[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10341-10349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Sarbanes, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 2438. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to provide 
Federal Government employees with bid protest rights in actions under 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, competitive sourcing is the process by 
which the Federal Government conducts a competition to compare the cost 
of obtaining a needed commercial service from a private sector 
contractor rather than from Federal employees. Properly conducted, 
competitive sourcing can be an effective tool to achieve cost savings. 
Poorly utilized, however, it can increase costs and hurt the morale of 
the Federal workforce.
  The current guidelines under which agencies conduct these 
competitions are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76). To ensure that we maximize the benefit and 
minimize the cost of competitive sourcing, A-76 competition must be 
conducted in a carefully crafted manner. The rules under which they 
take place must be fair, objective, transparent, and efficient. In one 
particular regard, I believe the current rules fail to meet these 
criteria.
  Specifically, they do not allow Federal employees to protest the 
agency's decisions in an A-76 competition beyond the agency's own 
internal review processes to the General Accounting Office (GAO). 
Congress has vested in the GAO the jurisdiction to hear and render 
opinions in protests of agency acquisition decisions generally. Private 
sector contractors, in contrast to federal employees, have standing to 
protest agency procurement decisions, including those in A-76 
competitions, before GAO. Today, along with my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Levin, I am introducing legislation to correct this imbalance 
by providing Federal employees with standing to protest A-76 decisions 
to GAO.
  The current situation does not arise from any conscious policy 
decision of Congress, GAO or OMB. Rather, it occurs because the Federal 
statute that confers protest jurisdiction upon GAO, the Competition in 
Contracting Act of 1984 or ``CICA,'' was not drafted to address the 
unique nature of A-76 competitions, in particular, the role of Federal 
employees in the ``Most Efficient Organization'' or ``MEO,'' which is 
the in-house side of these competitions. This was not deliberate--this 
particular circumstance for protest was simply not contemplated by 
Congress when drafting CICA.
  Recent revisions to A-76 created the potential for GAO to review past 
decisions by Federal courts and revisit its own opinions to see whether 
the revisions would merit a determination that Federal employees had 
gained standing to protest adverse A-76 competition decisions. However, 
a recent GAO protest decision indicates that GAO has concluded it lacks 
the authority under CICA to hear protests from Federal employees in the 
MEO in these competitions. As a result, corrective legislative action 
has become necessary in our view.

[[Page 10342]]

