[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15193-15239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 1341. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve 
transitional assistance provided for members of the armed forces being 
discharged, released from active duty, or retired, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to 
our military personnel.
  As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men 
and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction 
and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.
  We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the 
benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them. 
I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who 
are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or 
appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that tens of 
thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care and other 
benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have undertaken numerous 
legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that the Department of 
Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and their families a 
priority.
  While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure 
that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces 
receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them 
to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am 
concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in 
uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the 
service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve, 
to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian 
lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the 
military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is 
much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles 
have ended and our troops have come home.
  The bill that I am introducing today, the Veterans Enhanced 
Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all 
military personnel have access to the same transition services as they 
prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case 
of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to 
demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian 
lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.
  I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military 
and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do 
not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical 
services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven 
provision of services from base to base and from service to service. 
All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country, 
and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same 
services in return.
  I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am 
pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill 
was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill.
  In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my 
constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of 
Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and 
certification standards could be coordinated with government and 
private sector training and certification standards for corresponding 
civilian occupations. Such coordination could help military personnel 
who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military 
specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable 
civilian jobs. I look forward to reviewing this report.
  In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing 
transition services for our military personnel that are administered by 
the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make 
recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My 
amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the 
uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military 
personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health 
assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its 
study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could 
Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May 
2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the 
near future.
  Just yesterday, GAO provided testimony on its transition services 
report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on 
Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We 
owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs 
now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who 
are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We should 
not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently 
serving our country.
  My bill, which is consistent with GAO's recommendations on transition 
assistance, will help to ensure that all military personnel receive the 
same services by making a number of improvements to the existing 
Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program 
(TAP/DTAP), by improving the process by which military personnel who 
are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and 
mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans 
service organizations and state departments of veterans affairs are 
able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the 
difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of 
discharging or demobilizing.
  Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation 
counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed 
Forces. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable 
information about benefits that they have earned through their service 
to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and 
health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn 
about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment 
assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.
  My bill would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who 
are on active duty are able to participate in this important counseling 
prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state-
based follow-up within 180 days of demobilization to give newly 
demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or 
concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period. 
Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about 
benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department 
of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members 
participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would 
do.
  In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that 
``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard 
members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to 
which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and

[[Page 15194]]

medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still 
on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and 
National Guard members were not aware of the time frames within which 
they needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In 
addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have 
the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during 
demobilization.''
  In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in 
conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine what demobilizing Reserve 
and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore 
options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended 
that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to 
ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.''
  In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing 
military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, my bill would 
help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by 
directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent transition 
briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge 
locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may 
vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive, 
the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We 
should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves 
in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services 
no matter their discharge/demobilization location or the branch of the 
Armed Forces in which they serve.
  My bill would also ensure, consistent with GAO's recommendation, that 
there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active 
duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel. And my bill includes a 
provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability 
retired list and who are being retired or discharged from alternate 
locations will have access to transition services at a location that is 
reasonably convenient to them.
  In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented 
to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the 
provision of information regarding certification and licensing 
requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying 
military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information 
concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship 
programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning 
employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal 
employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information 
concerning homelessness and housing counseling assistance, and a 
description of the health care and other benefits to which the member 
may be entitled under the laws administered by the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs including a referral (to be provided with the 
assistance of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) for a VA medical and 
pension examination, as appropriate.
  Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program 
is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian 
life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military 
personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with 
information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they 
otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains 
a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of 
the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for 
active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the 
Department of Labor's transitional services employment program will not 
be required if a member has previously participated in the program or 
if a member will be returning to school or to a position of employment.
  My bill would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs to submit a plan to Congress for increasing access to the joint 
DoD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel 
in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from 
the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the red 
tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are 
entitled to VA disability benefits.
  In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have 
long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects 
that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I 
regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a 
condition is related to military service falls on the personnel 
themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the 
doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA 
for benefits that they have earned through their service to our nation.
  Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention 
on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel 
who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end 
of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that 
conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as 
Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the 
Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in 
the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense 
and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and 
to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this 
condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to 
ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region 
are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War 
Syndrome.
  Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in 
uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its 
responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military 
personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are 
experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment 
physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals 
in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally 
concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a 
physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not 
available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a 
service-connected condition.
  I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support 
my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt, 
high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization 
process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's 
way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense 
makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could 
experience, any health effects as a result of their service.
  In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each 
installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my 
bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards 
for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these 
standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all 
branches of the Armed Forces. In addition, to ensure that all personnel 
receive these important exams, my bill stipulates that the exam may not 
be waived by the Department or by individual personnel.
  My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these 
medical examinations also include a mental health assessment. Our men 
and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home, 
and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific 
situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard 
concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of 
high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical 
and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to 
seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.

[[Page 15195]]

  My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing 
military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the 
mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the 
Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed 
onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically, 
questions to identify stressors experienced by military personnel that 
have the potential to lead to PTSD. These efforts should build on--not 
replace--the mental health questions that the Pentagon is already using 
as part of its post-deployment health screening process.
  Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the 
multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to 
chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a 
previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering 
event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for 
full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places 
over their careers.
  We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men 
and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too 
often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process 
is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related 
illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD, 
the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my bill 
would require that the health care professionals who are assessing 
demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need 
follow-up care for a physical or psychological condition with 
information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the 
private sector that these personnel may use to access additional 
follow-up care if they so choose.
  I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for 
issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the 
Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's 
current post-deployment health assessment process to include a 
reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental 
health'' to occur three to six months post-deployment. At a hearing of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier 
this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the 
process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening 
procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about 
three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this 
program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them . . . 
`do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.'' 
This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post-
deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be 
mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark 
against which to measure the results of the follow-up screening 
process.
  In order to gain a better understanding of existing programs, my bill 
requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to 
Congress on the services provided to current and former members of the 
Armed Forces who experience PTSD and related conditions. This report 
will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of 
interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of 
the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related 
conditions.
  In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are 
eligible for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these 
benefits, my bill would require that, as part of the demobilization 
process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA 
health care system.
  My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and 
discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans 
service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on 
options for benefits and other important questions. The demobilization 
and discharge process presents our servicemembers with a sometimes 
confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork 
that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of 
time. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling 
program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with 
fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been 
accredited to represent veterans in VA proceeding by the VA. These 
veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices 
that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or 
demobilized.
  Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the 
services provided by MSOs and VSOs as part of the transition process. 
But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to 
transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. In order to 
help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my legislation 
would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs, 
VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs, are invited to 
participate in all transition and Benefits Delivery at Discharge 
programs. In addition, my legislation requires that these dedicated 
veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving 
their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to 
military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order 
to provide this important service. By and large, these groups are able 
to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities. 
But I am disturbed by reports that representatives of some of these 
groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in 
order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this 
access requirement in my bill.
  I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel 
to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It 
merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.
  I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a wide range of 
groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and 
veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion; 
the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States; 
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin 
National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled 
American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed 
Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of 
Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of 
America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill and 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. 1341

       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 ``Veterans' Enhanced 
     Transition Services Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Preseparation Counseling.--Section 1142 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``provide for individual 
     preseparation counseling'' and inserting ``shall provide 
     individual preseparation counseling'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) For members of the reserve components who have been 
     serving on active duty continuously for at least 180 days, 
     the Secretary concerned shall require that preseparation 
     counseling under this section be provided to all such members 
     (including officers) before the members are separated.
       ``(5) The Secretary concerned shall ensure that commanders 
     of members entitled to services under this section authorize 
     the members to obtain such services during duty time.''.

[[Page 15196]]

       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(4) Information 
     concerning'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Provision of information on civilian occupations and 
     related assistance programs, including information 
     concerning--
       ``(A) certification and licensure requirements that are 
     applicable to civilian occupations;
       ``(B) civilian occupations that correspond to military 
     occupational specialties; and
       ``(C)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Information concerning the priority of service for 
     veterans in the receipt of employment, training, and 
     placement services provided under qualified job training 
     programs of the Department of Labor.
       ``(12) Information concerning veterans small business 
     ownership and entrepreneurship programs of the Small Business 
     Administration and the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation.
       ``(13) Information concerning employment and reemployment 
     rights and obligations under chapter 43 of title 38.
       ``(14) Information concerning veterans preference in 
     federal employment and federal procurement opportunities.
       ``(15) Information concerning homelessness, including risk 
     factors, awareness assessment, and contact information for 
     preventative assistance associated with homelessness.
       ``(16) Contact information for housing counseling 
     assistance.
       ``(17) A description, developed in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs, of health care and other 
     benefits to which the member may be entitled under the laws 
     administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       ``(18) If a member is eligible, based on a preseparation 
     physical examination, for compensation benefits under the 
     laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a 
     referral for a medical examination by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs (commonly known as a `compensation and 
     pension examination').'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--(1) The Secretary concerned 
     shall ensure that--
       ``(A) preseparation counseling under this section includes 
     material that is specifically relevant to the needs of--
       ``(i) persons being separated from active duty by discharge 
     from a regular component of the armed forces; and
       ``(ii) members of the reserve components being separated 
     from active duty;
       ``(B) the locations at which preseparation counseling is 
     presented to eligible personnel include--
       ``(i) each military installation under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary;
       ``(ii) each armory and military family support center of 
     the National Guard;
       ``(iii) inpatient medical care facilities of the uniformed 
     services where such personnel are receiving inpatient care; 
     and
       ``(iv) in the case of a member on the temporary disability 
     retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title who is 
     being retired under another provision of this title or is 
     being discharged, a location reasonably convenient to the 
     member;
       ``(C) the scope and content of the material presented in 
     preseparation counseling at each location under this section 
     are consistent with the scope and content of the material 
     presented in the preseparation counseling at the other 
     locations under this section; and
       ``(D) follow up counseling is provided for each member of 
     the reserve components described in subparagraph (A) not 
     later than 180 days after separation from active duty.
       ``(2) The Secretary concerned shall, on a continuing basis, 
     update the content of the materials used by the National 
     Veterans Training Institute and such officials' other 
     activities that provide direct training support to personnel 
     who provide preseparation counseling under this section.
       ``(e) National Guard Members on Duty in State Status.--(1) 
     Members of the National Guard, who are separated from long-
     term duty to which ordered under section 502(f) of title 32, 
     shall be provided preseparation counseling under this section 
     to the same extent that members of the reserve components 
     being discharged or released from active duty are provided 
     preseparation counseling under this section.
       ``(2) The preseparation counseling provided personnel under 
     paragraph (1) shall include material that is specifically 
     relevant to the needs of such personnel as members of the 
     National Guard.
       ``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe, by 
     regulation, the standards for determining long-term duty 
     under paragraph (1).''; and
       (4) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1A1142. Members separating from active duty: 
       preseparation counseling''.

       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 58 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 1142 and 
     inserting the following:

``1142. Members separating from active duty: preseparation 
              counseling.''.

       (c) Department of Labor Transitional Services Program.--
     Section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     in the second sentence and inserting ``paragraph (6)(A)'';
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Participation.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     require participation by members of the armed forces eligible 
     for assistance under the program carried out under this 
     section.
       ``(2) The Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     need not require, but shall encourage and otherwise promote, 
     participation in the program by the following members of the 
     armed forces described in paragraph (1):
       ``(A) Each member who has previously participated in the 
     program.
       ``(B) Each member who, upon discharge or release from 
     active duty, is returning to--
       ``(i) a position of employment; or
       ``(ii) pursuit of an academic degree or other educational 
     or occupational training objective that the member was 
     pursuing when called or ordered to such active duty.
       ``(3) The Secretary concerned shall ensure that commanders 
     of members entitled to services under this section authorize 
     the members to obtain such services during duty time.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Updated Materials.--The Secretary concerned shall, on 
     a continuing basis, update the content of all materials used 
     by the Department of Labor that provide direct training 
     support to personnel who provide transitional services 
     counseling under this section.''.

     SEC. 3. BENEFITS DELIVERY AT DISCHARGE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Plan for Maximum Access to Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall jointly submit to Congress a plan to maximize access to 
     benefits delivery at discharge programs for members of the 
     Armed Forces.
       (2) Contents.--The plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include a description of efforts to ensure that services 
     under programs described in paragraph (1) are provided, to 
     the maximum extent practicable--
       (A) at each military installation under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary;
       (B) at each armory and military family support center of 
     the National Guard;
       (C) at each installation and inpatient medical care 
     facility of the uniformed services at which personnel 
     eligible for assistance under such programs are discharged 
     from the armed forces; and
       (D) in the case of a member on the temporary disability 
     retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of title 10, United 
     States Code, who is being retired under another provision of 
     such title or is being discharged, at a location reasonably 
     convenient to the member.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``benefits 
     delivery at discharge program'' means a program administered 
     jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to provide information and assistance on 
     available benefits and other transition assistance to members 
     of the Armed Forces who are separating from the Armed Forces, 
     including assistance to obtain any disability benefits for 
     such members may be eligible.

     SEC. 4. POST-DEPLOYMENT MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND SERVICES.

       (a) Improvement of Medical Tracking System for Members 
     Deployed Overseas.--Section 1074f of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(including an 
     assessment of mental health'' and inserting ``(which shall 
     include mental health screening and assessment'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Physical Medical Examinations.--(1) The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) prescribe the minimum content and standards that 
     apply for the physical medical examinations required under 
     this section; and
       ``(B) ensure that the content and standards prescribed 
     under subparagraph (A) are uniformly applied at all 
     installations and medical facilities of the armed forces 
     where physical medical examinations required under this 
     section are performed for members of the armed forces 
     returning from a deployment described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) An examination consisting solely or primarily of an 
     assessment questionnaire completed by a member does not meet 
     the requirements under this section for--
       ``(A) a physical medical examination; or
       ``(B) an assessment.
       ``(3) The content and standards prescribed under paragraph 
     (1) for mental health screening and assessment shall 
     include--
       ``(A) content and standards for screening mental health 
     disorders; and
       ``(B) in the case of acute post-traumatic stress disorder 
     and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder, specific 
     questions to identify stressors experienced by members

[[Page 15197]]

     that have the potential to lead to post-traumatic stress 
     disorder, which questions may be taken from or modeled after 
     the post-deployment assessment questionnaire used in June 
     2005.
       ``(4) An examination of a member required under this 
     section may not be waived by the Secretary (or any official 
     exercising the Secretary's authority under this section) or 
     by the member.
       ``(d) Follow up Services.--(1) The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall 
     ensure that appropriate actions are taken to assist a member 
     who, as a result of a post-deployment medical examination 
     carried out under the system established under this section, 
     receives an indication for a referral for follow up treatment 
     from the health care provider who performs the examination.
       ``(2) Assistance required to be provided to a member under 
     paragraph (1) includes--
       ``(A) information regarding, and any appropriate referral 
     for, the care, treatment, and other services that the 
     Secretary or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may provide to 
     such member under any other provision of law, including--
       ``(i) clinical services, including counseling and treatment 
     for post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health 
     conditions; and
       ``(ii) any other care, treatment, and services;
       ``(B) information on the private sector sources of 
     treatment that are available to the member in the member's 
     community; and
       ``(C) assistance to enroll in the health care system of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for health care benefits for 
     which the member is eligible under laws administered by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.''.
       (b) Report on PTSD Cases.--(1) The Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly submit to 
     Congress a report on the services provided to members and 
     former members of the Armed Forces who experience post-
     traumatic stress disorder (and related conditions) associated 
     with service in the Armed Forces.
       (2) The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) the number of persons treated;
       (B) the types of interventions; and
       (C) the programs that are in place for each of the Armed 
     Forces to identify and treat cases of post-traumatic stress 
     disorder and related conditions.

