisition.--The term ``acquisition'' includes the 
     addition of land, sites, equipment, structures, facilities, 
     or rolling stock by purchase, lease-purchase, trade, or 
     donation.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National 
     Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States 
     established by section 3(a).
       (3) Construction.--The term ``construction'' means--
       (A) the design, planning, and erection of new 
     infrastructure;
       (B) the expansion of existing infrastructure;
       (C) the reconstruction of an infrastructure project at an 
     existing site; and
       (D) the installation of initial or replacement 
     infrastructure equipment.
       (4) Infrastructure.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``infrastructure'' means a 
     nonmilitary structure or facility and equipment associated 
     with that structure or facility.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``infrastructure'' includes--
       (i) a surface transportation facility (such as a road, 
     bridge, highway, public transportation facility, and freight 
     and passenger rail);
       (ii) a mass transit facility;
       (iii) an airport or airway facility;
       (iv) a resource recovery facility;
       (v) a water supply and distribution system;
       (vi) a wastewater collection, treatment, and related 
     facility;
       (vii) a waterway;
       (viii) a dock or port;
       (ix) a school building; and
       (x) a solid waste disposal facility.
       (5) Maintenance.--The term ``maintenance'' means any 
     regularly scheduled activity, such as a routine repair, 
     intended to ensure that infrastructure continues to operate 
     efficiently.
       (6) Rehabilitation.--The term ``rehabilitation'' means--
       (A) the correction of a deficiency in existing 
     infrastructure so as to extend the useful life or improve the 
     effectiveness of the infrastructure;
       (B) the modernization or replacement of equipment of 
     existing infrastructure; and
       (C) the modernization of, or replacement of parts for, 
     rolling stock relating to infrastructure.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``National Commission on the Infrastructure of 
     the United States'' to ensure that the infrastructure of the 
     United States--
       (1) meets current and future demand; and
       (2) facilitates economic growth.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 7 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 1 member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives;
       (C) 1 member shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (D) 1 member shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate; and
       (E) 1 member shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     have experience in 1 or more of the fields of economics, 
     public administration, civil engineering, public works, and 
     related design professions, planning, or public investment 
     financing.
       (3) Date of appointments.--The members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days 
     after the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Term; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission--
       (A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (B) shall be filled, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the vacancy occurs, in the same manner as the 
     original appointment was made.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.

[[Page 23721]]