  Our bill would extend GAO protest rights on behalf of the MEO in A-76 
competitions to two individuals. The first is the Agency Tender 
Official or ``ATO.'' The ATO is the agency official who is responsible 
for developing and representing the Federal employees' MEO. The second 
is a representative chosen directly by the Federal employees in the MEO 
for the purposes of filing a protest with GAO where the ATO does not, 
in the view of a majority of the MEO, fulfill his or her duties in 
regards to a GAO protest.
  As I mentioned, the rules under which these competitions are run must 
be fair. In addition to being objectively fair, however, I think they 
must also be perceived as fair by all parties. If the private sector 
perceives the rules to be unfair, they will decline to participate in 
competitive sourcing competitions, and the Federal Government will 
enjoy less competition in its acquisitions. If Federal employees 
perceive the rules to be unfair, there will be less interest in Federal 
employment at a time when we are all concerned about the Federal 
Government's human capital challenges. As the congressionally 
established Commercial Activities Panel noted in its report on 
competitive sourcing, the lack of GAO protest rights for Federal 
employees was one of the most often-heard complaints about the A-76 
rules. Providing them with protest rights that are similar to those 
enjoyed by the private sector is, I think, vital to assuring Federal 
employees that the rules of the game are fair to them.
  The rules must also be efficient. There are three interests that are 
served by A-76 rules that ensure a speedy process with finality. The 
Federal Government benefits by enjoying the benefits and efficiencies 
of competitive sourcing sooner rather than later. Federal workers 
benefit in that they spend less time having to worry about the outcome 
of these competitions, which can be stressful as they create 
uncertainty about employees' employment situations. Finally, because 
time is money in the private sector, private contractors will benefit 
by spending less time on competitions as well. In my view, having 
Federal employees vote to choose a representative to protest when they 
are dissatisfied with the ATO should achieve the maximum efficiency 
possible while respecting Federal employees' interests.
  In the end, our intent is to bolster the A-76 process by providing a 
mechanism for Federal employees to seek redress from GAO, an entity 
that is well known for its fair, effective and expert handling of 
acquisition protests.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 2439. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Michael Ellis 
DeBakey, M.D.; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 
lifetime achievements of Dr. Michael Ellis DeBakey, a public servant 
and world-renowned cardiologist, by offering legislation to award him 
the Congressional Gold Medal.
  When he was only 23 years of age and still attending medical school, 
Dr. DeBakey accomplished what would be the first of many life saving 
accomplishments. He successfully developed a roller pump for blood 
transfusions--the precursor and major component of the heart-lung 
machine used in the first open-heart operation. This device later led 
to national recognition for his expertise in vascular disease.
  Like many Americans of his generation, Dr. DeBakey put his practice 
on hold and volunteered for military service during World War II with 
the Surgeon General's staff. During this time, he received the rank of 
Colonel and chief of Surgical Consultants Division.
  As a result of his military and medical experience, Dr. DeBakey made 
numerous recommendations to improve the military's medical procedures. 
His efforts led to the development of mobile army surgical hospitals, 
better known as MASH units, which earned him the Legion of Merit in 
1945.
  Following WWII, Dr. DeBakey continued his hard work by proposing 
national and specialized medical centers for those soldiers who were 
wounded or needed follow-up treatment. This recommendation evolved into 
the Veterans Affairs Medical Center System and the establishment of the 
commission on Veterans Medical Problems of the National Research 
Council.
  In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University College of 
Medicine, where it started its first surgical residency program and was 
later elected the first President of Baylor College of Medicine.
  Adding to his list of accomplishments Dr. DeBakey performed the first 
successful procedure to treat patients with anyeurysms. In 1964, Dr. 
DeBakey performed the first successful coronary bypass surgery, opening 
the doors for surgeons to perform preventative procedures to save the 
lives of many people with heart disease. He was also the first to 
successfully use a partial artificial heart. Later that same year, 
President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. DeBakey as Chairman of the 
President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, which led 
to the creation of Regional Medical Programs. These programs coordinate 
medical schools, research institutions and hospitals to enhance 
research and training.
  Dr. DeBakey continued to amaze the medical world when he pioneered 
the field of telemedicine by performing the first open-heart surgery 
transmitted over satellite and then supervised the first successful 
multi-organ transplant, where a heart, both kidneys and a lung were 
transplanted from a single donor into four separate recipients.
  These accomplishments had led to national recognition. Dr. DeBakey 
has received both the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction 
from President Johnson and the National Medal of Science from President 
Ronald Reagan.
  Recently, Dr. DeBakey worked with NASA engineers to develop the 
DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, which may eliminate the need for 
some patients to receive heart transplants.
  I stand here today to acknowledge Dr. DeBakey's invaluable work and 
significant contribution to medicine by offering a bill to award him 
the Congressional Gold Medal. His efforts and innovative surgical 
techniques have since saved the lives of thousands, if not millions, of 
people. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing the 
profound impact this man has had on medical advances, the delivery of 
medicine and how we care for our Veterans. Although, Dr. DeBakey is not 
a native of Texas, he has made Texas proud. He has guided the Baylor 
College of Medicine and the city of Houston into becoming a world 
leader in medical advancement. On behalf of all Texans, I thank Dr. 
DeBakey for his lifetime of commitment and service not only to the 
medical community but to the world. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2439

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D., was born on September 7, 
     1908 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, to Shaker and Raheeja 
     DeBakey.
       (2) Dr. DeBakey, at the age of 23 and still a medical 
     student, reported a major invention, a roller pump for blood 
     transfusions, which later became a major component of the 
     heart-lung machine used in the first successful open-heart 
     operation.
       (3) Even though Dr. DeBakey had already achieved a national 
     reputation as an authority on vascular disease and had a 
     promising career as a surgeon and teacher, he volunteered for 
     military service during World War II, joining the Surgeon 
     General's staff and rising to the rank of Colonel and Chief 
     of the Surgical Consultants Division.
       (4) As a result of this first-hand knowledge of military 
     service, Dr. DeBakey made numerous recommendations for the 
     proper staged management of war wounds, which led to the 
     development of mobile army surgical hospitals or MASH units, 
     and earned Dr. DeBakey the Legion of Merit in 1945.
       (5) After the war, Dr. DeBakey proposed the systematic 
     medical follow-up of veterans and recommended the creation of 
     specialized medical centers in different areas of the United 
     States to treat wounded military personnel returning from 
     war, and from this

[[Page 10343]]