     SEC. 5. ACCESS OF MILITARY AND VETERANS SERVICE AGENCIES AND 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Department of Defense.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 58 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1A1154. Veteran-to-veteran preseparation counseling

       ``(a) Cooperation Required.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     a program to facilitate the access of representatives of 
     military and veterans' service organizations and 
     representatives of veterans' services agencies of States to 
     provide preseparation counseling and services to members of 
     the armed forces who are scheduled, or are in the process of 
     being scheduled, for discharge, release from active duty, or 
     retirement.
       ``(b) Required Program Element.--The program under this 
     section shall provide for representatives of military and 
     veterans' service organizations and representatives of 
     veterans' services agencies of States to be invited to 
     participate in the preseparation counseling and other 
     assistance briefings provided to members under the programs 
     carried out under sections 1142 and 1144 of this title and 
     the benefits delivery at discharge programs.
       ``(c) Locations.--The program under this section shall 
     provide for access to members--
       ``(1) at each installation of the armed forces;
       ``(2) at each armory and military family support center of 
     the National Guard;
       ``(3) at each inpatient medical care facility of the 
     uniformed services administered under chapter 55 of this 
     title; and
       ``(4) in the case of a member on the temporary disability 
     retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title who is 
     being retired under another provision of this title or is 
     being discharged, at a location reasonably convenient to the 
     member.
       ``(d) Consent of Members Required.--Access to a member of 
     the armed forces under the program under this section is 
     subject to the consent of the member.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `benefits delivery at discharge program' 
     means a program administered jointly by the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide information and 
     assistance on available benefits and other transition 
     assistance to members of the armed forces who are separating 
     from the armed forces, including assistance to obtain any 
     disability benefits for which such members may be eligible.
       ``(2) The term `representative', with respect to a 
     veterans' service organization, means a representative of an 
     organization who is recognized by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs for the representation of veterans under section 5902 
     of title 38.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 58 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1154. Veteran-to-veteran preseparation counseling.''.

       (b) Department of Veterans Affairs.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 17 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1A1709. Veteran-to-veteran counseling

       ``(a) Cooperation Required.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     a program to facilitate the access of representatives of 
     military and veterans' service organizations and 
     representatives of veterans' services agencies of States to 
     veterans furnished care and services under this chapter to 
     provide information and counseling to such veterans on--
       ``(1) the care and services authorized by this chapter; and
       ``(2) other benefits and services available under the laws 
     administered by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Facilities Covered.--The program under this section 
     shall provide for access to veterans described in subsection 
     (a) at each facility of the Department and any non-Department 
     facility at which the Secretary furnishes care and services 
     under this chapter.
       ``(c) Consent of Veterans Required.--Access to a veteran 
     under the program under this section is subject to the 
     consent of the veteran.
       ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `veterans' 
     service organization' means an organization who is recognized 
     by the Secretary for the representation of veterans under 
     section 5902 of this title.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1708 
     the following:

``1709. Veteran-to-veteran counseling.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 1342. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
outreach activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation 
that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal 
benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs 
conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas, 
Mrs. Lincoln.
  Five years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) 
launched a Statewide program called ``I Owe You,'' which encourages 
veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from 
their service to our country in the Armed Forces.
  As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored 20 events around 
Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which 
veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for 
federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 
Information about additional benefits through WDVA is also provided. 
These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, 
supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and 
veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect 
with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which 
they may be eligible.
  More than 18,650 veterans and their families have attended the 
supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives 
from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety 
of Federal, State, and local agencies. I am proud to have had members 
of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these 
events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn 
about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability 
claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries. 
According to WDVA, this program has helped Wisconsin to receive 
approximately $250 million in additional VA funding and benefits for 
our veterans each year.
  The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's 
Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by 
naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American 
Government Award. The program was featured in the March/April 2003 
issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. And in August 2003,

[[Page 15198]]

the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State 
Governments named the program a finalist in its 2003 Innovations in 
American Government Awards Program.
  The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the 
obligation of the VA. These are federal benefits that we owe to our 
veterans and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure 
that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform 
outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse 
to halt or reduce these efforts.
  The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the 
overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the 
supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 18,000 Wisconsin 
veterans want to make sure they know about all the benefits that are 
owed to them, there must be many more veterans around our country who 
deserve to be told about the benefits they have earned. We can and 
should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country 
and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to 
address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and 
prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated 
military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other 
places around the globe.
  In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's 
outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a 
statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''
  My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by 
the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line 
items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its 
agencies (the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits 
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration). Currently 
funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for 
these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated 
funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding 
with other crucial VA programs.
  I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can 
and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our 
brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they 
have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long 
distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim 
processed.
  Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require 
the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the 
VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more 
closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their 
efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of 
effort that could waste scarce funding.
  Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative 
agreements with state departments of veterans affairs regarding 
outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to 
award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach 
activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are 
awarded to state departments under this program could be used to 
enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to 
veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits 
process. State departments that receive grants under this program may 
choose to award portions of their grants to local governments, other 
public entities, or private or non-profit organizations that engage in 
veterans outreach activities. I want to be clear that it is not my 
intention that the funding for these grants be taken from existing VA 
programs.
  I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national 
and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives 
of our nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans; 
Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the 
National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National 
Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin 
Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County 
Veterans Service Officers; the American Legion, Department of 
Wisconsin; the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of Wisconsin; 
Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin 
Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department 
of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of 
America.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that our 
veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible as a 
result of their service to our country. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of my bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1342

       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 ``Veterans Outreach 
     Improvement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF OUTREACH.

       Section 101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(34) The term `outreach' means the act or process of 
     reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively provide 
     information, services, and benefits counseling to veterans, 
     and to the spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may 
     be eligible to receive benefits under the laws administered 
     by the Secretary, to ensure that such individuals are fully 
     informed about, and assisted in applying for, any benefits 
     and programs under such laws.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF 
                   OUTREACH OF ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER IV--OUTREACH

     ``Sec. 561. Outreach activities: funding

       ``(a) Separate Account for Outreach Activities.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a separate account for the funding 
     of the outreach activities of the Department, and shall 
     establish within such account a separate subaccount for the 
     funding of the outreach activities of each element of the 
     Department specified in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Budget Requirements.--In the budget justification 
     materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department 
     budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of 
     the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the 
     Secretary shall include a separate statement of the amount 
     requested for such fiscal year for activities as follows:
       ``(1) For outreach activities of the Department in 
     aggregate.
       ``(2) For outreach activities of each element of the 
     Department specified in subsection (c).
       ``(c) Covered Elements.--The elements of the Department 
     specified in this subsection are as follows:
       ``(1) The Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(2) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
       ``(3) The National Cemetery Administration.

     ``Sec. 562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities 
       within Department

       ``(a) Procedures for Effective Coordination.--The Secretary 
     shall establish and maintain procedures for ensuring the 
     effective coordination of the outreach activities of the 
     Department between and among the following:
       ``(1) The Office of the Secretary.
       ``(2) The Office of Public Affairs.
       ``(3) The Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(4) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
       ``(5) The National Cemetery Administration.
       ``(b) Review and Modification.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) periodically review the procedures maintained under 
     subsection (a) for the purpose of ensuring that such 
     procedures meet the requirement in that subsection; and
       ``(2) make such modifications to such procedures as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate in light of such review in 
     order to better achieve that purpose.

     ``Sec. 563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with 
       States; grants to States for improvement of outreach

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     States in carrying out programs that offer a high probability 
     of improving outreach and assistance to veterans, and to the 
     spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may be 
     eligible to receive veterans' or veterans'-related benefits, 
     to ensure that such individuals are fully informed about, and 
     assisted in applying for, any veterans' and veterans'-related 
     benefits and programs (including under State veterans' 
     programs).

[[Page 15199]]

       ``(b) Location of Provision of Outreach.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that outreach and assistance is provided under 
     programs referred to in subsection (a) in locations proximate 
     to populations of veterans and other individuals referred to 
     in that subsection, as determined utilizing criteria for 
     determining the proximity of such populations to veterans 
     health care services.
       ``(c) Cooperative Agreements With States.--The Secretary 
     may enter into cooperative agreements and arrangements with 
     veterans agencies of the States in order to carry out, 
     coordinate, improve, or otherwise enhance outreach by the 
     Department and the States (including outreach with respect to 
     State veterans' programs).
       ``(d) Grants.--(1) The Secretary may award grants to 
     veterans agencies of States in order to achieve purposes as 
     follows:
       ``(A) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise 
     enhance outreach, including activities pursuant to 
     cooperative agreements and arrangements under subsection (c).
       ``(B) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise 
     enhance activities to assist in the development and submittal 
     of claims for veterans' and veterans'-related benefits, 
     including activities pursuant to cooperative agreements and 
     arrangements under subsection (c).
       ``(2) A veterans agency of a State receiving a grant under 
     this subsection may use the grant amount for purposes 
     described in paragraph (1) or award all or any portion of 
     such grant amount to local governments in such State, other 
     public entities in such State, or private non-profit 
     organizations in such State for such purposes.
       ``(e) Funding.--Amounts available for the Department for 
     outreach in the account under section 561 of this title shall 
     be available for activities under this section, including 
     grants under subsection (d).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new items


                       ``Subchapter IV--Outreach

``561. Outreach activities: funding
``562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities within 
              Department
``563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with States; grants 
              to States for improvement of outreach''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1346. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
study of maritime sites in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help celebrate Michigan's lighthouses and maritime heritage.
  The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and 
cultural history. One of our symbols of that identity are the over 120 
lighthouses that define our shorelines--more lighthouses than any other 
state in the nation.
  These beautiful beacons not only serve their purpose as a 
navigational tool for ships, but they also draw thousands of tourists 
to Michigan's shores. Our lakeshore communities host visitors from 
across the country, who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal 
areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. Our maritime museums 
detail the Great Lakes' rich history and unique character.
  As the economy in Michigan faces numerous challenges, these small 
communities are more dependant than ever on tourism dollars. We must 
help them by ensuring that there are coordinated efforts to protect 
Michigan's lighthouses and promote the Great Lakes' maritime culture. 
If we don't, we risk losing these symbols of our history and our future 
for all time.
  The Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act would help 
develop Federal, State and local partnerships by requiring the National 
Park Service to work with the State of Michigan and local communities 
to study and make recommendations to Congress on the best ways to 
promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources. 
These recommendations would include specific legislative proposals for 
the preservation of lighthouses and maritime history. For example, they 
may call for the creation of a statewide trail highlighting the 
historical features of our shorelines and lighthouses. The 
recommendations would also include the identification of funding 
sources for Michigan communities, which are critical to this effort.
  This bill has strong bipartisan support from all of Michigan's 
members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join us in expediting 
passage of the Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1346

       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 ``Michigan Lighthouse and 
     Maritime Heritage Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) surrounded by the Great Lakes, the State of Michigan 
     gives the Midwest region a unique maritime character;
       (2) the access of the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean 
     has--
       (A) given the shipping industry in the State of Michigan an 
     international role in trade; and
       (B) contributed to industrial and natural resource 
     development in the State;
       (3) the State of Michigan offers unequaled opportunities 
     for maritime heritage preservation and interpretation, based 
     on the fact that the State has--
       (A) more deepwater shoreline than any other State in the 
     continental United States;
       (B) more lighthouses than any other State; and
       (C) the only freshwater national marine sanctuary in the 
     United States;
       (4) the maritime history of the State of Michigan includes 
     the history of--
       (A) the routes and gathering places of the fur traders and 
     missionaries who opened North America to European settlement; 
     and
       (B) the summer communities of people who mined copper, 
     hunted and fished, and created the first agricultural 
     settlements in the State;
       (5) in the 19th century, the natural resources and maritime 
     access of the State made the State the leading producer of 
     iron, copper, and lumber in the United States; and
       (6) the maritime heritage of Michigan is evident in--
       (A) the more than 120 lighthouses in the State;
       (B) the lifesaving stations, dry docks, lightships, 
     submarine, ore docks, piers, breakwaters, sailing clubs, and 
     communities and industries that were built on the lakes in 
     the State;
       (C) the hotels and resort communities in the State;
       (D) the more than 12 maritime-related national landmarks in 
     the State;
       (E) the 2 national lakeshores in the State;
       (F) the 2 units of the National Park System in the State;
       (G) the various State parks and sites listed on the 
     National Register of Historic Places in the State;
       (H) the database information in the State on--
       (i) 1,500 shipwrecks;
       (ii) 11 underwater preserves; and
       (iii) the freshwater national marine sanctuary; and
       (I) the Great Lakes, which have played an important role--
       (i) for Native Americans, fur traders, missionaries, 
     settlers, and travelers;
       (ii) in the distribution of wheat, iron, copper, and 
     lumber;
       (iii) providing recreational opportunities; and
       (iv) stories of shipwrecks and rescues.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Maritime heritage resource.--The term ``maritime 
     heritage resource'' includes lighthouses, lifesaving and 
     coast guard stations, maritime museums, historic ships and 
     boats, marine sanctuaries and preserves, fisheries and 
     hatcheries, locks and ports, ore docks, piers and 
     breakwaters, marinas, resort communities (such as Bay View 
     and Epworth Heights), cruises, performing artists that 
     specialize in maritime culture, interpretive and educational 
     programs and events, museums with significant maritime 
     collections, maritime art galleries, maritime communities, 
     and maritime festivals.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service 
     Midwest Regional Office.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Michigan.
       (4) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the State of 
     Michigan.

     SEC. 4. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     State, the State historic preservation officer, local 
     historical societies, State and local economic development, 
     tourism, and parks and recreation offices, and other 
     appropriate agencies and organizations, shall conduct a 
     special resource study of the study area to determine--
       (1) the potential economic and tourism benefits of 
     preserving State maritime heritage resources;

[[Page 15200]]