       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson or the majority of the Commission members.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the 
     members of the Commission.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2007, the 
     Commission shall complete a study of all matters relating to 
     the state of the infrastructure of the United States.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Commission shall study such matters as--
       (A) the capacity of infrastructure improvements to sustain 
     current and anticipated economic development, including long-
     term economic construction and to support a sustained and 
     expanding economy;
       (B) the age and condition of public infrastructure 
     (including congestion and changes in the condition of that 
     infrastructure as compared with preceding years);
       (C) the methods used to finance the construction, 
     acquisition, rehabilitation, and maintenance of public works 
     improvements (including general obligation bonds, tax-credit 
     bonds, revenue bonds, user fees, excise taxes, direct 
     governmental assistance, and private investment);
       (D) any trends or innovations in methods used to finance 
     that construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and 
     maintenance;
       (E) investment requirements, by type of facility, that are 
     necessary to maintain the current condition and performance 
     of those facilities and the investment needed to improve 
     those facilities in the future;
       (F)(i) the projected historical share of Federal, State, 
     local, and other government levels of investment requirements 
     as identified in subparagraph (E); and
       (ii) the projected expenditure on infrastructure facility 
     improvements described in subparagraph (E) by each level of 
     government;
       (G) estimates of the return to the economy from public 
     works investment;
       (H) any trends or innovations in infrastructure procurement 
     methods; and
       (I) any trends or innovations in construction methods or 
     materials.
       (3) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall consult with appropriate stakeholders, 
     including--
       (A) the Secretary of the Army;
       (B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (C) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (D) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (E) the Secretary of Commerce;
       (F) the Secretary of Education;
       (G) the Secretary of Energy;
       (H) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (I) the Secretary of the Interior;
       (J) the Administrator of General Services;
       (K) associations representing private sector stakeholders;
       (L) associations representing State and local governments; 
     and
       (M) such other individuals and entities as are determined 
     to be appropriate by the Commission.
       (4) Resources; data.--In carrying out paragraph (1), to the 
     maximum extent practicable, the Commission shall--
       (A) use existing studies, data, sampling techniques, and 
     reports of other commissions; and
       (B) if collecting new data under this section, make every 
     effort to ensure that the data is collected in consultation 
     with the States so as to ensure that uniform methods, 
     categories, and analyses are used.
       (b) Recommendations.--The Commission shall develop 
     recommendations--
       (1) on a Federal infrastructure plan that will detail 
     national infrastructure program priorities, including 
     alternative methods of meeting national infrastructure needs 
     to effectuate balanced growth and economic development;
       (2) on public works improvements and methods of delivering 
     and providing for public work facilities;
       (3) for analysis or criteria and procedures that may be 
     used by Federal agencies and State and local governments in--
       (A) inventorying existing and needed public works 
     improvements;
       (B) assessing the condition of public works improvements; 
     and
       (C) developing uniform criteria and procedures for use in 
     conducting those inventories and assessments; and
       (4) for proposed guidelines for the uniform reporting, by 
     Federal agencies, of construction, acquisition, 
     rehabilitation, and maintenance data with respect to 
     infrastructure improvements.
       (c) Statement and Recommendations.--Not later than February 
     15, 2007, the Commission shall submit to Congress--
       (1) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of 
     the Commission; and
       (2) the recommendations of the Commission under subsection 
     (b), including recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions for 5-, 15-, 30-, and 50- year time 
     periods as the Commission considers to be appropriate.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission shall hold such hearings, 
     meet and act at such times and places, take such testimony, 
     administer such oaths, and receive such evidence as the 
     Commission considers advisable to carry out this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a 
     Federal agency such information as the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (2) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the Federal agency 
     shall provide the information to the Commission.
       (c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (d) Contracts.--The Commission may enter into contracts 
     with other entities, including contracts under which 1 or 
     more entities, with the guidance of the Commission, conduct 
     the study required under section 4(a).
       (e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other agencies of the Federal Government.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--A member of the Commission 
     shall serve without pay, but shall be allowed a per diem 
     allowance for travel expenses, at rates authorized for an 
     employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     the duties of the Commission.
       (b) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws, including 
     regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable 
     the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of 
     an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by a 
     majority of the members of the Commission.
       (3) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of 
     the executive director and other personnel without regard to 
     the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates.
       (B) Maximum rate of pay.--In no event shall any employee of 
     the Commission (other than the executive director) receive as 
     compensation an amount in excess of the maximum rate of pay 
     for Executive Level IV under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
       (1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may 
     be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
       (2) Civil service status.--The detail of a Federal employee 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege.
       (d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--On 
     request of the Commission, the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, shall provide, on a 
     reimbursable basis, such office space, supplies, equipment, 
     and other support services to the Commission and staff of the 
     Commission as are necessary for the Commission to carry out 
     the duties of the Commission under this Act.

     SEC. 7. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REVIEW.

       Not later than 90 days after the date on which the report 
     under section 4(c) is submitted to Congress by the 
     Commission, the Congressional Budget Office shall review the 
     report and submit a report on the results of the review to 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 8. FUNDING.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2005.--For fiscal year 2005, from amounts 
     otherwise made available to the Secretary of the Army for the 
     purpose of civil works for that fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall transfer to the Commission such amount, not to 
     exceed $2,000,000, as the Commission may request to carry out 
     this Act.
       (b) Future Fiscal Years.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Commission to carry out this Act 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

     SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate on September 30, 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Burns, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2994. A bill to provide that funds received as universal service 
contributions under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 and 
the universal service support programs established pursuant thereto are 
not subject to