     recommendation evolved the Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
     System and the establishment of the Commission on Veterans 
     Medical Problems of the National Research Council.
       (6) In 1948, Dr. DeBakey joined the Baylor University 
     College of Medicine, where he developed the first surgical 
     residency program in the City of Houston, and today, guided 
     by Dr. DeBakey's vision, the College is one of the most 
     respected health science centers in the Nation.
       (7) In 1953, Dr. DeBakey performed the first successful 
     procedures to treat patients who suffered aneurysms leading 
     to severe strokes, and he later developed a series of 
     innovative surgical techniques for the treatment of aneurysms 
     enabling thousands of lives to be saved in the years ahead.
       (8) In 1964, Dr. DeBakey triggered the most explosive era 
     in modern cardiac surgery, when he performed the first 
     successful coronary bypass, once again paving the way for 
     surgeons world-wide to offer hope to thousands of patients 
     who might otherwise succumb to heart disease.
       (9) Two years later, Dr. DeBakey made medical history 
     again, when he was the first to successfully use a partial 
     artificial heart to solve the problems of a patient who could 
     not be weaned from a heart-lung machine following open-heart 
     surgery.
       (10) In 1968, Dr. DeBakey supervised the first successful 
     multi-organ transplant, in which a heart, both kidneys, and 
     lung were transplanted from a single donor into 4 separate 
     recipients.
       (11) In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Dr. 
     DeBakey to the position of Chairman of the President's 
     Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer and Stroke, leading to 
     the creation of Regional Medical Programs established ``to 
     encourage and assist in the establishment of regional 
     cooperative arrangements among medical schools, research 
     institutions, and hospitals, for research and training''.
       (12) In the mid-1960's, Dr. DeBakey pioneered the field of 
     telemedicine with the first demonstration of open-heart 
     surgery to be transmitted overseas by satellite.
       (13) In 1969, Dr. DeBakey was elected the first President 
     of Baylor College of Medicine.
       (14) In 1969, President Lyndon B. Johnson bestowed on Dr. 
     DeBakey the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction, 
     and in 1985, President Ronald Reagan conferred on him the 
     National Medal of Science.
       (15) Working with NASA engineers, he refined existing 
     technology to create the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, 
     one-tenth the size of current versions, which may eliminate 
     the need for heart transplantation in some patients.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 
     shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on 
     behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate 
     design, to Michael Ellis DeBakey, M.D., in recognition of his 
     many outstanding contributions to the Nation.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

       (a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this 
     Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of 
     the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be 
     deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2440. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land 
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of 
Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
authorize a special land resource study for the Walnut Canyon National 
Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate whether Federal 
and State lands adjacent to the monument should be managed as part of 
the monument, and to provide recommendations for management options.
  For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon 
National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the 
monument would be best served by protection from future development and 
managed by the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The 
Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed 
resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is 
best for the land surrounding the Walnut Canyon National Monument is by 
having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study 
would resolve the question of future management and whether the 
monument should be expanded.
  The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management 
options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources 
of the study area.
  This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the 
management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and 
protect the natural resources of this incredibly beautiful monument. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sessions, and 
        Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 2443. A bill to reform the judicial review process of orders of 
removal for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in 
Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration 
Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial 
review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd 
situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to more review and have 
more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal 
aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the 
process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby 
eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme.
  In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final 
orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal 
courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit 
courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for 
reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only 
to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration 
detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative 
or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond 
those provided in Section 106.
  In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious 
removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, 
Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration 
orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) 
eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. 
IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full 
measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their 
immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only 
served to delay their inevitable removal.
  However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding 
habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that 
habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in 
addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under 
current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their

[[Page 10344]]

deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions 
to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed 
by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals 
without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The 
result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from 
deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing 
final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the 
reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected.
  Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before 
IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. 
In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total 
number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 
to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for 
criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated.
  Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review 
should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for 
aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders 
be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in 
Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects 
an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures 
that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law 
and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr.
  With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of 
appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and 
indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an 
additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This 
legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision 
in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of 
habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their 
day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a 
position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores 
order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness 
for alien petitioners.
  Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by 
activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to 
show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and 
who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the 
aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. 
Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in 
some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens 
and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so 
that the government can effectively deport those who should be 
deported.
  Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to 
protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more 
to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our 
country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every 
illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, 
we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal 
aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our 
custody.
  I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act 
does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, 
physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my 
intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way 
to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly 
applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which 
involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for 
review by the court of appeals.
  I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives 
deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process 
that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary 
delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are 
affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who 
want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating 
dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge 
thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without 
merit.
  In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the 
subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal 
aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled 
according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline 
the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals 
getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will 
reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory 
relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous 
petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United 
States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of 
showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for 
relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more 
effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the 
obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created.
  I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in 
Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for 
all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our 
judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Santorum, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2447. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
funding for the establishment of a program on children and the media 
within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to 
study the role and impact of electronic media in the development of 
children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with 
Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum and Landrieu, the Children and 
Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. Mr. President, we believe 
there is an urgent need to establish a Federal role for targeting 
research on the impact of media on children. Almost 5 years ago, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics recommended no television viewing for 
children under the age of 2. They subsequently recommended limiting all 
screen time exposure, including television, videos, computer and video 
games, to 1-2 hours per day for older children. The Academy based these 
decisions on their best sense of how to facilitate the healthy 
development of children. However, not enough research had been 
conducted in this area to know if these particular recommendations were 
good advice or not. Five years later, we still have very limited 
information about the role of media, particularly the role of digital 
media, in very early development. Why not? None of our Federal agencies 
are charged with ensuring an ongoing funding base for a coherent 
research agenda about the role of media in children's lives.
  From the cradle to the grave, we now live and develop in a world of 
media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access 
is at our fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our 
children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. 
From ages 2-18, children are spending an average of 5 and a half hours 
with media each day. For those who are under age 6, 2 hours of exposure 
to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. 
That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing 
outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being 
read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect their 
development? We have all wondered about the answer to this question.
  Take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and 
killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns 
on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media 
played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part 
from playing first-person