       (2) suitable and feasible options for long-term protection 
     of significant State maritime heritage resources; and
       (3) the manner in which the public can best learn about and 
     experience State maritime heritage resources.
       (b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) review Federal, State, and local maritime resource 
     inventories and studies to establish the context, breadth, 
     and potential for interpretation and preservation of State 
     maritime heritage resources;
       (2) examine the potential economic and tourism impacts of 
     protecting State maritime heritage resources;
       (3) recommend management alternatives that would be most 
     effective for long-term resource protection and providing for 
     public enjoyment of State maritime heritage resources;
       (4) address how to assist regional, State, and local 
     partners in efforts to increase public awareness of and 
     access to the State maritime heritage resources;
       (5) identify sources of financial and technical assistance 
     available to communities for the conservation and 
     interpretation of State maritime heritage resources; and
       (6) address ways in which to link appropriate national 
     parks, State parks, waterways, monuments, parkways, 
     communities, national and State historic sites, and regional 
     or local heritage areas and sites into a Michigan Maritime 
     Heritage Destination Network.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out the study under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
     report that describes--
       (1) the results of the study; and
       (2) any findings and recommendations of the Secretary.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $500,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1347. A bill to authorize demonstration project grants to entities 
to provide low-cost, small loans; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Cost 
Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, which would authorize demonstration 
project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, short-term 
alternatives to expensive, predatory payday loans. Payday loans are 
small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers' 
authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial 
accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500 
with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans 
are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which 
translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent 
to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR). Loan 
flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at 
maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction. 
Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday 
loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a 
cycle of debt that is hard to break. Currently, there is a lack of low-
cost, short-term credit product alternatives available to consumers. My 
legislation is intended to encourage the development of products that 
satisfy the current demand for small loans of a short duration, but at 
a fair interest rate.
  The payday loan business has grown rapidly in recent years, with 
industry revenues ballooning from $810 million in 1998 to $40 billion 
in 2004. A study by the investment bank, Stephens, Inc., of Little 
Rock, AK, estimated payday loan volume of $25 to $27 billion to 9 to 14 
million U.S. households, generating between $4 and $4.3 billion in 
fees. According to a 2004 study conducted by the Consumer Federation of 
America (CFA), there were an estimated 22,000 payday lender storefronts 
nationally. Through these storefronts, payday lenders originated an 
estimated $40 billion in loans and received $6 billion in finance 
charges.
  Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial 
product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that 
usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An 
analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible 
Lending indicates that the majority of payday loan borrowers have 
multiple loans each year. Two of three borrowers have five or more 
payday loans annually, and half of these borrowers have 12 or more 
payday loans annually. Only 33 percent of payday borrowers use four or 
fewer payday loans annually. Some borrowers seek loans from two or more 
payday lenders, multiplying the potential for getting trapped in debt. 
Research by the Community Financial Services Association of America, 
the payday loan industry's national trade association, found that 40 
percent of payday loan customers renew their payday loans five times or 
more. Many of these customers are lower or middle income working 
families who need a small amount of money for a short period of time. 
This becomes a financial bridge to help pay for unexpected expenses.
  More and more predatory lenders locate near military installations, 
targeting vulnerable military servicemembers and their families. The 
Army has gone to the extent of offering payday lenders some competition 
through its Army Emergency Relief (AER) initiative. AER, a private, 
nonprofit organization, has been working on a national program called 
Commanders Referral that will debut at Fort Hood, Texas, later this 
year. This program will offer soldiers up to two no-interest, $500 
loans a year, in an attempt to undercut the aggressive tactics of 
payday lenders. Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Life Issues 
on February 16, 2005, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy 
testified that the payday industry ``has made it a practice to prey 
upon our Sailors.'' He went on to say ``it is not being dramatic to 
state these payday loans to our troops could be a threat to their 
military readiness.'' As the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, this is an issue of 
grave concern to me.
  I am heartened to see that some federal credit unions have developed 
alternatives to payday loan products. The Pentagon Federal Credit Union 
Foundation, Pentagon Federal, and Langley Federal Credit Union, Langley 
Federal, have each introduced a payday loan alternative. Pentagon 
Federal offers the Asset Recovery Kit (ARK). For ARK, borrowers must 
agree to financial counseling, or already be receiving counseling, in 
order to receive a loan of up to $500. The borrower pays a $6 flat fee 
for the loan and no credit report is required, but financial counseling 
is mandatory. Langley Federal's QuickCash product features the quick 
turnaround of a payday loan, but at an 18 percent annual percentage 
rate. It does not have the financial counseling requirement of the 
Pentagon Federal's ARK, but is still a viable alternative to a high 
cost payday loan. In my home state, Windward Community Federal Credit 
Union, located in Kailua, Hawaii, has developed a payday loan 
alternative. This credit union is offering simple short-term loans, 
with a short approval period, at a fair interest rate. With the 
demonstration grants offered through my legislation, it is my hope that 
more credit unions, community development financial institutions and 
banks will develop and offer similar types of innovative credit 
products that can serve as alternatives to payday loans.
  The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need. 
There is a demand for this type of loan, but these loans are 
excessively priced. My bill authorizes the Department of the Treasury 
to award demonstration project grants to banks, credit unions, and 
community development financial institutions to develop and implement a 
credit product subject to the APR promulgated by the National Credit 
Union Administration's Loan Interest Rates, which is currently capped 
at an APR of 18 percent. The grants would provide consumers with a 
lower-cost, short-term alternative to predatory payday loans. The 
demonstration project grants would require individuals seeking a loan 
through this program to pursue financial literacy and education 
opportunities that will help them better prepare to manage their 
finances.
  I have a letter in support of my legislation that is signed by the 
Consumer

[[Page 15201]]

Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the 
Center for Responsible Lending. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation so that 
affordable alternatives to payday loans can be found.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of 
           America, U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
                                                      May 3, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: Consumer Federation of America, Center 
     for Responsible Lending and U.S. Public Interest Research 
     Group write in support of your legislation to encourage 
     mainstream financial institutions to meet the small loan 
     needs of their own customers. We agree with you that banks, 
     credit unions, and community development financial 
     institutions can and should provide affordable small loans to 
     depositors, along with financial literacy training and asset 
     development to turn debtors into savers.
       When consumers turn to the under-regulated small loan 
     market, they typically pay triple-digit interest for very 
     short term loans and risk valuable assets to coercive 
     collection tactics. Last year consumers paid $6 billion to 
     borrow $40 billion for check-based small loans from payday 
     loan outlets. National Consumer Law Center and CFA recently 
     reported that low to moderate income consumers paid almost 
     $1.4 billion to borrow against their anticipated income tax 
     refunds. The Center for Responsible Lending and CFA report on 
     car title lending describes the booming business of making 
     one-month loans secured by a title to a paid for vehicle.
       We believe that the solutions to the use of fringe lenders 
     by low to moderate income consumers include effective state 
     and federal consumer protections, a stronger safety net of 
     financial literacy and credit counseling, and the development 
     of beneficial alternatives by mainstream financial 
     institutions. Your bill seeks to expand mainstream 
     alternatives by authorizing Treasury demonstration grants to 
     non-profit organizations and qualifying financial 
     institutions. It is very important that the bill limits the 
     cost of loans made per these grants to the federal credit 
     union cap of 18% annual interest rate and requires that 
     borrowers also receive educational resources.
           Sincerely,
     Jean Ann Fox,
       Director of Consumer Protection, Consumer Federation of 
     America.
     Edmund Mierzwinski,
       Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research 
     Group.
     Mark Pearce,
       President, Center for Responsible Lending.
                                  ____


                                S. 1347

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

     SECTION 1. GRANT PROGRAM FOR LOW-COST ALTERNATIVES TO PAYDAY 
                   LOANS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Low-
     Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Community development financial institution.--The term 
     ``community development financial institution'' means any 
     organization that has been certified as a community 
     development financial institution pursuant to section 
     1805.201 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (2) Federally insured depository institution.--The term 
     ``federally insured depository institution'' means any 
     insured depository institution (as defined in section 3 of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) or any 
     insured credit union (as defined in section 101 of the 
     Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)).
       (3) Payday loan.--The term ``payday loan'' means any 
     transaction in which a small cash advance is made to a 
     consumer in exchange for--
       (A) the personal check or share draft of the consumer, in 
     the amount of the advance plus a fee, where presentment or 
     negotiation of such check or share draft is deferred by 
     agreement of the parties until a designated future date; or
       (B) the authorization of the consumer to debit the 
     transaction account or share draft account of the consumer, 
     in the amount of the advance plus a fee, where such account 
     will be debited on or after a designated future date.
       (c) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') is 
     authorized to award demonstration project grants (including 
     multi-year grants) to eligible entities to provide low-cost, 
     small loans to consumers that will provide alternatives to 
     more costly, predatory payday loans.
       (d) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this Act if such an entity is--
       (1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code;
       (2) a federally insured depository institution;
       (3) a community development financial institution; or
       (4) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
       (e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under 
     this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary in such 
     form and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (f) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) Percentage rate.--For purposes of this Act, an eligible 
     entity that is a federally insured depository institution 
     shall be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by 
     the National Credit Union Administration's Loan Interest 
     Rates under part 701 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations 
     in connection with a loan provided to a consumer pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (2) Financial literacy and education opportunities.--Each 
     eligible entity awarded a grant under this Act shall offer 
     financial literacy and education opportunities, such as 
     relevant counseling services or educational courses, to each 
     consumer provided with a loan pursuant to this Act.
       (g) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Each eligible 
     entity awarded a grant under this Act may use not more than 6 
     percent of the total amount of such grant in any fiscal year 
     for the administrative costs of carrying out the programs 
     funded by such grant in such fiscal year.
       (h) Evaluation and Report.--For each fiscal year in which a 
     grant is awarded under this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress containing a description of the activities 
     funded, amounts distributed, and measurable results, as 
     appropriate and available.
       (i) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to promulgate 
     regulations to implement and administer the grant program 
     under this Act.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, for the grant program 
     described in this Act, such sums as may be necessary, which 
     shall remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1348. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, 
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of 
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in 
Litigation Act of 2005, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy 
orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes 
in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important 
health and safety information from the public.
  This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in 
products liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of 
action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted 
from a defect in one of its products. The plaintiff has limited 
resources and faces a corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of 
money on delay tactics. Facing a formidable opponent, plaintiffs are 
discouraged from continuing and often seek to settle the litigation. In 
exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to 
agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing 
information disclosed during the litigation.
  While the plaintiff gets a respectable award and the defendant is 
able to keep damaging information from getting out, others are forced 
to pay the price. Because they remain unaware of critical public health 
and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American 
public incurs the greatest cost.
  Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders 
when ``good cause'' is shown. Too much discretion, however, can 
sometimes lead to abuse. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers 
and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the 
legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could 
protect the American public. Surely, there are appropriate

[[Page 15202]]

uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly 
confidential company information. Our legislation makes sure such 
information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not 
supposed to be used to hide public safety information from the public 
to protect a company's reputation or profit margin.
  The most famous case of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone. From 
1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires 
were causing accidents across the country, many resulting in serious 
injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes 
and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of 
lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 
1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that 
the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. 
By then, it was too late; too many unnecessary injuries and deaths had 
already occurred.
  If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were 
just an aberration, maybe there would be no cause for concern. But, 
unfortunately, the list goes on. In January 2004, Jodie Lane was 
walking her dog in Manhattan when she slipped and fell on a Con Edison 
cable cover. She was electrocuted and killed. It has since been 
discovered that Con Edison has settled eleven similar cases, all 
involving secrecy agreements.
  Then there is the case of General Motors (``GM''). Although an 
internal memo suggests that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths 
from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an 
estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks. 
When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders 
and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these 
documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 
years before being discontinued.
  There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders 
accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence 
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. 
Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone and Con Edison, secrecy 
agreements had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-
Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products to remain in 
the market. And those are only the ones we know about.
  While some States have already begun to move in the right direction, 
we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal 
solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest 
proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple 
balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly 
outweighs the public interest in information related to public health 
and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case 
confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a 
particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the 
disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. 
Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from 
issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant 
regulatory agencies.
  This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the 
board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It 
simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs 
legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important 
health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some 
sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1349. A bill to promote deployment of competitive video services, 
eliminate redundant and unnecessary regulation, and further the 
development of next generation broadband networks; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Rockefeller to 
introduce the Video Choice Act of 2005. This bill will promote 
competition and help bring choice to consumers in the video market. In 
addition, the bill will further the development of next generation 
broadband networks and spur economic development in rural areas of the 
country, like Wallowa, OR.
  A recent Government Accountability Office study underscores the 
benefits of competition in the video market. In August 2004, GAO 
concluded that cable rates are on average 15 percent lower in markets 
with a wire-based competitor to the incumbent cable operator. My 
legislation promotes competition and lowers rates by eliminating 
redundant and unnecessary video franchises.
  Specifically, my legislation permits any company that has already 
obtained a franchise to build and operate a network to offer video 
services over that network without obtaining a second, redundant 
franchise. These competitive video service providers will still be 
subject to the important social policy obligations of cable operators, 
including the obligation to pay fees to local governments; to comply 
with the retransmission consent and must-carry provisions of the Act; 
to carry public, educational, governmental and non-commercial, 
educational channels; to protect the privacy of subscribers and to 
comply with all statutory consumer protections and customer service 
requirements.
  Importantly, my legislation also preserves State and local government 
authority to manage the public rights-of-way and to enact or enforce 
any consumer protection law. In so doing, we have ensured that local 
communities continue to play a meaningful role in the management of 
these networks.
  We recognize that the video franchising process imposes burdens on 
cable operators and welcome the opportunity to investigate and address 
those concerns as this debate moves forward.
  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. 1349

       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 ``Video Choice Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Cable rates continue to rise substantially faster than 
     the overall rate of inflation.
       (2) Wire-based competition in video services is limited to 
     very few markets. According to the Federal Communications 
     Commission, only 2 percent of all cable subscribers have the 
     opportunity to choose between 2 or more wire-based video 
     service providers.
       (3) It is only through wire-based video competition that 
     price competition exists. The Government Accountability 
     Office has confirmed that where wire-based competition 
     exists, cable rates are 15 percent lower than in markets 
     without competition.
       (4) It is in the public interest to further wire-based 
     competition in the video services market in order to provide 
     greater consumer choice and lower prices for video services.
       (5) To spur competition in the communications industry, 
     Congress has decreased the regulatory burden on new entrants, 
     thereby increasing entry into the market and creating 
     competition.
       (6) The United States continues to fall behind in broadband 
     deployment rates. According to a recent study by the 
     International Telecommunications Union, the United States is 
     now ranked 16th in the world in broadband deployment.
       (7) The deployment of advanced high capacity networks would 
     greatly spur economic development in rural America.
       (8) The deployment of advanced networks that can offer 
     substantially higher capacity are critical to the long-term 
     competitiveness of the United States.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS ACT.

       Title VI of the Communication Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 521 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                        ``PART VI--VIDEO CHOICE

     ``SEC. 661. DEFINITION.

       ``In this part, the term `competitive video services 
     provider' means any provider of video programming, 
     interactive on-demand services, other programming services, 
     or any other video services who has any right, permission, or 
     authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any 
     cable franchise obtained pursuant to section 621 or pursuant 
     to any other Federal, State, or local law.

     ``SEC. 662. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

       ``(a) Redundant Franchises Prohibited.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this

[[Page 15203]]

     Act, no competitive video services provider may be required, 
     whether pursuant to section 621 or to any other provision of 
     Federal, State, or local law, to obtain a franchise in order 
     to provide any video programming, interactive on-demand 
     services, other programming services, or any other video 
     services in any area where such provider has any right, 
     permission, or authority to access public rights-of-way 
     independent of any cable franchise obtained pursuant to 
     section 621 or pursuant to any other Federal, State, or local 
     law.
       ``(b) Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any competitive video services provider 
     who provides a service that otherwise would qualify as a 
     cable service provided over a cable system shall be subject 
     to the payment of fees to a local franchise authority based 
     on the gross revenues of such provider that are attributable 
     to the provision of such service within such provider's 
     service area.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining the fees required by 
     this subsection--
       ``(A)(i) the rate at which fees are imposed shall not 
     exceed the rate at which franchise fees are imposed on any 
     cable operator providing cable service in the franchise area, 
     as determined in accordance with section 622 and any related 
     regulations; or
       ``(ii) in any jurisdiction in which no cable operator 
     provides service, the rate at which franchise fees are 
     imposed shall not exceed the statewide average; and
       ``(B) the only revenues that shall be considered are those 
     attributable to services that would be considered in 
     calculating franchise fees if such provider were deemed a 
     cable operator for purposes of section 622 and any related 
     regulations.
       ``(3) Billing.--A competitive video services provider shall 
     designate that portion of the bill of a subscriber 
     attributable to the fee under paragraph (2) as a separate 
     item on the bill.
       ``(c) Terms of Service.--A competitive video services 
     provider shall--
       ``(1) be subject to the retransmission consent provisions 
     of section 325(b);
       ``(2)(A) carry, within each local franchise area, any 
     public, educational, or governmental use channels that are 
     carried by cable operators within such franchise area 
     pursuant to section 611; or
       ``(B) provide, in any jurisdiction in which no cable 
     operator provides service, reasonable public, educational and 
     government access facilities pursuant to section 611;
       ``(3) be subject to the must-carry provisions of section 
     614;
       ``(4) carry noncommercial, educational channels as required 
     by section 615;
       ``(5) be considered a multichannel video programming 
     distributor for purposes of section 628 and be entitled to 
     the benefits and protection of that section;
       ``(6) protect the personally identifiable information of 
     its subscribers as required in section 631;
       ``(7) comply with any consumer protection and customer 
     service requirements promulgated by the Commission pursuant 
     to section 632;
       ``(8) not be subject to any other provisions of this title; 
     and
       ``(9) not deny services to any group of potential 
     residential subscribers because of the income of the 
     residents of the local area in which such group resides.
       ``(d) Regulatory Treatment.--Except to the extent expressly 
     provided in this part, neither the Commission nor any State 
     or political subdivision thereof may regulate the rates, 
     charges, terms, conditions for, entry into, exit from, 
     deployment of, provision of, or any other aspect of the 
     services provided by a competitive video services provider.
       ``(e) State and Local Government Authority.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (a), nothing in this section affects 
     the authority of a State or local government to manage the 
     public rights-of-way or to enact or enforce any consumer 
     protection law.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS.