[[Page 23722]]

certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as 
the Antideficiency Act, for a period of time; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my 
colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to 
introduce legislation to help keep Americans' telephone bills from 
rising and to prevent future disruption to the Universal Service Fund. 
The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone rates at a reasonable 
level for millions of American consumers and businesses located in 
rural parts of our country, areas where phone service would otherwise 
be prohibitively expensive. The USF also provides discounts to schools 
and libraries on their Internet service through the E-Rate program, 
which I and Senator Rockefeller worked to establish in 1996. Finally 
the USF makes basic ``life line'' phone service available to low-income 
Americans, and gives assistance to rural health care providers.
  The bill I introduce today is a corrective measure that addresses 
problems recently encountered by the Universal Service Administration 
Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress 
created to administer the USF. Specifically, this bill deals with a 
decision by the FCC that ordered USAC to adhere to a special set of 
accounting rules that applies to government agencies. As a private 
company, USAC had utilized the same accounting rules as used by the 
private sector, but was told last year that it was subject to the Anti-
Deficiency Act, a law that prevents government agencies from incurring 
financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to 
them by Congress. Adherence to government accounting rules is one of 
the Anti-Deficiency Act's requirements.
  However, the switch to government accounting rules has caused an 
unforseen disruption in the operation of the USF. In July 2004, USAC 
was notified that its method for accounting for funding commitments 
made to schools and libraries under the E-Rate program was illegal 
under the new government accounting rules, even though the method was 
perfectly proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a 
result, USAC was forced to place an enormous amount of cash on its 
books by the close of the fiscal year, September 30; to freeze the 
program on August 3, preventing any action on applications for E-Rate 
discounts right before the start of the school year; and to liquidate 
all of its assets, resulting in $4.6 million in penalties and an 
estimated loss of $30 million in expected interest income.
  While USAC believes it can resume acting upon applications for E-Rate 
discount later this month, it notified the FCC on November 1 that, in 
order to continue compliance with the new government accounting rules, 
the USF contribution factor must be raised. The contribution factor is 
the portion of each customer's phone bill that is paid into the USF. 
Currently the charge is 8.9 percent of a customer's interstate calls 
made, but it will likely rise to 13 percent or more. Of course, this 
increase would be passed right on to consumers and businesses. Worse 
yet, this accounting change is likely to affect the other components of 
the USF as well, since they by and large operate in the same manner. If 
the USF as a whole is forced to make the same accounting changes that 
were imposed on E-Rate, the USF contribution factor may rise to 25 
percent or more by January 1, 2005.
  As a result of a seemingly innocuous accounting rule change, schools 
and libraries across the country have been unable to obtain much-needed 
discounts on their Internet connections, leading many to shut off their 
Internet service altogether. A similar strain may be encountered by the 
USF as a whole, jeopardizing price supports for rural- and low-income 
Americans on their phone service. And if no immediate action is taken, 
the telephone bills of American consumers and businesses are slated to 
rise significantly come the beginning of the new year.
  My colleagues and I have examined this issue and worked closely with 
the FCC and our counterparts on the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee. We have determined that, given the pending phone bill 
increases on January 1, the only way to address this problem is to pass 
a law exempting the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act 
through December 31, 2005. During this exemption period, USAC can 
continue to operate its programs in an orderly manner, phone bills can 
remain stable, and both Congress and the Executive Branch can work on a 
permanent solution to this problem. There is ample precedent for an 
exemption; indeed, many government programs are permanently exempted 
from the Anti-Deficiency Act, such as the National Park Service and the 
Conservation Trust.
  This is a bipartisan effort among those Members who deal with 
telecommunications issues regularly. We have worked closely with the 
FCC and the House, and we have the support of the telecom industry, 
educators, and state and local governments. A permanent solution might 
require legislation, or it might not, but either way we will require 
sufficient time to craft that fix. This bill ensures that, in the 
meantime, the status quo is preserve, schools and libraries receive 
their Internet funding, the USF continues to operate soundly, and 
consumers' telephone bills do not rise.

                          ____________________