[[Page 10345]]

shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they 
rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? We looked to the 
research community for an answer. In the violence and media area, we 
had invested in research more so than in any other area, and as a 
result, we knew more. Therefore, some answers were forthcoming about 
how this tragedy could have taken place as well as steps that could be 
taken, such as media education programs, which could prevent similar 
events from happening in the future. Even so, there is still a 
considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. 
Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real 
life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the 
gaming context?
  Consider the national health problem of childhood obesity. Does time 
spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary life styles 
contribute to childhood obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of 
advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that 
pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? What will 
happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell 
phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like 
best? The answer to the obesity and media question is also complex. We 
need more answers.
  A recent report linked very early television viewing with later 
symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit 
disorders. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do 
children who have attention deficits find television viewing 
experiences more engaging than kids who don't have attention problems? 
Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let 
them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less 
hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those 
where children move rapidly across different windows, influence 
attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know 
the answer.
  Many of us find that our children are becoming increasingly 
materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and even the 
``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain 
materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. What will happen when our 
children will be able to click on their television screen and go 
directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in those 
favorite programs?
  Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our 
children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in 
the 21st century. Are we right?
  How is time spent with computers different from time spent with 
television? Is the time spent with media the key to success, or is the 
content?
  The questions about how media affect the development of our children 
are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the 
answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our 
knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media 
policy.
  We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held 
numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media 
violence affects childhood aggression. We have passed legislation to 
maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such 
as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide 
educational and informational television programs for children. We 
acted to protect our children from harm by passing the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from commercial 
exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular 
pastime for them. But there are many areas where our understanding is 
preliminary at best, particularly those that involve the effect of our 
newer digital media. For example, we have passed numerous laws about 
sexually explicit content, such as the Communications Decency Act, the 
Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act 
to shield children from exposure to online content that is deemed 
harmful to minors. However, we know very little about how this kind of 
exposure affects children's development or about how to prevent 
children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online.
  In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, 
the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions 
we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific 
research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for 
overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide 
these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research 
in a piece meal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. 
We can do better than that.
  The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The 
CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by 
establishing a program on Children and Media within the National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of 
research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund 
and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role 
of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and 
behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic 
media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, and 
the Internet and will encourage research with children of all ages--
even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress 
about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void 
in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are 
authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the 
next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal. The benefits to our 
youth and our nation's families are immeasurable.
  Our children live in the information age. Our nation has one of the 
most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the 
world. While this system entertains us, it is not harmless 
entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy 
growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a 
stake in finding out exactly what that role is. Access to that 
knowledge requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, 
an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective 
future.
  By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can 
advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while 
minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that 
are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather 
than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, and 
we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the 
digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives.
  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. 2447

       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 ``Children and Media Research 
     Advancement Act'' or the ``CAMRA Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress has recognized the important role of 
     electronic media in children's lives when it passed the 
     Children's Television Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-437) and 
     the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104), both 
     of which documented public concerns about how electronic 
     media products influence children's development.
       (2) Congress has held hearings over the past several 
     decades to examine the impact of specific types of media 
     products such as violent television, movies, and video games 
     on children's health and development. These hearings and 
     other public discussions about the role of media in 
     children's development require behavioral and social science 
     research to inform the policy deliberations.
       (3) There are important gaps in our knowledge about the 
     role of electronic media and in particular, the newer 
     interactive digital media, in children's healthy development. 
     The consequences of very early screen usage

[[Page 10346]]