       Section 651(a)(3) of the Federal Communications Act (47 
     U.S.C. 571(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) if such carrier is a competitive video services 
     provider providing video programming pursuant to part VI of 
     this title, such carrier shall not be subject to the 
     requirements of this title but instead shall be subject only 
     to the provisions of part VI of this title.''.

     SEC. 5. EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS.

       Any franchise agreement entered into by a franchising 
     authority and a competitive video service provider for the 
     provision of video service prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act for 
     the term of such agreement.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Smith in 
introducing the Video Choice Act of 2005. We believe that our bill will 
increase competition in the video marketplace and spur the deployment 
of advanced broadband networks.
  Cable and telephone companies are competing to offer a bundle of 
Internet, video and telephone service to consumers. Cable companies are 
now offering telephone services. Cable companies offer both traditional 
telephone services over the public switched telephone network and 
recently have begun a major expansion into offering voice services over 
the internet. Congress, in an effort to spur entry into the voice 
market, decided to minimally regulate or deregulate cable companies' 
entry in these voice services.
  As cable enters the voice market, it is driving prices down and 
creating innovative new voice services and products. At present, cable 
companies control nearly 70 percent of the multi-channel video market 
and are not subject to effective price competition for video services. 
The Senate Commerce Committee, of which Senator Smith and I are both 
members, spent much of the last Congress examining options to address 
the ever escalating price of cable television. I recognize that the 
cable industry has invested heavily in its networks and programming 
costs continue to rise, but I am hearing from some of my constituents 
that they feel captive to the pricing decisions of their local cable 
company.
  I believe the government should encourage facilities-based video 
competition. The Government Accountability Office has reported that in 
areas where cable faces competition from a facilities-based competitor, 
cable television prices are, on average, 15 percent less and as much as 
41 percent less than in areas without effective competition.
  To compete with cable, traditional telephone companies are slowly 
entering the video marketplace. Instead of offering video services over 
cable, the telephone companies will offer it over their high capacity 
fiber networks. Fiber-optic cables consist of bundles of hair-thin 
glass strands. Laser-generated pulses of light transmit voice, data, 
and video signals via the fiber at speeds and capacities far exceeding 
today's copper-cable systems. Fiber technology provides nearly 
unlimited capacity, as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest 
high-speed data connections.
  Even more importantly, our bill would speed the deployment of super 
fast broadband networks. To offer video services, telephone companies 
will have to either lay fiber optic cables or develop other networks 
that have enough capacity to transmit hundreds of television channels. 
These networks will also be able to offer consumers the ability to 
receive and send vast amounts of data.
  Our Nation continues a precipitous decline in the world's broadband 
deployment rate. As Asian countries develop broadband networks capable 
of delivering consumers 30 to 100 megabits of data, the United States 
falls further behind in deployment of next generation broadband 
technologies. The deployment of fiber optic or technologically 
equivalent networks would spur economic development as well as consumer 
choice in the cable television market.
  I have worked for almost eight years on legislation to provide 
incentives to promote the deployment of next generation broadband 
technology and services. The Senate has adopted this measure numerous 
times, but because of opposition in the House of Representatives, it 
has never been enacted into law. We must examine other policies if we 
are to achieve universal broadband penetration. I believe that our 
legislation will serve as a catalyst for the deployment of next 
generation broadband networks that will bring enormous economic 
benefits to Americans, especially rural Americans.
  I know that many local governments are concerned about changing the 
existing regulatory framework for video regulation. I recognize that 
municipal governments have an important role to play in the 
telecommunications debate. As a former governor, I am aware of the 
important local revenues that cable franchise fees provide local 
government in West Virginia and across the Nation. I have always 
supported the local government's ability to collect local fees and 
taxes on telecommunications services, and I want to state that I will 
continue to do so.

[[Page 15204]]

  Our legislation states that competitive video providers, as defined 
by the bill, do not have to secure a local franchise agreement to offer 
competitive video services. However, the legislation mandates that all 
vital social policy obligations of current cable television operators 
will also have to be met by the competitive video industry. First and 
foremost, our bill mandates that competitive video providers pay a 
franchise fee to the appropriate local government. This fee would be 
equal to the fee the incumbent video provider pays. Our bill also 
requires that competitive video providers carry all existing local 
public, educational, and government use channels; carry all local 
broadcast stations; carry all noncommercial, educational channels; 
adhere to strict consumer privacy obligations; and comply with all 
statutory consumer protections and customer service requirements. The 
bill explicitly prohibits economic redlining in the provision of 
competitive video services. Finally, the legislation explicitly states 
that nothing in the bill affects the authority of a State or local 
government to manage the public-rights-of-way or to enact or enforce 
any consumer protection law.
  Senator Smith and I have crafted a narrowly tailored bill to promote 
the entry of new competitors into the video marketplace. Our 
legislation balances the need to promote competition in this market 
with preserving the core social and policy obligations that we have 
always imposed on providers of video services.
  In addition to promoting competition in the video marketplace, this 
bill gives us the opportunity to foster an exponential growth in 
advanced broadband networks. By having advanced communications networks 
that are exponentially faster than our existing networks, we will 
unleash our economic potential, especially in places like my home State 
of West Virginia.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Smith for all of his hard work 
on this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1350. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect 
the privacy rights of subscribers to wireless communications services; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Wireless 411 Privacy Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers, today 
rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of 
communication. Wireless telephones enable families to stay connected, 
permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a 
vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even 
abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as 
their primary phone service. In fact, when I last introduced this bill 
in November 2003, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring 
number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish, 
can make their wireless phone their only phone.
  The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless 
white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive 
benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of 
privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today, 
along with Senator Boxer, ensures that consumers' expectations will be 
preserved.
  An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell 
phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy in their cell 
phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers 
have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers 
available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone numbers 
is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for 
incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers 
could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use, 
simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and 
others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them 
everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and 
may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel.
  Since 2003, four States--California, Georgia, South Dakota and 
Washington--have passed similar laws that prohibit a carrier from 
divulging a customer's wireless telephone number without permission. 
While the industry remains poised to introduce wireless directory 
assistance services as early as this year, it is important for Congress 
to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers across 
the country have in their wireless phone numbers. The legislation I am 
introducing today strikes an important balance by providing privacy 
protections that are important to consumers, while enabling those 
consumers who want to be reached to be accessible.
  This legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to have 
their wireless telephone number listed in wireless directory assistance 
databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep 
their numbers entirely private. In addition to divulging subscribers' 
phone numbers, wireless directory assistance services may forward calls 
to wireless subscribers without prior notice or permission. My bill 
requires that these services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless 
number, unless the subscriber consents to disclosure, must provide 
identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the 
subscriber knows who is calling through a forwarding service, and must 
give a subscriber the option of rejecting or accepting each incoming 
call. Finally, this legislation prohibits wireless carriers from 
charging any special fees to consumers who wish to receive the privacy 
protections provided by the bill. There should be no ``privacy tax'' 
for consumers to continue the privacy protection they have long 
enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be the case.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation. 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. 1350

       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 ``Wireless 411 Privacy Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are roughly 150 million wireless subscribers in 
     the United States, up from approximately 15 million 
     subscribers just a decade ago;
       (2) wireless phone service has proven valuable to millions 
     of Americans because of its mobility, and the fact that 
     government policies have expanded opportunities for new 
     carriers to enter the market, offering more choices and ever 
     lower prices for consumers;
       (3) in addition to the benefits of competition and 
     mobility, subscribers also benefit from the fact that 
     wireless phone numbers have not been publicly available;
       (4) up until now, the privacy of wireless subscribers has 
     been safeguarded and thus vastly diminished the likelihood of 
     subscribers receiving unwanted or annoying phone call 
     interruptions on their wireless phones;
       (5) moreover, because their wireless contact information, 
     such as their phone number, have never been publicly 
     available in any published directory or from any directory 
     assistance service, subscribers have come to expect that if 
     their phone rings it's likely to be a call from someone to 
     whom they have personally given their number;
       (6) the wireless industry is poised to begin implementing a 
     directory assistance service so that callers can reach 
     wireless subscribers, including subscribers who have not 
     given such callers their wireless phone number;
       (7) while some wireless subscribers may find such directory 
     assistance service useful, current subscribers deserve the 
     right to choose whether they want to participate in such a 
     directory;
       (8) because wireless users are typically charged for 
     incoming calls, consumers must be afforded the ability to 
     maintain the maximum amount of control over how many calls 
     they may expect to receive and, in particular, control over 
     the disclosure of their wireless phone number;
       (9) current wireless subscribers who elect to participate, 
     or new wireless subscribers who decline to be listed, in any 
     new wireless directory assistance service directory, 
     including those subscribers who also elect not to receive 
     forwarded calls from any wireless directory assistance 
     service, should not be charged for exercising such rights;

[[Page 15205]]

       (10) the marketplace has not yet adequately explained an 
     effective plan to protect consumer privacy rights;
       (11) Congress previously acted to protect the wireless 
     location information of subscribers by enacting prohibitions 
     on the disclosure of such sensitive information without the 
     express prior authorization of the subscriber; and
       (12) the public interest would be served by similarly 
     enacting effective and industry-wide privacy protections for 
     consumers with respect to wireless directory assistance 
     service.

     SEC. 3. CONSUMER CONTROL OF WIRELESS PHONE NUMBERS.

       Section 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Wireless consumer privacy protection.--
       ``(A) In general.--A provider of commercial mobile 
     services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent of 
     such a provider, may not include the wireless telephone 
     number information of any subscriber in any wireless 
     directory assistance service database unless--
       ``(i) the mobile service provider provides a conspicuous, 
     separate notice to the subscriber informing the subscriber of 
     the right not to be listed in any wireless directory 
     assistance service; and
       ``(ii) the mobile service provider obtains express prior 
     authorization for listing from such subscriber, separate from 
     any authorization obtained to provide such subscriber with 
     commercial mobile service, or any calling plan or service 
     associated with such commercial mobile service, and such 
     authorization has not been subsequently withdrawn.
       ``(B) Cost-free de-listing.--A provider of commercial 
     mobile services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent 
     of such a provider, shall remove the wireless telephone 
     number information of any subscriber from any wireless 
     directory assistance service database upon request by that 
     subscriber and without any cost to the subscriber.
       ``(C) Wireless accessibility.--A provider of commercial 
     mobile services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent 
     of such provider, may connect a calling party from a wireless 
     directory assistance service to a commercial mobile service 
     subscriber only if--
       ``(i) such subscriber is provided prior notice of the 
     calling party's identity and is permitted to accept or reject 
     the incoming call on a per-call basis;
       ``(ii) such subscriber's wireless telephone number 
     information is not disclosed to the calling party; and
       ``(iii) such subscriber has not declined or refused to 
     participate in such database.
       ``(D) Protection of wireless phone numbers.--A 
     telecommunications carrier shall not disclose in its billing 
     information provided to customers wireless telephone number 
     information of subscribers who have indicated a preference to 
     their commercial mobile services provider for not having 
     their wireless telephone number information disclosed. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a telecommunications 
     carrier may disclose a portion of the wireless telephone 
     number in its billing information if the actual number cannot 
     be readily ascertained.
       ``(E) Publication of directories prohibited.--A provider of 
     commercial mobile services, or any direct or indirect 
     affiliate or agent of such a provider, may not publish, in 
     printed, electronic, or other form, or sell or otherwise 
     disseminate, the contents of any wireless directory 
     assistance service database, or any portion or segment 
     thereof unless--
       ``(i) the mobile service provider provides a conspicuous, 
     separate notice to the subscriber informing the subscriber of 
     the right not to be listed; and
       ``(ii) the mobile service provider obtains express prior 
     authorization for listing from such subscriber, separate from 
     any authorization obtained to provide such subscriber with 
     commercial mobile service, or any calling plan or service 
     associated with such commercial mobile service, and such 
     authorization has not been subsequently withdrawn.
       ``(F) No consumer fee for retaining privacy.--A provider of 
     commercial mobile services may not charge any subscriber for 
     exercising any of the rights under this paragraph.
       ``(G) State and local laws pre-empted.--To the extent that 
     any State or local government imposes requirements on 
     providers of commercial mobile services, or any direct or 
     indirect affiliate or agent of such providers, that are 
     inconsistent with the requirements of this paragraph, this 
     paragraph preempts such State or local requirements.
       ``(H) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Calling party's identity.--The term `calling party's 
     identity' means the telephone number of the calling party or 
     the name of subscriber to such telephone, or an oral or text 
     message which provides sufficient information to enable a 
     commercial mobile services subscriber to determine who is 
     calling.
       ``(ii) Unlisted commercial mobile services subscriber.--The 
     term `unlisted commercial mobile services subscriber' means a 
     subscriber to commercial mobile services who has not provided 
     express prior consent to a commercial mobile service provider 
     to be included in a wireless directory assistance service 
     database.
       ``(iii) Wireless telephone number information.--The term 
     `wireless telephone number information' means the telephone 
     number, electronic address, and any other identifying 
     information by which a calling party may reach a subscriber 
     to commercial mobile services, and which is assigned by a 
     commercial mobile service provider to such subscriber, and 
     includes such subscriber's name and address.
       ``(iv) Wireless directory assistance service.--The term 
     `wireless directory assistance service' means any service for 
     connecting calling parties to a subscriber of commercial 
     mobile service when such calling parties themselves do not 
     possess such subscriber's wireless telephone number 
     information.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 1351. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for 
the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces 
who served honorably during the Cold War era; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the Cold War Medal Act of 2005, a bill to provide for the award of a 
military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served 
honorably during the Cold War era, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1351

       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 ``Cold War Medal Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. COLD WAR SERVICE MEDAL.

       (a) Authority.--Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1135. Cold War service medal

       ``(a) Medal Authorized.--The Secretary concerned shall 
     issue a service medal, to be known as the `Cold War service 
     medal', to persons eligible to receive the medal under 
     subsection (b). The Cold War service medal shall be of an 
     appropriate design approved by the Secretary of Defense, with 
     ribbons, lapel pins, and other appurtenances.
       ``(b) Eligible Persons.--The following persons are eligible 
     to receive the Cold War service medal:
       ``(1) A person who--
       ``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as an 
     enlisted member during the Cold War;
       ``(B) completed the person's initial term of enlistment or, 
     if discharged before completion of such initial term of 
     enlistment, was honorably discharged after completion of not 
     less than 180 days of service on active duty; and
       ``(C) has not received a discharge less favorable than an 
     honorable discharge or a release from active duty with a 
     characterization of service less favorable than honorable.
       ``(2) A person who--
       ``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as a 
     commissioned officer or warrant officer during the Cold War;
       ``(B) completed the person's initial service obligation as 
     an officer or, if discharged or separated before completion 
     of such initial service obligation, was honorably discharged 
     after completion of not less than 180 days of service on 
     active duty; and
       ``(C) has not been released from active duty with a 
     characterization of service less favorable than honorable and 
     has not received a discharge or separation less favorable 
     than an honorable discharge.
       ``(c) One Award Authorized.--Not more than one Cold War 
     service medal may be issued to any person.
       ``(d) Issuance to Representative of Deceased.--If a person 
     described in subsection (b) dies before being issued the Cold 
     War service medal, the medal shall be issued to the person's 
     representative, as designated by the Secretary concerned.
       ``(e) Replacement.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary concerned, a Cold War service medal that is lost, 
     destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect 
     on the part of the person to whom it was issued may be 
     replaced without charge.
       ``(f) Application for Medal.--The Cold War service medal 
     shall be issued upon receipt by the Secretary concerned of an 
     application for such medal, submitted in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Secretary prescribes.
       ``(g) Uniform Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure that regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the 
     military departments under this section are uniform so far as 
     is practicable.
       ``(h) Definition.--In this section, the term `Cold War' 
     means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending 
     at the end of December 26, 1991.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is

[[Page 15206]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1135. Cold War service medal.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1352. A bill to provide grants to States for improved workplace 
and community transition training for incarcerated youth offenders; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce the Improved Workplace and Community Transition Training for 
Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act of 2005, which is legislation designed 
to enhance educational opportunities and reduce recidivism for adult 
and juvenile offenders. Following the repeal of Pell Grant eligibility 
for incarcerated individuals, I worked to create the Grants to States 
for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth 
Offenders program. This program is aimed at providing postsecondary 
education and workplace and community transition training for 
incarcerated youth offenders while in prison, as well as employment 
counseling and other services that continue when the individual is 
released.
  This legislation, which I am introducing today, builds upon my 
earlier efforts by increasing flexibility and accountability within the 
Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for 
Incarcerated Youth Offenders. This legislation is a positive step 
forward in providing realistic rehabilitation by increasing access to 
the current program for incarcerated youth offenders.
  With over two million incarcerated adults, the United States has the 
highest incarceration rate in the world. The National Adult Literacy 
Study indicates that the majority of prison inmates either are 
illiterate or have marginal reading, writing, and math skills. This 
year more than 650,000 inmates will be released from United States 
prisons. Most of these adults and juveniles will leave correctional 
institutions having received little to no education and no more skilled 
than when they arrived. Frustrated by a lack of marketable skills, 
burdened with a criminal record, and released without transitional 
services, nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested for 
either a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It 
should come as no surprise that an individual who is released and who 
is illiterate or lacks the necessary skills to get a job returns to a 
life of crime.
  The key to preventing recidivism has proven to be educational access 
and opportunity. A Correctional Educational Association report 
published findings from a study of education programs provided in 
correctional facilities. The findings show a remarkable decrease of 
approximately 10 percent in recidivism for those inmates that 
participated in education programs while incarcerated. The study also 
shows that the higher the education level reached by the offender, the 
lower the resulting recidivism rate.
  Most incarcerated youth offenders will one day return back to their 
communities, so this legislation is about making sure they have an 
opportunity to turn their lives around before they are released. It is 
about focusing on literacy and job training in order to reduce 
recidivism and prevent incarcerated youth offenders from becoming 
career criminals. I believe that criminal offenders, especially 
juveniles, should be given a chance at rehabilitation and gainful 
employment. This chance can only come through education.
  This legislation would authorize $30 million to provide incarcerated 
youth offenders, up to 35 years of age who are eligible for parole or 
release within 5 years, an opportunity to acquire postsecondary 
education while incarcerated, as well as employment counseling and 
other services that continue for up to one year after the individual is 
released. Currently, the Grants to States for Workplace and Community 
Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program provides 
formula grant funding to State correctional education agencies to 
provide postsecondary education and related services to incarcerated 
youth offenders up to 25 years of age. This legislation would increase 
eligibility for incarcerated youth offenders to individuals 35 years of 
age to allow more individuals to participate in the program, as the 
average age of inmates in most States is 35.
  This legislation also aims to increase flexibility with regard to the 
delivery of postsecondary education and related services to 
incarcerated youth offenders. To that end, this legislation would raise 
the allowable expenditure permitted for each youth offender to the 
maximum Federal Pell Grant level. The current program limits 
expenditures per youth offender to $1,500 for tuition and books, and an 
additional $300 for related services. Under this legislation, State 
correctional education agencies have increased flexibility to address 
the unique needs of each inmate due to the elimination of the caps on 
funding, which currently dictate the specific amounts permitted to be 
used for tuition and books, and related services.
  Additionally, this legislation requires State correctional education 
agencies to more thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of the goals and 
objectives of the program by tracking and reporting specific and 
quantified student outcomes referenced to the outcomes of non-program 
participants. Increased accountability included in this legislation 
will allow a more in-depth study of the impact of education on key 
goals, such as, knowledge and skill attainment, employment attainment, 
job retention and advancement and recidivism rates.
  Recognizing the impact that education and job training can have on 
incarcerated youth offenders, it is my sincere hope that this 
legislation will encourage incarcerated individuals to achieve 
independence and to gain the skills necessary to become productive 
members of society upon their release. With realistic rehabilitation, 
including literacy training and job training, we can stop the cycle of 
catch-and-release.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and 
urge its swift adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Cochran, 
        Mr. Corzine, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Vitter):
  S. 1353. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act. I 
am pleased that Senators Warner, Stabenow, Murkowski, Bingaman, 
Cochran, Durbin, Vitter, and Corzine are joining me as original 
cosponsors of this important legislation.
  ALS is a fatal, progressive disease where the nerve cells that 
connect the brain and spinal cord to the muscles slowly die. As the 
disease progresses, patients slowly lose control of their muscles. 
Through it all, patients remain completely aware of what is happening 
to their bodies because ALS does not affect the mind. The harsh reality 
of ALS is that a person can expect to live on average only two to five 
years from the time the first signs of the disease appear.
  Lou Gehrig brought Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) to the 
public's attention more than 65 years ago and his courage put a human 
face on this terrible disease. Each of us has a Lou Gehrig back in our 
home State--someone who shows great courage in the face of ALS. Over 
the years, I have worked closely with the Nevada ALS Association and 
have met with many Nevadans who have been touched by this devastating 
illness. One of these Nevadans was a man by the name of Steve Rigazio 
who was invited to testify before the Labor/HHS/Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee in May of 2000. Steve was at the height of 
his career when he was diagnosed with ALS. He worked through the ranks 
of the Nevada Power Company, the largest utility company in the State, 
for 16 years until he became President. He coached and played 
recreational hockey and at one point played semi-pro

[[Page 15207]]

baseball. After his diagnosis, Steve continued to show up at work at 6 
a.m. for as long as he could. Steve Rigazio died of ALS on December 27, 
2001 at the age of 47 and left behind a family that included a wife, 
two children and hundreds of friends. The ALS Steve Rigazio Voice of 
Courage Award was named in his honor as a living testimony to the life 
of this special man.
  Sadly, every year approximately 5,600 Americans will learn they have 
ALS. There is no cure for ALS and there is only one FDA approved drug 
to specifically treat ALS. That drug extends life for only a few months 
and only works in 20 percent of patients.
  ALS has proven particularly hard for scientists and doctors to tackle 
for a number of reasons; including the fact that there is also not a 
centralized place where data on the disease is collected and no one 
place for patients to go to find out about clinical trials and new 
research findings. Currently, there is only a patchwork of data about 
ALS that does not include the entire U.S. population and only includes 
limited data for specific purposes, such as to determine the 
relationship between military service and the disease. Perhaps the most 
obvious example of the limitations of current surveillance systems and 
registries is that we do not know with certainty how many people are 
living with ALS in the United States today. Over 136 years after the 
discovery of ALS, estimates on its prevalence still vary by as much as 
100 percent--from a low of about fifteen thousand patients to as many 
as thirty thousand.
  The legislation I am introducing today would create an ALS registry 
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will aid in the 
search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will 
collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the 
U.S.; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to 
the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of 
individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of 
ALS. The registry will also provide a secure method to put patients in 
contact with scientists conducting clinical trials and scientists 
studying the environmental and genetic causes of ALS.
  A national registry will help arm our Nation's researchers and 
clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in 
the fight against ALS. The data made available by a registry will 
potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease, and 
maybe even lead to the discovery of new treatment, a cure for ALS, or 
even a way to prevent the disease in the first place.
  The establishment of a registry will bring new hope to thousands of 
patients and their families that ALS will no longer be a death 
sentence. No one wants to wait another 65 years before a cure is found. 
I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of the ALS Registry 
Act.
  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. 1353

       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 ``ALS Registry Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (referred to in this 
     section as ``ALS'') is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative 
     disease that affects motor nerve cells in the brain and the 
     spinal cord.
       (2) The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is 2 
     to 5 years from the time of diagnosis.
       (3) The cause of ALS is not well understood.
       (4) There is only one drug currently approved by the Food 
     and Drug Administration for the treatment of ALS, which has 
     thus far shown only modest effects, prolonging life by just a 
     few months.
       (5) There is no known cure for ALS.
       (6) More than 5,000 individuals in the United States are 
     diagnosed with ALS annually and as many as 30,000 individuals 
     may be living with ALS in the United States today.
       (7) Studies have found relationships between ALS and 
     environmental and genetic factors, but those relationships 
     are not well understood.
       (8) Scientists believe that there are significant ties 
     between ALS and any motor neuron diseases.
       (9) Several ALS disease registries and databases exist in 
     the United States and throughout the world, including the 
     SOD1 database, the National Institute of Neurological 
     Disorders and Stroke repository, and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs ALS Registry;
       (10) A single national system to collect and store 
     information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS in the 
     United States does not exist.
       (11) The establishment of a national registry will help--
       (A) identify the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the 
     United States;
       (B) collect data important to the study of ALS;
       (C) promote a better understanding of ALS;
       (D) promote research into the genetic and environmental 
     factors that cause ALS;
       (E) provide a means for patients to contact scientists 
     researching the environmental and genetic factors that cause 
     ALS as well as those engaged in clinical trials; and
       (F) enhance efforts to find treatments and a cure for ALS.

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

       Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399O. AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS REGISTRY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     receipt of the report described in subsection (b)(2)(A), the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with a 
     national voluntary health organization with experience 
     serving the population of individuals with amyotrophic 
     lateral sclerosis (referred to in this section as `ALS'), 
     shall--
       ``(A) develop a system to collect data on ALS, including 
     information with respect to the incidence and prevalence of 
     the disease in the United States; and
       ``(B) establish a national registry for the collection and 
     storage of such data to include a population-based registry 
     of cases of ALS in the United States.
       ``(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of the registry 
     established under paragraph (1)(B) to--
       ``(A) gather data concerning--
       ``(i) ALS, including the incidence and prevalence of ALS in 
     the United States;
       ``(ii) the environmental and occupational factors that may 
     be associated with the disease;
       ``(iii) the age, race or ethnicity, gender, and family 
     history of individuals who are diagnosed with the disease; 
     and
       ``(iv) other matters as recommended by the Advisory 
     Committee established under subsection (b); and
       ``(B) establish a secure method to put patients in contact 
     with scientists studying the environmental, and genetic 
     causes of motor neuron disease or conducting clinical trials 
     on therapies for motor neuron disease.
       ``(b) Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, shall establish a committee to be known as the 
     Advisory Committee on the National ALS Registry (referred to 
     in this section as the `Advisory Committee'). The Advisory 
     Committee shall be composed of at least one member, to be 
     appointed by the Secretary, acting through the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, representing 
     each of the following:
       ``(A) National voluntary health associations that focus 
     solely on ALS that have a demonstrated experience in ALS 
     research, care, and patient services.
       ``(B) The National Institutes of Health, to include, upon 
     the recommendation of the Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health, representatives from the National Institute of 
     Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute 
     of Environmental Health Sciences.
       ``(C) The Department of Veterans Affairs.
       ``(D) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
       ``(E) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(F) Patients with ALS or their family members.
       ``(G) Clinicians who have worked with data registries.
       ``(H) Epidemiologists with experience in data registries.
       ``(I) Geneticists or experts in genetics who have 
     experience with the genetics of ALS or other neurological 
     diseases.
       ``(J) Statisticians.
       ``(K) Ethicists.
       ``(L) Attorneys.
       ``(M) Other individuals with an interest in developing and 
     maintaining the National ALS Registry
       ``(2) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall conduct a study 
     and make recommendations to the Secretary concerning--
       ``(A) the development and maintenance of the National ALS 
     Registry;

[[Page 15208]]

       ``(B) the type of information to be collected and stored in 
     the Registry;
       ``(C) the manner in which such data is to be collected;
       ``(D) the use and availability of such data including 
     guidelines for such use; and
       ``(E) the collection of information about diseases and 
     disorders that primarily affect motor neurons that are 
     considered essential to furthering the study and cure of ALS.
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the Advisory Committee is established, the Advisory 
     Committee shall submit a report concerning the study 
     conducted under paragraph (2) that contains the 
     recommendations of the Advisory Committee with respect to the 
     results of such study.
       ``(c) Grants.--Notwithstanding the recommendations of the 
     Advisory Committee under subsection (b), the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, may award grants to, and enter into 
     contracts and cooperative agreements with, public or private 
     nonprofit entities for the collection, analysis, and 
     reporting of data on ALS.
       ``(d) Coordination With State, Local, and Federal 
     Registries.--
       ``(1) In general.--In establishing the National ALS 
     Registry under subsection (a), the Secretary, acting through 
     the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, shall--
       ``(A) identify, build upon, expand, and coordinate among 
     existing data and surveillance systems, surveys, registries, 
     and other Federal public health and environmental 
     infrastructure wherever possible, including--
       ``(i) the Department of Veterans Affairs ALS Registry;
       ``(ii) the DNA and Cell Line Repository of the National 
     Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Human Genetics 
     Resource Center;
       ``(iii) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
     studies, including studies conducted in Illinois, Missouri, 
     El Paso and San Antonio Texas, and Massachusetts;
       ``(iv) State-based ALS registries, including the 
     Massachusetts ALS Registry;
       ``(v) the National Vital Statistics System; and
       ``(vi) any other existing or relevant databases that 
     collect or maintain information on those motor neuron 
     diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee established in 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(B) provide for public access to an electronic national 
     database that accepts data from State-based registries, 
     health care professionals, and others as recommended by the 
     Advisory Committee established in subsection (b) in a manner 
     that protects personal privacy consistent with medical 
     privacy regulations.
       ``(2) Coordination with nih and department of veterans 
     affairs.--Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Advisory 
     Committee established in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     ensure that epidemiological and other types of information 
     obtained under subsection (a) is made available to the 
     National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       ``(e) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term `national voluntary health association' means a national 
     non-profit organization with chapters or other affiliated 
     organizations in States throughout the United States.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1354. A bill to establish commissions to review the facts and 
circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, 
European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment 
Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one 
commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German 
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World 
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's 
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War 
II. This bill is long overdue.
  I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators 
Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Corzine and Wyden, have joined me as 
cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.
  The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a 
triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed 
by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of 
great pride for all Americans.
  But, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and 
the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people 
here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to 
protect itself during wartime, the U.S. government must respect the 
basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to 
defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our nation's 
recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, 
when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we 
must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the 
Constitution or of basic freedoms.
  Many Americans are aware of the fact that, during World War II, under 
the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 
100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes into internment camps. 
Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, 
and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military 
guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on 
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 
1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement 
and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 
people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or 
internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the 
people of the United States.
  While I commend our government for finally recognizing and 
apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War 
II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the 
mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, 
and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.
  The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact-
finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that 
Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it 
never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the 
U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other 
European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World 
War II.
  I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with 
Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic 
Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other 
European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and 
placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from our 
history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to 
protect basic freedoms.
  A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by 
the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi 
persecution and genocide. We must review the facts and determine how 
our restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe 
harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. The 
United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many 
refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.
  As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for 
Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is 
now time for the U.S. government to complete an accounting of this 
period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact-
finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the 
treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and 
Jewish refugees during World War II.
  Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of 
German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who 
were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, 
subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their 
personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.
  There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who 
were shipped to the United States and

[[Page 15209]]

sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis 
powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.
  Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like 
those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from 
hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's 
shores.
  Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin 
Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never 
too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never 
allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we 
should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not 
let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans 
by their own government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment 
Study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in 
our nation's history.
  I ask that the full text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1354