     by babies and toddlers on children's cognitive growth are not 
     yet understood, nor has a research base been established on 
     the psychological consequences of high definition interactive 
     media and other format differences for child viewers.
       (4) Studies have shown that children who primarily watch 
     educational shows on television during their preschool years 
     are significantly more successful in school 10 years later 
     even when critical contributors to the child's environment 
     are factored in, including their household income, parents 
     education, and intelligence.
       (5) The early stages of child development are a critical 
     formative period. Virtually every aspect of human development 
     is affected by the environments and experiences that one 
     encounters during his or her early childhood years, and media 
     exposure is an increasing part of every child's social and 
     physical environment.
       (6) As of the late 1990's, just before the National 
     Institute of Child Health and Human Development funded 5 
     studies on the role of sexual messages in the media on 
     children and adolescents sexual attitudes and sexual 
     practices, a review of research in this area found only 15 
     studies ever conducted in the United States on this topic, 
     even during a time of growing concerns about HIV infection.
       (7) In 2001, a National Academy of Sciences study group 
     charged with finding solutions to Internet pornography 
     exposure on youth found virtually no literature about how 
     much children and adolescents were exposed to Internet 
     pornography or how such content impacts youth.
       (8) In order to develop strategies that maximize the 
     positive and minimize the negative effects of each medium on 
     children's physical, cognitive, social, and emotional 
     development, it would be beneficial to develop a research 
     program that can track the media habits of young children and 
     their families over time using valid and reliable research 
     methods.
       (9) Research about the impact of the media on children is 
     not presently supported through one primary programmatic 
     effort. The responsibility for directing the research is 
     distributed across disparate agencies in an uncoordinated 
     fashion, or is overlooked entirely. The lack of any 
     centralized organization for research minimizes the value of 
     the knowledge produced by individual studies. A more 
     productive approach for generating valuable findings about 
     the impact of the media on children would be to establish a 
     single, well-coordinated research effort with primary 
     responsibility for directing the research agenda.
       (10) Due to the paucity of research about electronic media, 
     educators and others interested in implementing electronic 
     media literacy initiatives do not have the evidence needed to 
     design, implement, or assess the value of these efforts.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to enable the 
     National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to--
       (1) examine the role and impact of electronic media in 
     children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and 
     behavioral development; and
       (2) provide for a report to Congress containing the 
     empirical evidence and other results produced by the research 
     funded through grants under this Act.

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA 
                   IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN.

       Subpart 7 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285g et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 452H. RESEARCH ON THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC 
                   MEDIA IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute shall 
     enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy 
     of Science in collaboration with the Institute of Medicine to 
     establish an independent panel of experts to review, 
     synthesize and report on research, theory, and applications 
     in the social, behavioral, and biological sciences and to 
     establish research priorities regarding the positive and 
     negative roles and impact of electronic media use, including 
     television, motion pictures, DVD's, interactive video games, 
     and the Internet, and exposure to that content and medium on 
     youth in the following core areas of child development:
       ``(1) Cognitive.--The role and impact of media use and 
     exposure in the development of children within such cognitive 
     areas as language development, attention span, problem 
     solving skills (such as the ability to conduct multiple tasks 
     or `multitask'), visual and spatial skills, reading, and 
     other learning abilities.
       ``(2) Physical.--The role and impact of media use and 
     exposure on children's physical coordination, diet, exercise, 
     sleeping and eating routines, and other areas of physical 
     development.
       ``(3) Socio-behavioral.--The influence of interactive media 
     on childhood and family activities and peer relationships, 
     including indoor and outdoor play time, interaction with 
     parents, consumption habits, social relationships, 
     aggression, prosocial behavior, and other patterns of 
     development.
       ``(b) Pilot Projects.--During the first year in which the 
     National Academy of Sciences panel is summarizing the data 
     and creating a comprehensive research agenda in the children 
     and media area under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     provide for the conduct of initial pilot projects to 
     supplement and inform the panel in its work. Such pilot 
     projects shall consider the role of media exposure on--
       ``(1) cognitive and social development during infancy and 
     early childhood; and
       ``(2) the development of childhood obesity, particularly as 
     a function of media advertising and sedentary lifestyles that 
     may co-occur with heavy media diets.
       ``(c) Research Program.--Upon completion of the review 
     under subsection (a), the Director of the National Institute 
     of Child Health and Human Development shall develop and 
     implement a program that funds additional research determined 
     to be necessary by the panel under subsection (a) concerning 
     the role and impact of electronic media in the cognitive, 
     physical, and socio-behavioral development of children and 
     adolescents with a particular focus on the impact of factors 
     such as media content, format, length of exposure, age of 
     child, and nature of parental involvement. Such program shall 
     include extramural and intramural research and shall support 
     collaborative efforts to link such research to other National 
     Institutes of Health research investigations on early child 
     health and development.
       ``(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, an entity shall--
       ``(1) prepare and submit to the Director of the Institute 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Director may require; and
       ``(2) agree to use amounts received under the grant to 
     carry out activities that establish or implement a research 
     program relating to the effects of media on children pursuant 
     to guidelines developed by the Director relating to 
     consultations with experts in the area of study.
       ``(e) Use of Funds Relating to the Media's Role in the Life 
     of a Child.--An entity shall use amounts received under a 
     grant under this section to conduct research concerning the 
     social, cognitive, emotional, physical, and behavioral 
     development of children as related to electronic mass media, 
     including the areas of--
       ``(1) television;
       ``(2) motion pictures;
       ``(3) DVD's;
       ``(4) interactive video games; and
       ``(5) the Internet.
       ``(f) Reports.--
       ``(1) Report to director.--Not later than 12 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the panel under 
     subsection (a) shall submit the report required under such 
     subsection to the Director of the Institute.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than December 31, 
     2010, the Director of the Institute shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
     the Senate, and Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
     the House of Representatives a report that--
       ``(A) summarizes the empirical evidence and other results 
     produced by the research under this section in a manner that 
     can be understood by the general public;
       ``(B) places the evidence in context with other evidence 
     and knowledge generated by the scientific community that 
     address the same or related topics; and
       ``(C) discusses the implications of the collective body of 
     scientific evidence and knowledge regarding the role and 
     impact of the media on children, and makes recommendations on 
     how scientific evidence and knowledge may be used to improve 
     the healthy developmental and learning capacities of 
     children.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my 
colleagues and support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act 
or CAMRA. The development of our Nation's children is vital and the way 
in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative. 
For many years, I have been concerned about the impact media has on our 
children.
  The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released their report on 
electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers--
ages 0 to 6 years old. Not surprisingly, the study found that children 
today are reared in a media saturated environment.
  According to the study, 99 percent of all children live in a home 
with a TV set and 50 percent of these children live in a home with 
three or more TVs of which 36 percent have a TV in their bedroom.