       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 ``Wartime Treatment Study 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) During World War II, the United States successfully 
     fought the spread of Nazism and fascism by Germany, Italy, 
     and Japan.
       (2) Nazi Germany persecuted and engaged in genocide against 
     Jews and certain other groups. By the end of the war, 
     6,000,000 Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany. 
     United States Government policies, however, restricted entry 
     to the United States to Jewish and other refugees who sought 
     safety from Nazi persecution.
       (3) While we were at war, the United States treated the 
     Japanese American, German American, and Italian American 
     communities as suspect.
       (4) The United States Government should conduct an 
     independent review to assess fully and acknowledge these 
     actions. Congress has previously reviewed the United States 
     Government's wartime treatment of Japanese Americans through 
     the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians. An independent review of the treatment of German 
     Americans and Italian Americans and of Jewish refugees 
     fleeing persecution and genocide has not yet been undertaken.
       (5) During World War II, the United States Government 
     branded as ``enemy aliens'' more than 600,000 Italian-born 
     and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and 
     their families and required them to carry Certificates of 
     Identification, limited their travel, and seized their 
     personal property. At that time, these groups were the two 
     largest foreign-born groups in the United States.
       (6) During World War II, the United States Government 
     arrested, interned or otherwise detained thousands of 
     European Americans, some remaining in custody for years after 
     cessation of World War II hostilities, and repatriated, 
     exchanged, or deported European Americans, including 
     American-born children, to hostile, war-torn European Axis 
     nations, many to be exchanged for Americans held in those 
     nations.
       (7) Pursuant to a policy coordinated by the United States 
     with Latin American countries, many European Latin Americans, 
     including German and Austrian Jews, were captured, shipped to 
     the United States and interned. Many were later expatriated, 
     repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis 
     nations during World War II, most to be exchanged for 
     Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations.
       (8) Millions of European Americans served in the armed 
     forces and thousands sacrificed their lives in defense of the 
     United States.
       (9) The wartime policies of the United States Government 
     were devastating to the Italian Americans and German American 
     communities, individuals and their families. The detrimental 
     effects are still being experienced.
       (10) Prior to and during World War II, the United States 
     restricted the entry of Jewish refugees who were fleeing 
     persecution and sought safety in the United States. During 
     the 1930's and 1940's, the quota system, immigration 
     regulations, visa requirements, and the time required to 
     process visa applications affected the number of Jewish 
     refugees, particularly those from Germany and Austria, who 
     could gain admittance to the United States.
       (11) Time is of the essence for the establishment of 
     commissions, because of the increasing danger of destruction 
     and loss of relevant documents, the advanced age of potential 
     witnesses and, most importantly, the advanced age of those 
     affected by the United States Government's policies. Many who 
     suffered have already passed away and will never know of this 
     effort.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) During world war ii.--The term ``during World War II'' 
     refers to the period between September 1, 1939, through 
     December 31, 1948.
       (2) European americans.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``European Americans'' refers to 
     United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of 
     European ancestry, including Italian Americans, German 
     Americans, Hungarian Americans, Romanian Americans, and 
     Bulgarian Americans.
       (B) Italian americans.--The term ``Italian Americans'' 
     refers to United States citizens and permanent resident 
     aliens of Italian ancestry.
       (C) German americans.--The term ``German Americans'' refers 
     to United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of 
     German ancestry.
       (3) European latin americans.--The term ``European Latin 
     Americans'' refers to persons of European ancestry, including 
     Italian or German ancestry, residing in a Latin American 
     nation during World War II.

     TITLE I--COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF EUROPEAN AMERICANS

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF 
                   EUROPEAN AMERICANS.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Commission on 
     Wartime Treatment of European Americans (referred to in this 
     title as the ``European American Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The European American Commission shall be 
     composed of 7 members, who shall be appointed not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act as follows:
       (1) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the minority 
     leader.
       (3) Two members shall be appointed by the majority leader 
     of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader.
       (c) Terms.--The term of office for members shall be for the 
     life of the European American Commission. A vacancy in the 
     European American Commission shall not affect its powers, and 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made.
       (d) Representation.--The European American Commission shall 
     include 2 members representing the interests of Italian 
     Americans and 2 members representing the interests of German 
     Americans.
       (e) Meetings.--The President shall call the first meeting 
     of the European American Commission not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Quorum.--Four members of the European American 
     Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairman.--The European American Commission shall elect 
     a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members. The term 
     of office of each shall be for the life of the European 
     American Commission.
       (h) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the European American 
     Commission shall serve without pay.
       (2) Reimbursement of expenses.--All members of the European 
     American Commission shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel 
     and subsistence, and other reasonable and necessary expenses 
     incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

     SEC. 102. DUTIES OF THE EUROPEAN AMERICAN COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the European 
     American Commission to review the United States Government's 
     wartime treatment of European Americans and European Latin 
     Americans as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Scope of Review.--The European American Commission's 
     review shall include the following:
       (1) A comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding United States Government actions during World War 
     II that violated the civil liberties of European Americans 
     and European Latin Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemies 
     Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24), Presidential Proclamations 2526, 
     2527, 2655, 2662, Executive Orders 9066 and 9095, and any 
     directive of the United States Government pursuant to such 
     law, proclamations, or executive orders respecting the 
     registration, arrest, exclusion, internment, exchange, or 
     deportment of European Americans and European Latin 
     Americans. This review shall include an assessment of the 
     underlying rationale of the United States Government's 
     decision to develop related programs and policies, the 
     information the United States Government received or acquired 
     suggesting the related programs and policies were necessary, 
     the perceived benefit of enacting such programs and policies, 
     and the immediate and long-

[[Page 15210]]

     term impact of such programs and policies on European 
     Americans and European Latin Americans and their communities.
       (2) A review of United States Government action with 
     respect to European Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemies 
     Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24) and Executive Order 9066 during World 
     War II, including registration requirements, travel and 
     property restrictions, establishment of restricted areas, 
     raids, arrests, internment, exclusion, policies relating to 
     the families and property that excludees and internees were 
     forced to abandon, internee employment by American companies 
     (including a list of such companies and the terms and type of 
     employment), exchange, repatriation, and deportment, and the 
     immediate and long-term effect of such actions, particularly 
     internment, on the lives of those affected. This review shall 
     include a list of all temporary detention and long-term 
     internment facilities.
       (3) A brief review of the participation by European 
     Americans in the United States Armed Forces including the 
     participation of European Americans whose families were 
     excluded, interned, repatriated, or exchanged.
       (4) A recommendation of appropriate remedies, including how 
     civil liberties can be better protected during war, or an 
     actual, attempted, or threatened invasion or incursion, an 
     assessment of the continued viability of the Alien Enemies 
     Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24), and public education programs related 
     to the United States Government's wartime treatment of 
     European Americans and European Latin Americans during World 
     War II.
       (c) Field Hearings.--The European American Commission shall 
     hold public hearings in such cities of the United States as 
     it deems appropriate.
       (d) Report.--The European American Commission shall submit 
     a written report of its findings and recommendations to 
     Congress not later than 18 months after the date of the first 
     meeting called pursuant to section 101(e).

     SEC. 103. POWERS OF THE EUROPEAN AMERICAN COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The European American Commission or, on 
     the authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or 
     member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the 
     provisions of this title, hold such hearings and sit and act 
     at such times and places, and request the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memorandum, papers, and documents as 
     the Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem 
     advisable. The European American Commission may request the 
     Attorney General to invoke the aid of an appropriate United 
     States district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise, 
     such attendance, testimony, or production.
       (b) Government Information and Cooperation.--The European 
     American Commission may acquire directly from the head of any 
     department, agency, independent instrumentality, or other 
     authority of the executive branch of the Government, 
     available information that the European American Commission 
     considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All 
     departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities, or 
     other authorities of the executive branch of the Government 
     shall cooperate with the European American Commission and 
     furnish all information requested by the European American 
     Commission to the extent permitted by law, including 
     information collected as a result of Public Law 96-317 and 
     Public Law 106-451. For purposes of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 
     552a(b)(9)), the European American Commission shall be deemed 
     to be a committee of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       The European American Commission is authorized to--
       (1) appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as 
     may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the compensation of any employee of the 
     Commission may not exceed a rate equivalent to the rate 
     payable under GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 
     5332 of such title;
       (2) obtain the services of experts and consultants in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of such title;
       (3) obtain the detail of any Federal Government employee, 
     and such detail shall be without reimbursement or 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege;
       (4) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services for procurement of necessary financial and 
     administrative services, for which payment shall be made by 
     reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as 
     may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the 
     Administrator;
       (5) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in 
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the 
     extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation 
     Acts; and
       (6) enter into contracts with Federal or State agencies, 
     private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of 
     research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other 
     activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the 
     Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided 
     in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 105. FUNDING.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Justice, $500,000 shall be available to carry 
     out this title.

     SEC. 106. SUNSET.

       The European American Commission shall terminate 60 days 
     after it submits its report to Congress.

      TITLE II--COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF JEWISH REFUGEES

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF 
                   JEWISH REFUGEES.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Commission on 
     Wartime Treatment of Jewish Refugees (referred to in this 
     title as the ``Jewish Refugee Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall be 
     composed of 7 members, who shall be appointed not later than 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act as follows:
       (1) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, in consultation with the Minority 
     Leader.
       (3) Two members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader.
       (c) Terms.--The term of office for members shall be for the 
     life of the Jewish Refugee Commission. A vacancy in the 
     Jewish Refugee Commission shall not affect its powers, and 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made.
       (d) Representation.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall 
     include 2 members representing the interests of Jewish 
     refugees.
       (e) Meetings.--The President shall call the first meeting 
     of the Jewish Refugee Commission not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Quorum.--Four members of the Jewish Refugee Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold 
     hearings.
       (g) Chairman.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall elect a 
     Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members. The term 
     of office of each shall be for the life of the Jewish Refugee 
     Commission.
       (h) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Members of the Jewish Refugee Commission 
     shall serve without pay.
       (2) Reimbursement of expenses.--All members of the Jewish 
     Refugee Commission shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel 
     and subsistence, and other reasonable and necessary expenses 
     incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

     SEC. 202. DUTIES OF THE JEWISH REFUGEE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the Jewish Refugee 
     Commission to review the United States Government's refusal 
     to allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution in 
     Europe entry to the United States as provided in subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Scope of Review.--The Jewish Refugee Commission's 
     review shall cover the period between January 1, 1933, 
     through December 31, 1945, and shall include, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, the following:
       (1) A review of the United States Government's refusal to 
     allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution and 
     genocide entry to the United States, including a review of 
     the underlying rationale of the United States Government's 
     decision to refuse the Jewish and other refugees entry, the 
     information the United States Government received or acquired 
     suggesting such refusal was necessary, the perceived benefit 
     of such refusal, and the impact of such refusal on the 
     refugees.
       (2) A review of Federal refugee policy relating to those 
     fleeing persecution or genocide, including recommendations 
     for making it easier for future victims of persecution or 
     genocide to obtain refuge in the United States.
       (c) Field Hearings.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall 
     hold public hearings in such cities of the United States as 
     it deems appropriate.
       (d) Report.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall submit a 
     written report of its findings and recommendations to 
     Congress not later than 18 months after the date of the first 
     meeting called pursuant to section 201(e).

     SEC. 203. POWERS OF THE JEWISH REFUGEE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Jewish Refugee Commission or, on the 
     authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions 
     of this title, hold such hearings and sit and act at such 
     times and places, and request the attendance and testimony of 
     such witnesses and the production of such books, records, 
     correspondence, memorandum, papers, and documents as the 
     Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem advisable. 
     The Jewish Refugee Commission may request the Attorney 
     General to invoke the aid of an appropriate United States 
     district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise, such 
     attendance, testimony, or production.

[[Page 15211]]

       (b) Government Information and Cooperation.--The Jewish 
     Refugee Commission may acquire directly from the head of any 
     department, agency, independent instrumentality, or other 
     authority of the executive branch of the Government, 
     available information that the Jewish Refugee Commission 
     considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All 
     departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities, or 
     other authorities of the executive branch of the Government 
     shall cooperate with the Jewish Refugee Commission and 
     furnish all information requested by the Jewish Refugee 
     Commission to the extent permitted by law, including 
     information collected as a result of Public Law 96-317 and 
     Public Law 106-451. For purposes of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 
     552a(b)(9)), the Jewish Refugee Commission shall be deemed to 
     be a committee of jurisdiction.

     SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       The Jewish Refugee Commission is authorized to--
       (1) appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as 
     may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the compensation of any employee of the 
     Commission may not exceed a rate equivalent to the rate 
     payable under GS-15 of the General Schedule under section 
     5332 of such title;
       (2) obtain the services of experts and consultants in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of such title;
       (3) obtain the detail of any Federal Government employee, 
     and such detail shall be without reimbursement or 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege;
       (4) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services for procurement of necessary financial and 
     administrative services, for which payment shall be made by 
     reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as 
     may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the 
     Administrator;
       (5) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in 
     accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the 
     extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation 
     Acts; and
       (6) enter into contracts with Federal or State agencies, 
     private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of 
     research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other 
     activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the 
     Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided 
     in appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 205. FUNDING.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Justice, $500,000 shall be available to carry 
     out this title.

     SEC. 206. SUNSET.

       The Jewish Refugee Commission shall terminate 60 days after 
     it submits its report to Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. DeWine, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Thomas, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1355. A bill to enhance the adoption of health information 
technology and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of 
healthcare in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, no matter who we are, where we live or which 
Party we belong to, one thing we have in common is that all of us have 
been and will again be patients under the care of a health professional 
who we may, or may not, have visited before for treatment.
  If we have already established a relationship with the doctor who is 
about to treat us, our problems will either be minimized, or will not 
exist. But, if this is our first experience with a physician or a 
specialist, how can we be certain that he or she has all the 
information that is necessary to prescribe a course of treatment and 
begin our care?
  These are the kind of thoughts that run through every patient's mind 
as we sit in the waiting room, wondering if the high tech equipment 
that surrounds us is also reflected in our physician's access to our 
lab reports and previous examinations. In other words, is there any way 
for our doctors to get to know us, before we've even set foot in their 
examining room?
  It's ironic that we live in a world where the latest news, sports and 
weather can make their way from the either side of the world to our 
computers and television sets as it happens. Our financial information 
is kept by our banks and is updated continuously throughout the day and 
is available to us almost instantaneously. Our medical records, 
however, are still kept the old fashioned way, on paper, and filed 
away. It is a tedious system, built the old fashioned way, because 
that's the way it was always done. Well, I am here to announce that the 
time has come to move to a newer, faster and more reliable system. 
Imagine a medical network that will reduce errors, help to lower costs 
and improve the quality of care we receive, all at the same time, by 
providing a treating physician with the information he needs 
immediately at the point of care. Is it possible--yes! Then why hasn't 
it happened yet?
  Why is our medical system surging ahead in the kinds of technology 
that are available to diagnose and treat disease, when, at the same 
time, it is falling further and further behind in the creation of 
electronic medical records and the ability to share that information 
with health care providers who need that material to make what can all 
too often be life and death decisions?
  Clearly, something has to change when I can carry a fob on my key 
chain that provides my local gas station owner with instant access to 
my credit information so I can buy fuel for my car, but providing 
access to my medical records to my doctor is a much longer and tedious 
process. This needs to change and it needs to change now.
  We can all see how the information revolution has had a dramatic 
impact on virtually every industry in the United States. Its ability to 
promote efficiency has helped to reduce costs and increase 
effectiveness wherever it has been applied. It is now time to bring 
that technology to bear on our healthcare system.
  At present, healthcare expenditures are growing faster than the 
overall economy. In 2003, we spent more than $1.7 trillion on 
healthcare. By 2014, that number is expected to reach $3.1 trillion. 
Clearly we need to find ways to increase the efficiency of our health 
care system and reduce the costs associated with it.
  We have all heard it said that, when it comes to our health care 
system, you can't maintain the current standards of quality and control 
or reduce costs at the same time. While the implementation of a health 
information technology system may not dramatically reduce costs, it 
will help move us further down the road of controlling costs.
  If we could manage a quick trip to the future, and pay a visit to the 
doctor's office when a health information technology system is put in 
place, we would see some dramatic changes have been made in the ability 
of our doctor to diagnose, treat and provide warnings of current and 
future medical problems.
  In that future, when I arrived at my new doctor's office I gave the 
nurse at the front desk my key fob. She took a moment to swipe it past 
their computer access link. It is soon downloading my medical 
information and compiling a ``health report'' that focuses on any 
trends that are developing as the previous results of my examinations 
are charted and compared.
  Then, as I sit in the waiting room, my physician is already 
consulting those records and monitoring my current and previous test 
results which are presented to him in the form of a graph that he has 
pulled up on his computer screen. With the simple swipe of a mechanical 
key my future doctor has been able to unlock my complete medical 
history, and examined the results of all the tests I had taken over the 
years, regardless of where I had received care.
  If my doctor was concerned about my cholesterol level, for example, 
he or she could pull up a complete history of blood tests that will 
enable my physician to track my blood chemistry and note any changes in 
my cholesterol level over the years.
  Later, if my doctor considers writing a prescription for a new drug 
or medication, he will have the ability to first