[[Page 10347]]

  Perhaps even more startling, 30 percent of children ages zero to 
three years and 43 percent of four to six year olds have a TV in their 
bedroom. Additionally, 27 percent of children have their own VCR or DVD 
player in their rooms and 10 percent have their own video game console 
in their room as well.
  Further, 73 percent of children ages 0 to 6 have a computer at home, 
and 49 percent of these young people have a video game player.
  Even more concerning is that the American Academy of Pediatrics 
recommends that children under two do not watch any television. The 
Academy further states that all children over two should be limited to 
one or two hours of educational screen media a day.
  However, despite this recommendation, the Kaiser study found that in 
a typical day, 68 percent of all children under two use screen media--
59 percent watch TV, 42 percent watch a video or DVD, five percent use 
computers and three percent play video games. The study also found that 
74 percent of all infants and toddlers have watched TV before the age 
of two.
  Unfortunately, there is a lack of comprehensive research that 
provides detailed data on the relationship between media and brain 
development in children. That is why I am pleased to support the 
Children and Media Research Advancement Act. This will not only 
encourage much needed research in this area, but will also serve to 
coordinate such research.
  Providing parents and guardians with the most accurate information 
regarding the impact media has on their children is essential--to do 
anything less would be reprehensible.
  Already many studies--including ones that followed children from age 
8 until mid-adulthood (age 30 plus years)--have demonstrated a link 
between early exposure to entertainment violence and aggressive 
attitudes, values and behaviors, including increased levels of violent 
crime against others.
  There are three main effects on children of viewing entertainment 
violence: aggression more likely to think and behave aggressively, and 
hold attitudes and values favorable to the use of aggression to resolve 
conflicts; desensitization decreased sensitivity to violence and a 
greater willingness to tolerate increasing levels of violence in 
society; fear viewers may develop the ``mean world syndrome'' in which 
they overestimate their risk of becoming victims of violence.
  Even in the Kaiser study I referenced earlier, among all parents 
whose zero to six year olds watched TV, 81 percent said that they saw 
their children imitate behaviors from television--36 percent of parents 
reported that their children mimicked aggressive behavior, 78 percent 
mimicked positive behavior. When focusing on the four to six year age 
group, mimicking aggressive behaviors increase to nearly half or 47 
percent, with aggressive behavior being imitated more frequently with 
boys, 59 percent than with girls at 35 percent.
  Clearly, we must continue to encourage and fund studies that will 
show the effects media has on the development of the adolescent brain. 
I am pleased that CAMRA will encourage this much-needed research in 
such a crucial area.
  Protecting our nation's children and ensuring that parents have the 
most accurate and complete information on the effects of media on their 
children should remain our top priority. I look forward to working with 
Senators Lieberman and Clinton on an issue that is vital to our 
society.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues 
Senators Lieberman and Brownback in introducing the Children and Media 
Research Advancement Act (CAMRA).
  Children today are living in an environment that is saturated with 
electronic media. Even in the last few years, we've seen a dramatic 
increase in media targeted directly at children. There's now a booming 
market of DVDs and videos for infants and the first TV show 
specifically for children as young as 12 months was launched a few 
years back. Kids today even have their own cable TV network.
  Researchers estimate that children spend an average of five-and-a-
half hours a day using these media--this works out to more than they 
spend doing anything besides sleeping. Even kids under six spend as 
much time watching TV and videos, playing video games, and using 
computers as they do playing outside. Unfortunately, we don't really 
know how this trend affects our children. But we do know that a child's 
early years affect every aspect of his or her development--physical, 
emotional, and cognitive. And therefore, we know that ignorance is not 
bliss.
  The longer we wait to understand the full impact of media on our 
children, the bigger risk we take. And we are gambling with our 
children's future. Parents need to know how television, movies, 
advertisements, video games, and the Internet affect their children so 
that they can make informed decisions about how much and what kind of 
media their children should be exposed to.
  As parents, we know intuitively that our young children shouldn't be 
watching television shows with extreme violence or age-inappropriate 
content. But there are other issues we aren't so sure about. How much 
video game playing is too much? Do advertisements for cereals and junk 
foods contribute to childhood obesity? How are our very young children 
and infants impacted by media? Right now we have little idea of what it 
means for infant development to put babies in front of TVs for hours at 
a time, but we know that sometimes popping in a video is the best and 
only way to calm our children down.
  Our bill, The Children and Media Research Advancement Act, will help 
answer these questions by establishing a single, coordinated research 
program at the National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development. This program will study the impact of electronic media on 
children's--particularly very young children and infant's--cognitive, 
social and physical development.
  One of the first things the program will do will be to work with the 
National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to establish 
an independent panel of experts to review and synthesize existing 
research and to establish research priorities on the impact of the 
media on child development. They'll then award grants for research that 
addresses the panel's priorities.
  If we are truly going to make children a priority, we have to pay 
attention to and take seriously the activities they're engaged in on a 
daily basis. Watching television, playing video games, and surfing the 
Internet are the things that children are doing more than anything 
else. We need to invest in research that will help us understand how 
this is affecting our children so that parents can make informed 
decisions about the positive effects and negative effects of these 
media on children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG.
  S. 2448. A bill to coordinate rights under the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 with other Federal laws; 
read the first time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has 
brought to light yet another example of how outdated and burdensome 
government policies often punish generous employers in America. 
Apparently, when it comes to companies showing respect for employees 
who are called to active duty in the military, there is special meaning 
to the old cliche that ``no good deed goes unpunished.''
  An arcane IRS interpretation of tax law actually penalizes employers 
that voluntarily pay their National Guard and reservist employees the 
difference between these patriots' military stipends and their previous 
civilian salaries--which appropriately is called ``differential pay.'' 
The law also penalizes employers that continue making contributions to 
retirement plans for such employees.
  According to the IRS, members of the Guard and reserves called up for 
active duty are required to be treated as if they are on a leave of 
absence by their employers under the Uniformed

[[Page 10348]]

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994--USERRA. 
Therefore, the act does not require employers to pay workers who are on 
active duty. However, many employers--out of a sense of civic duty--
continue to pay active duty Guard members and reservists the difference 
between their military stipends and their regular salaries with some 
employers providing such ``differential pay'' for up to three years. In 
additions, many of these remarkable companies go even further and allow 
their active duty employees to continue making contributions to their 
401(k) retirement plans via deductions from the ``differential 
payments.''
  However, rather than applauding and encouraging such selfless 
behavior by companies, the IRS's 1969 Revenue Ruling requires that the 
active duty workers be treated as if they were ``terminated.'' As a 
result, this law then puts at risk the retirement plan for an 
employers' entire workforce and could make all amounts in the plan 
immediately taxable to the plan's participants and the employer. Adding 
to the absurdity of the situation, preventing an employer from treating 
``differential pay'' as wages under the law means employers are 
prohibited from withholding income taxes, which in turn causes their 
active duty former employees to face large and unexpected tax bills at 
the end of the year.
  The Uniformed Services Differential Pay Protection Act simply amends 
USERRA to clarify that differential payments are to be treated as 
``wages'' to current employees and that retirement plan contributions 
from such ``wages'' are permissible. The bill upholds the principle 
that these patriotic and truly remarkable employers should not be 
penalized for the selfless generosity they provide to our Nation's 
reservists and members of the National Guard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 2449. A bill to require congressional renewal of trade and travel 
restrictions with respect to Cuba; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in disbelief. Yesterday, I 
learned that a NAFTA panel reviewing the International Trade 
Commission's (ITC) analysis of material inquiry in Softwood Lumber from 
Canada has rejected an ITC request for more time to respond to a panel 
remand. This latest rejection of a reasonable request is simply one 
more circumstance in which this NAFTA panel has demonstrated its clear 
disregard of the limits of its own jurisdiction. And it provides 
further indication to me that the NAFTA Chapter 19 system is seriously 
off-track and is in need of fundamental reform.
  After reviewing the ITC's first remand determination, a 114 page long 
document that answered all of the Panel's remand issues, the Panel 
yesterday again remanded, and gave the ITC, in effect, seven business 
days to craft a new remand determination. The ITC filed a motion to 
extend, requesting a reasonable period of time to respond fully to the 
remand determination. The ITC further noted that it would consider 
reopening the record for new evidence and argument. In fact, the 
Federal Circuit just several months ago said that the Commission had 
the exclusive authority to open its record when it believed it should 
do so.
  Outrageously, the NAFTA panel refused to grant the ITC's request, 
again limiting the ITC to seven business days. Moreover, this runaway 
panel forbade the ITC from reopening the record, concluding that 
binding Federal Circuit precedent did not apply in the Panel.
  On top of all of this, I understand that U.S.T.R. suggested to the 
Canadians that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest for 
one of the panelists.
  The NAFTA rules could not be more clear: Chapter 19 Panels must act 
as would a U.S. court and must follow U.S. law. Panelists with a 
conflict of interest must step down. And the Federal Circuit has ruled, 
without reservation or qualification, that the question of whether 
compliance with a remand order requires the reopening of the record 
``is of course solely for the Commission itself to determine.'' Nippon 
Steel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 345 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 
2003). It is outrageous that a NAFTA panel would seek to avoid binding 
U.S. law.
  All I can say to this very sorry state of affairs is that I don't 
think Congress will long allow a dispute settlement panel to rewrite 
perfectly valid trade laws or preempt the powers delegated to the ITC, 
much less tolerate a dispute settlement system in which panels 
willfully and routinely breach the clear mandate of their authority 
that is itself the product of careful negotiation. This NAFTA panel has 
shown us that they cannot be trusted to respect the integrity of the 
NAFTA trading system. They have also shown us that the NAFTA panel 
system is broken and that it must be fixed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2450. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revise the 
requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Combat 
Medical Badge with respect to service in Korea after July 28, 1953; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Korean 
Defense Service Combat Recognition Act of 2004 which would amend Title 
10, United States Code, to revise the requirements for award of the 
Combat Infantryman Badge and the Combat Medical Badge with respect to 
service in Korea after July 28, 1953.
  The Army awards the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) to recognize members 
of infantry units who have been engaged in ground combat. The Combat 
Medical Badge (CMB) recognizes field medics who accompany infantry 
troops into battle. A 1968 Army regulation makes it much more difficult 
for U.S. troops serving in South Korea to be awarded the CIB or CMB 
than for troops serving almost anywhere else in the world. 
Specifically, infantrymen stationed in South Korea must be in five 
firefights in order to qualify for the awards. In other combat zones, 
the requirement is one firefight.
  In addition, to be awarded the medals, troops in South Korea must 
also have served in theater for sixty days in a hostile fire area, be 
authorized hostile fire pay, and be recommended by each superior up the 
chain-of-command to the division level.
  My bill normalizes the rules so that all troops, no matter where they 
serve, are subject to the same eligibility requirements for these two 
prestigious medals.
  Unfortunately, the Army regulation has had the unintended consequence 
of making it extra difficult for infantry and medical units serving 
along the DMZ in South Korea to earn combat recognition medals. A 
spokesman for the Korean Defense Veterans of America (KDVA) has 
described these requirements as making it nearly impossible to be 
awarded the CIB for infantrymen serving in Korea, short of getting 
killed in combat. The KDVA is a group of veterans and active soldiers 
who are serving, or who have served, in South Korea since 1953.
  This language is supported by the KDVA and the Combat Infantryman's 
Association. The Combat Infantryman's Association is a group of Army 
infantrymen who have been awarded the Combat Infantry Badge.
  It is unfair and wrong to require five firefights in South Korea, but 
only one firefight in Grenada, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Laos, 
Vietnam, and almost every other location in the world. The Korean 
Defense Service Combat Recognition Act of 2004 normalizes the rules so 
that all troops, no matter where they serve, are subject to the same 
eligibility requirements for these two prestigious medals.
  I urge my colleagues to support its passage and ask unanimous consent 
that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2450