[[Page 15212]]

view all medications I am currently taking in order to make an informed 
decision regarding any potentially dangerous interactions or adverse 
side effects that might occur as a result of the new prescription.
  Such a system will enable doctors to spend less time gathering 
information and quizzing patients about past health problems and spend 
more time listening to patients and ensuring their health care needs 
are met.
  President Bush and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services Michael Leavitt have made their support for this clear. They 
recognize that the increased use of health information technology has 
the potential of saving this country billions of dollars that are now 
spent on duplicative tests, unnecessary inpatient admissions, and the 
costs associated with adverse drug effects. Some estimates suggest 
that, when an information technology system is established and put into 
operation, for each dollar we spend on this new technology we will save 
as much as four dollars in reduced costs. In a system with such high, 
increasing costs every dollar we can save is magnified.
  Fortunately, this is not something that will have to wait for someday 
until it is technologically possible and practical. There are already 
medical pioneers in the field who are putting the tools together and 
working on the network that will be needed to provide for rapid and 
complete transmission of our medical history when it is needed. One of 
these innovators currently lives in my home State of Wyoming, in Big 
Piney, in fact.
  The story of Dr. William Close is quite a remarkable one. With a wide 
and varied background that includes his love for the outdoors and a 
taste for classical music, Dr. Close has spent his life ensuring that 
the latest possible technologies were being used to address the health 
care needs of people all over the world.
  Prior to settling down in Wyoming, Dr. Close spent 16 years in Africa 
battling the illnesses and dealing with the medical problems faced by a 
nation with a large population of patients, and not enough doctors to 
go around. His first year there he was one of only three doctors in a 
2,000-bed hospital.
  It was during those days that Dr. Close determined to find a way to 
bring the tools of modern technology to the diagnosis and treatment of 
disease. Faced with such a huge patient population, he needed a tool 
that would make the compiling of information and its interpretation 
easier.
  His work led to the creation of a unique software that enabled a 
doctor to input a series of symptoms and come up with a possible 
diagnosis. It turned out to be such a valuable tool that it was able to 
be used on Palm Pilots, which made it an invaluable program for use on 
our Navy subs.
  Upon his return to the United States he continued to work on the 
development of his computer application so he could track a patient's 
medical history over several visits, rather than focus on each 
appointment as a unique set of data. That enabled Dr. Close to spot 
problems before they became serious and to treat trends before they 
became life threatening.
  Dr. Close has now logged more than 50 years of medical practice and, 
although he's officially retired, he still finds time to see patients 
in his office. He still makes house calls, too. That's a rare thing in 
most States, but a welcome part of life in Wyoming. He continues to 
work at what he calls his ``gentle, limited practice'' as he continues 
to provide an example for other health care providers and health 
information systems on how to maximize health care choices and 
treatments for his patients by getting to know the needs of his 
patients, by tracking their past history so he can help create a plan 
that will minimize a patient's risk for future health problems.
  These are the kinds of things that are possible, if we commit to 
working together with our nation's health care providers to establish a 
network of information that will address the needs of the people of our 
country. I have been pleased to work with my ranking member on the HELP 
Committee, Senator Kennedy, and the chair and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, on this and other 
complementary legislation that will promote the use of health 
information technology today, not tomorrow. We have been putting a 
considerable amount of time and effort into the crafting of these bills 
to ensure that they will increase efficiencies, make our health care 
system more effective and responsive, and provide better care to us all 
as patients.
  I mention the effect our bills will have on individuals because, as 
with most changes to our health care system, how well the system will 
work is ultimately determined by how well it works for those who rely 
on it.
  For most Americans, their first and primary concern is the privacy of 
their records. That is an important provision of the bill and we have 
included strong language to ensure the privacy and security protection 
patients were guaranteed under HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability 
and Accountability Act, are preserved. As that medical oath says so 
well, first, do no harm.
  At present, most of our medical records are kept by well meaning 
physicians who, unfortunately, are known for having illegible 
handwriting. Some of their handwriting is worse than my own. A 
computerized record will eliminate that problem and provide clear, 
easily read and interpreted medical data to those who will need it to 
prescribe a course of treatment.
  As with most things, there will be a great deal of concern about the 
system's cost and the availability of funds to pay for it. Our 
legislation will award competitive, matching grants to healthcare 
providers, states and academic programs to facilitate the purchase and 
enhance the utilization of qualified health information technology.
  In the months to come, we will continue to encourage the 
participation of the private sector in this effort. They have asked 
for, and I believe they deserve, a seat at the table when standards are 
being determined and policies are being implemented. There is no 
question that some of them are closest to the problem at hand and their 
experience, ideas, and suggestions for innovation will be invaluable as 
we pursue the implementation of this new technology nationwide.
  Secretary Leavitt recently announced the formation of what he is 
calling the American Health Information Community. He will chair this 
17-member public-private collaborative that will help facilitate a 
nationwide transition to electronic health records, including common 
standards and interoperability, in a smooth, market-led way. I share 
his support for such an approach and his efforts to make it a reality.
  The implementation of this new technology will make the sharing of 
health information more efficient between doctors and health 
professionals. And, most importantly, it will help to make our health 
care system more effective and provide better care to those who make 
use of it. It will also help to begin the vital process of controlling 
health care costs, something we must set as a goal and begin to achieve 
in the time before us.
  This is a vital step in that process. With it, we can continue to 
make health care services more affordable and available. Without it we 
run the risk of having the best health care system in the world, with 
few among us able to afford taking full advantage of it.
  I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the months ahead 
to ensure that meaningful health information technology legislation is 
signed into law later this year.
  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. 1355

       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 ``Better Healthcare Through 
     Information Technology Act''.

[[Page 15213]]



     SEC. 2. IMPROVING HEALTHCARE, QUALITY, SAFETY, AND 
                   EFFICIENCY.

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

              ``TITLE XXIX--HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

     ``SEC. 2901. PURPOSES.

       ``It is the purpose of this title to improve the quality, 
     safety, and efficiency of healthcare by--
       ``(1) protecting the privacy and security of health 
     information;
       ``(2) fostering the widespread adoption of health 
     information technology;
       ``(3) establishing the public-private American Health 
     Information Collaborative to identify uniform national data 
     standards (including content, communication, and security) 
     and implementation polices for the widespread adoption of 
     health information technology;
       ``(4) establishing health information network demonstration 
     programs;
       ``(5) awarding competitive grants to facilitate the 
     purchase and enhance the utilization of qualified health 
     information technology; and
       ``(6) awarding competitive grants to States for the 
     development of State loan programs to facilitate the 
     widespread adoption of health information technology.

     ``SEC. 2902. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Collaborative.--The term `Collaborative' means the 
     public-private American Health Information Collaborative 
     established under section 2904.
       ``(2) Healthcare provider.--The term `healthcare provider' 
     means a hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health 
     entity, healthcare clinic, community health center, group 
     practice (as defined in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act), a pharmacist, a pharmacy, a laboratory, a 
     physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of the Social 
     Security Act), a health facility operated by or pursuant to a 
     contract with the Indian Health Service, a rural health 
     clinic, and any other category of facility or clinician 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Health information.--The term `health information' 
     means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form 
     or medium, that--
       ``(A) is created or received by a health care provider, 
     health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, 
     school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and
       ``(B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or 
     mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of 
     health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future 
     payment for the provision of health care to an individual.
       ``(4) Health information network.--The term `health 
     information network' means an organization of health care 
     providers and other entities established for the purpose of 
     linking health information systems to enable the electronic 
     sharing of health information.
       ``(5) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance 
     issuer' has the meaning given that term in section 2791.
       ``(6) Laboratory.--The term `laboratory' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 353.
       ``(7) Pharmacist.--The term `pharmacist' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act.
       ``(8) Qualified health information technology.--The term 
     `qualified health information technology' means a 
     computerized system (including hardware, software, and 
     training) that--
       ``(A) protects the privacy and security of health 
     information and properly encrypts such health information;
       ``(B) maintains and provides permitted access to patients' 
     health records in an electronic format;
       ``(C) incorporates decision support software to reduce 
     medical errors and enhance healthcare quality;
       ``(D) is consistent with the standards recommended by the 
     collaborative; and
       ``(E) allows for the reporting of quality measures.
       ``(9) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     ``SEC. 2903. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR OF HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) Office of National Health Information Technology.--
     There is established within the Office of the Secretary an 
     Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information 
     Technology (referred to in this section as the `Office'). The 
     Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It shall be the purpose of the Office to 
     carry out programs and activities to develop a nationwide 
     interoperable health information technology infrastructure 
     that--
       ``(1) ensures that patients' health information is secure 
     and protected;
       ``(2) improves healthcare quality, reduces medical errors, 
     and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
       ``(3) reduces healthcare costs resulting from inefficiency, 
     medical errors, inappropriate care, and incomplete 
     information;
       ``(4) ensures that appropriate information to help guide 
     medical decisions is available at the time and place of care;
       ``(5) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater 
     competition, and increased choice through the wider 
     availability of accurate information on healthcare costs, 
     quality, and outcomes;
       ``(6) improves the coordination of care and information 
     among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other 
     entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure 
     and authorized exchange of healthcare information;
       ``(7) improves public health reporting and facilitates the 
     early identification and rapid response to public health 
     threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and 
     infectious disease outbreaks;
       ``(8) facilitates health research; and
       ``(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases.
       ``(c) Duties of the National Coordinator.--The National 
     Coordinator shall--
       ``(1) serve as a member of the public-private American 
     Health Information Collaboration established under section 
     2904;
       ``(2) serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary 
     concerning the development, application, and use of health 
     information technology;
       ``(3) facilitate the adoption of a national system for the 
     electronic exchange of health information;
       ``(4) facilitate the adoption and implementation of 
     standards for the electronic exchange of health information 
     to reduce cost and improve healthcare quality; and
       ``(5) submit the reports described under section 2904(h).
       ``(d) Detail of Federal Employees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon the request of the National 
     Coordinator, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to 
     detail, with or without reimbursement from the Office, any of 
     the personnel of such agency to the Office to assist it in 
     carrying out its duties under this section.
       ``(2) Effect of detail.--Any detail of personnel under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) not interrupt or otherwise affect the civil service 
     status or privileges of the Federal employee; and
       ``(B) be in addition to any other staff of the Department 
     employed by the National Coordinator.
       ``(3) Acceptance of detailees.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Office may accept detailed personnel 
     from other Federal agencies without regard to whether the 
     agency described under paragraph (1) is reimbursed.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the activities of the Office under this section 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     ``SEC. 2904. AMERICAN HEALTH INFORMATION COLLABORATIVE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this title, and subject to the provisions of 
     this title, the Secretary shall establish the public-private 
     American Health Information Collaborative (referred to in 
     this section as the `Collaborative').
       ``(b) Composition.--The Collaborative shall be composed 
     of--
       ``(1) the Secretary, who shall serve as the chairperson of 
     the Collaborative;
       ``(2) the Secretary of Defense, or his or her designee;
       ``(3) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or his or her 
     designee;
       ``(4) the National Coordinator for Health Information 
     Technology;
       ``(5) the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology; and
       ``(6) one voting member from each of the following 
     categories to be appointed by the Secretary from nominations 
     submitted by the public:
       ``(A) Patient advocates.
       ``(B) Physicians.
       ``(C) Hospitals.
       ``(D) Pharmacists.
       ``(E) Health insurance plans.
       ``(F) Standards development organizations.
       ``(G) Technology vendors.
       ``(H) Public health entities.
       ``(I) Clinical research and academic entities.
       ``(J) Employers.
       ``(K) An Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       ``(L) State and local government agencies.
       ``(c) Recommendations and Policies.--The Collaborative 
     shall make recommendations to identify uniform national 
     policies to the Federal Government and private entities to 
     support the widespread adoption of health information 
     technology, including--
       ``(1) protecting the privacy and security of personal 
     health information;
       ``(2) measures to prevent unauthorized access to health 
     information;
       ``(3) measures to ensure accurate patient identification;
       ``(4) methods to facilitate secure patient access to health 
     information;
       ``(5) recommendations for a nationwide architecture that 
     achieves interoperability of health information technology 
     systems; and

[[Page 15214]]

       ``(6) other policies determined to be necessary by the 
     Collaborative.
       ``(d) Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Collaborative shall, on an ongoing 
     basis--
       ``(A) review existing standards (including content, 
     communication, and security standards) for the electronic 
     exchange of health information, including such standards 
     adopted by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(A);
       ``(B) identify deficiencies and omissions in such existing 
     standards; and
       ``(C) identify duplications and omissions in such existing 
     standards;
     and recommend modifications to such standards as necessary.
       ``(2) Recommendations.--The Collaborative shall recommend 
     to the President the adoption by the Federal Government of--
       ``(A) the standards adopted by the Consolidated Health 
     Informatics Initiative as of the date of enactment of this 
     title; and
       ``(B) on an ongoing basis as appropriate, any additional 
     standards or modifications recommended pursuant to the review 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Limitation.--The standards described in this section 
     shall not include any standards developed pursuant to the 
     Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
       ``(e) Action by the President.--Upon receipt of a 
     recommendation from the Collaborative under subsection 
     (d)(2), the President shall review and if appropriate, 
     provide for the adoption by the Federal Government of such 
     recommended standards.
       ``(f) Coordination of Federal Spending.--Not later than 1 
     year after the adoption by the Federal Government of a 
     recommendation as provided for in subsection (e), and in 
     compliance with chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code, 
     no Federal agency shall expend Federal funds for the purchase 
     of hardware, software, or support services for the electronic 
     exchange of health information that is not consistent with 
     applicable standards adopted by the Federal Government under 
     subsection (e).
       ``(g) Coordination of Federal Data Collection.--Not later 
     than 2 years after the adoption by the Federal Government of 
     a recommendation as provided for in subsection (e), all 
     Federal agencies collecting health data for the purposes of 
     surveillance, epidemiology, adverse event reporting, or 
     research shall comply with standards adopted under subsection 
     (e).
       ``(h) Voluntary Adoption.--Any standards adopted by the 
     Federal Government under subsection (e) shall be voluntary 
     with respect to private entities.
       ``(i) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives, on an annual basis, a report that--
       ``(1) describes the specific actions that have been taken 
     to facilitate the adoption of a nationwide system for the 
     electronic exchange of health information;
       ``(2) describes barriers to the adoption of such a 
     nationwide system; and
       ``(3) contains recommendations to achieve full 
     implementation of such a nationwide system.
       ``(j) Application of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the Collaborative, except 
     that the term provided for under section 14(a)(2) shall be 5 
     years.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.