       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 ``Korea Defense Service Combat 
     Recognition Act''.

[[Page 10349]]



     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF COMBAT INFANTRYMAN BADGE 
                   AND COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE WITH RESPECT TO 
                   SERVICE IN KOREA AFTER JULY 28, 1953.

       (a) Standardization of Requirements With Other Geographic 
     Areas.--(1) Chapter 357 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3757. Korea defense service: Combat Infantryman Badge; 
       Combat Medical Badge

       ``The Secretary of the Army shall provide that, with 
     respect to service in the Republic of Korea after July 28, 
     1953, eligibility of a member of the Army for the Combat 
     Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge shall be met 
     under criteria and eligibility requirements that, as nearly 
     as practicable, are identical to those applicable, at the 
     time of such service in the Republic of Korea, to service 
     elsewhere without regard to specific location or special 
     circumstances. In particular, such eligibility shall be 
     established--
       ``(1) without any requirement for service by the member in 
     an area designated as a `hostile fire area' (or by any 
     similar designation) or that the member have been authorized 
     hostile fire pay;
       ``(2) without any requirement for a minimum number of 
     instances (in excess of one) in which the member was engaged 
     with the enemy in active ground combat involving an exchange 
     of small arms fire; and
       ``(3) without any requirement for personal recommendation 
     or approval by commanders in the member's chain of command 
     other than is generally applicable for service at locations 
     outside the Republic of Korea.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3757. Korea defense service: Combat Infantryman Badge; Combat Medical 
              Badge.''.

       (b) Applicability to Service Before Date of Enactment.--The 
     Secretary of the Army shall establish procedures to provide 
     for the implementation of section 3757 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), with respect to 
     service in the Republic of Korea during the period between 
     July 28, 1953, and the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     Such procedures shall include a requirement for submission of 
     an application for award of a badge under that section with 
     respect to service before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and the furnishing of such information as the Secretary 
     may specify.

                          ____________________