     ``SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH 
                   INFORMATION STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Implementation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, based upon the 
     recommendations of the Collaborative, shall develop criteria 
     to ensure uniform and consistent implementation of any 
     standards for the electronic exchange of health information 
     voluntarily adopted by private entities in technical 
     conformance with such standards adopted under this title.
       ``(2) Implementation assistance.--The Secretary may 
     recognize a private entity or entities to assist private 
     entities in the implementation of the standards adopted under 
     this title.
       ``(b) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, based upon the 
     recommendations of the Collaborative, shall develop criteria 
     to ensure and certify that hardware, software, and support 
     services that claim to be in compliance with any standard for 
     the electronic exchange of health information adopted under 
     this title have established and maintained such compliance in 
     technical conformance with such standards.
       ``(2) Certification assistance.--The Secretary may 
     recognize a private entity or entities to assist in the 
     certification described under paragraph (1).

     ``SEC. 2906. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE WIDESPREAD 
                   ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award competitive 
     grants to eligible entities to facilitate the purchase and 
     enhance the utilization of qualified health information 
     technology systems to improve the quality and efficiency of 
     healthcare.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a) an entity shall--
       ``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require;
       ``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan for the 
     implementation of data sharing and interoperability measures;
       ``(3) be a--
       ``(A) not for profit hospital;
       ``(B) group practice (including a single physician); or
       ``(C) another healthcare provider not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B);
       ``(4) adopt the standards adopted by the Federal Government 
     under section 2904;
       ``(5) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to 
     which such entity has achieved the measures adopted under 
     section 2909;
       ``(6) demonstrate significant financial need; and
       ``(7) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection 
     (d).
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     this section shall be used to facilitate the purchase and 
     enhance the utilization of qualified health information 
     technology systems.
       ``(d) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible for a grant 
     under this section an entity shall contribute non-Federal 
     contributions to the costs of carrying out the activities for 
     which the grant is awarded in an amount equal to $1 for each 
     $3 of Federal funds provided under the grant.
       ``(e) Preference in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants 
     under this section the Secretary shall give preference to--
       ``(1) eligible entities that are located in rural, 
     frontier, and other underserved areas as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(2) eligible entities that will use grant funds to 
     enhance secure data sharing across various health care 
     settings or enhance interoperability with regional or 
     national health information networks; and
       ``(3) with respect to an entity described in subsection 
     (b)(3)(C), a not for profit healthcare provider.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $75,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2010.

     ``SEC. 2907. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT 
                   OF STATE LOAN PROGRAMS TO FACILITATE THE 
                   WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award competitive 
     grants to States for the establishment of State programs for 
     loans to healthcare providers to facilitate the purchase and 
     enhance the utilization of qualified health information 
     technology.
       ``(b) Establishment of Fund.--To be eligible to receive a 
     competitive grant under this section, a State shall establish 
     a qualified health information technology loan fund (referred 
     to in this section as a `State loan fund') and comply with 
     the other requirements contained in this section. A grant to 
     a State under this section shall be deposited in the State 
     loan fund established by the State. No funds authorized by 
     other provisions of this title to be used for other purposes 
     specified in this title shall be deposited in any State loan 
     fund.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a) a State shall--
       ``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require;
       ``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan in 
     accordance with subsection (d);
       ``(3) establish a qualified health information technology 
     loan fund in accordance with subsection (b);
       ``(4) require that healthcare providers receiving such 
     loans consult with the Center for Best Practices established 
     in section 914(d) to access the knowledge and experience of 
     existing initiatives regarding the successful implementation 
     and effective use of health information technology;
       ``(5) require that healthcare providers receiving such 
     loans adopt the standards adopted by the Federal Government 
     under section 2904(d);
       ``(6) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to 
     which the State has achieved the measures under section 2909; 
     and
       ``(7) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection 
     (h).
       ``(d) Strategic Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     section shall annually prepare a strategic plan that 
     identifies the intended uses of amounts available to the 
     State loan fund of the State.
       ``(2) Contents.--A strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a list of the projects to be assisted through the 
     State loan fund in the first fiscal year that begins after 
     the date on which the plan is submitted;
       ``(B) a description of the criteria and methods established 
     for the distribution of funds from the State loan fund; and

[[Page 15215]]

       ``(C) a description of the financial status of the State 
     loan fund and the short-term and long-term goals of the State 
     loan fund.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts deposited in a State loan fund, 
     including loan repayments and interest earned on such 
     amounts, shall be used only for awarding loans or loan 
     guarantees, or as a source of reserve and security for 
     leveraged loans, the proceeds of which are deposited in the 
     State loan fund established under subsection (a). Loans under 
     this section may be used by a healthcare provider to 
     facilitate the purchase and enhance the utilization of 
     qualified health information technology.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Amounts received by a State under this 
     section may not be used--
       ``(A) for the purchase or other acquisition of any health 
     information technology system that is not a qualified health 
     information technology system;
       ``(B) to conduct activities for which Federal funds are 
     expended under this title, or the amendments made by the 
     Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act; or
       ``(C) for any purpose other than making loans to eligible 
     entities under this section.
       ``(f) Types of Assistance.--Except as otherwise limited by 
     applicable State law, amounts deposited into a State loan 
     fund under this section may only be used for the following:
       ``(1) To award loans that comply with the following:
       ``(A) The interest rate for each loan shall be less than or 
     equal to the market interest rate.
       ``(B) The principal and interest payments on each loan 
     shall commence not later than 1 year after the loan was 
     awarded, and each loan shall be fully amortized not later 
     than 10 years after the date of the loan.
       ``(C) The State loan fund shall be credited with all 
     payments of principal and interest on each loan awarded from 
     the fund.
       ``(2) To guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local 
     obligation (all of the proceeds of which finance a project 
     eligible for assistance under this section) if the guarantee 
     or purchase would improve credit market access or reduce the 
     interest rate applicable to the obligation involved.
       ``(3) As a source of revenue or security for the payment of 
     principal and interest on revenue or general obligation bonds 
     issued by the State if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds 
     will be deposited into the State loan fund.
       ``(4) To earn interest on the amounts deposited into the 
     State loan fund.
       ``(g) Administration of State Loan Funds.--
       ``(1) Combined financial administration.--A State may (as a 
     convenience and to avoid unnecessary administrative costs) 
     combine, in accordance with State law, the financial 
     administration of a State loan fund established under this 
     section with the financial administration of any other 
     revolving fund established by the State if otherwise not 
     prohibited by the law under which the State loan fund was 
     established.
       ``(2) Cost of administering fund.--Each State may annually 
     use not to exceed 4 percent of the funds provided to the 
     State under a grant under this section to pay the reasonable 
     costs of the administration of the programs under this 
     section, including the recovery of reasonable costs expended 
     to establish a State loan fund which are incurred after the 
     date of enactment of this title.
       ``(3) Guidance and regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     publish guidance and promulgate regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, 
     including--
       ``(A) provisions to ensure that each State commits and 
     expends funds allotted to the State under this section as 
     efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and 
     applicable State laws; and
       ``(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
       ``(4) Private sector contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State loan fund established under this 
     section may accept contributions from private sector 
     entities, except that such entities may not specify the 
     recipient or recipients of any loan issued under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Availability of information.--A State shall make 
     publically available the identity of, and amount contributed 
     by, any private sector entity under subparagraph (A) and may 
     issue letters of commendation or make other awards (that have 
     no financial value) to any such entity.
       ``(5) Reservation of amounts.--A State may reserve not to 
     exceed 40 percent of amounts in the State loan fund to issue 
     loans to recipients who serve medically underserved areas.
       ``(h) Matching Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not make a grant under 
     subsection (a) to a State unless the State agrees to make 
     available (directly or through donations from public or 
     private entities) non-Federal contributions in cash toward 
     the costs of the State program to be implemented under the 
     grant in an amount equal to not less than $1 for each $1 of 
     Federal funds provided under the grant.
       ``(2) Determination of amount of non-federal 
     contribution.--In determining the amount of non-Federal 
     contributions that a State has provided pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary may not include any amounts provided to 
     the State by the Federal Government.
       ``(i) Preference in Awarding Grants.--The Secretary may 
     give a preference in awarding grants under this section to 
     States that adopt value-based purchasing programs to improve 
     healthcare quality.
       ``(j) Reports.--The Secretary shall annually submit to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives, a report summarizing the 
     reports received by the Secretary from each State that 
     receives a grant under this section.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of making grants under 
     subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $100,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
       ``(l) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall remain available through fiscal year 2010.

     ``SEC. 2908. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE INFORMATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY INTO CLINICAL EDUCATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     this section to carry out demonstration projects to develop 
     academic programs integrating qualified health information 
     technology systems in the clinical education of health 
     professionals. Such awards shall be made on a competitive 
     basis and pursuant to peer review.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall--
       ``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require;
       ``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan for 
     integrating qualified health information technology in the 
     clinical education of health professionals and for ensuring 
     the consistent utilization of decision support software to 
     reduce medical errors and enhance healthcare quality;
       ``(3) be--
       ``(A) a health professions school; or
       ``(B) an academic health center;
       ``(4) provide for the collection of data regarding the 
     effectiveness of the demonstration project to be funded under 
     the grant in improving the safety of patients, the efficiency 
     of health care delivery, and in increasing the likelihood 
     that graduates of the grantee will adopt and incorporate 
     health information technology in the delivery of health care 
     services; and
       ``(5) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection 
     (c).
       ``(c) Matching Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award a grant to an 
     entity under this section only if the entity agrees to make 
     available non-Federal contributions toward the costs of the 
     program to be funded under the grant in an amount that is not 
     less than $1 for each $2 of Federal funds provided under the 
     grant.
       ``(2) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal 
     contributions under paragraph (1) may be in cash or in kind, 
     fairly evaluated, including equipment or services. Amounts 
     provided by the Federal Government, or services assisted or 
     subsidized to any significant extent by the Federal 
     Government, may not be included in determining the amount of 
     such contributions.
       ``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     applicants that--
       ``(1) will use grant funds in collaboration with 2 or more 
     disciplines; and
       ``(2) will use grant funds to integrate qualified health 
     information technology into community-based clinical 
     education experiences.
       ``(e) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall take such action as 
     may be necessary to evaluate the projects funded under this 
     section and publish, make available, and disseminate the 
     results of such evaluations on as wide a basis as is 
     practicable.
       ``(f) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this title, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--
       ``(1) describes the specific projects established under 
     this section; and
       ``(2) contains recommendations for Congress based on the 
     evaluation conducted under subsection (e).
       ``(g) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of amounts 
     received under a grant awarded under this section may be used 
     for administrative expenses.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
       ``(i) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after September 
     30, 2008.

[[Page 15216]]



     ``SEC. 2909. QUALITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop quality 
     measurement systems for the purposes of measuring the quality 
     of care patients receive.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     quality measurement systems developed under subsection (a) 
     comply with the following:
       ``(1) Measures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall select measures of quality to be used by the 
     Secretary under the systems.
       ``(B) Requirements.--In selecting the measures to be used 
     under each system pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall, to the extent feasible, ensure that--
       ``(i) such measures are evidence based, reliable and valid, 
     and feasible to collect and report;
       ``(ii) such measures include measures of process, 
     structure, beneficiary experience, efficiency, and equity;
       ``(iii) such measures include measures of overuse, 
     underuse, and misuse of healthcare items and services; and
       ``(iv) such measures include--

       ``(I) with respect to the initial year in which such 
     measures are used, one or more elements of a qualified health 
     information technology system as defined in section 2901; and
       ``(II) with respect to subsequent years, additional 
     elements of qualified health information technology systems 
     as defined in section 2901.

       ``(2) Weights of measures.--The Secretary shall assign 
     weights to the measures used by the Secretary under each 
     system established under subsection (a).
       ``(3) Maintenance.--The Secretary shall, as determined 
     appropriate, but in no case more often than once during each 
     12-month period, update the quality measurement systems 
     developed under subsection (a), including through--
       ``(A) the addition of more accurate and precise measures 
     under the systems and the retirement of existing outdated 
     measures under the systems; and
       ``(B) the refinement of the weights assigned to measures 
     under the systems.
       ``(c) Required Considerations in Developing and Updating 
     the Systems.--In developing and updating the quality 
     measurement systems under this section, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) consult with, and take into account the 
     recommendations of, the entity that the Secretary has an 
     arrangement with under subsection (e);
       ``(2) consult with provider-based groups and clinical 
     specialty societies; and
       ``(3) take into account--
       ``(A) the demonstrations required under this Act;
       ``(B) the demonstration program under section 1866A of the 
     Social Security Act;
       ``(C) the demonstration program under section 1866C of such 
     Act;
       ``(D) any other demonstration or pilot program conducted by 
     the Secretary relating to measuring and rewarding quality and 
     efficiency of care; and
       ``(E) the report by the Institute of Medicine of the 
     National Academy of Sciences under section 238(b) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003.
       ``(d) Required Considerations in Implementing the 
     Systems.--In implementing the quality measurement systems 
     under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the 
     recommendations of public-private entities--
       ``(1) that are established to examine issues of data 
     collection and reporting, including the feasibility of 
     collecting and reporting data on measures; and
       ``(2) that involve representatives of health care 
     providers, consumers, employers, and other individuals and 
     groups that are interested in quality of care.
       ``(e) Arrangement With an Entity to Provide Advice and 
     Recommendations.--
       ``(1) Arrangement.--On and after July 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall have in place an arrangement with an entity 
     that meets the requirements described in paragraph (2) under 
     which such entity provides the Secretary with advice on, and 
     recommendations with respect to, the development and updating 
     of the quality measurement systems under this section, 
     including the assigning of weights to the measures under 
     subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Requirements described.--The requirements described 
     in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) The entity is a private nonprofit entity governed by 
     an executive director and a board.
       ``(B) The members of the entity include representatives 
     of--
       ``(i)(I) health plans and providers receiving reimbursement 
     under this title for the provision of items and services, 
     including health plans and providers with experience in the 
     care of frail elderly and individuals with multiple complex 
     chronic conditions; or
       ``(II) groups representing such health plans and providers;
       ``(ii) groups representing individuals entitled to benefits 
     under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or 
     enrolled under part B of such title;
       ``(iii) purchasers and employers or groups representing 
     purchasers or employers;
       ``(iv) organizations that focus on quality improvement as 
     well as the measurement and reporting of quality measures;
       ``(v) State government health programs;
       ``(vi) individuals skilled in the conduct and 
     interpretation of biomedical, health services, and health 
     economics research and with expertise in outcomes and 
     effectiveness research and technology assessment; and
       ``(vii) individuals or entities involved in the development 
     and establishment of standards and certification for health 
     information technology systems and clinical data.
       ``(C) The membership of the entity is representative of 
     individuals with experience with urban health care issues and 
     individuals with experience with rural and frontier health 
     care issues.
       ``(D) The entity does not charge a fee for membership for 
     participation in the work of the entity related to the 
     arrangement with the Secretary under paragraph (1). If the 
     entity does require a fee for membership for participation in 
     other functions of the entity, there shall be no linkage 
     between such fee and participation in the work of the entity 
     related to such arrangement with the Secretary.
       ``(E) The entity--
       ``(i) permits any member described in subparagraph (B) to 
     vote on matters of the entity related to the arrangement with 
     the Secretary under paragraph (1); and
       ``(ii) ensures that such members have an equal vote on such 
     matters .
       ``(F) With respect to matters related to the arrangement 
     with the Secretary under paragraph (1), the entity conducts 
     its business in an open and transparent manner and provides 
     the opportunity for public comment.
       ``(G) The entity operates as a voluntary consensus 
     standards setting organization as defined for purposes of 
     section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
     Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) and Office of 
     Management and Budget Revised Circular A-119 (published in 
     the Federal Register on February 10, 1998).

     ``SEC. 2910. APPLICABILITY OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY 
                   REGULATIONS.

       ``The regulations promulgated by the Secretary under part C 
     of title XI of the Social Security Act and sections 261, 262, 
     263, and 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996 with respect to the privacy, 
     confidentiality, and security of health information shall--
       ``(1) apply to any health information stored or transmitted 
     in an electronic format on or after the date of enactment of 
     this title; and
       ``(2) apply to the implementation of standards, programs, 
     and activities under this title.

     ``SEC. 2911. STUDY OF REIMBURSEMENT INCENTIVES.

       ``The Secretary shall carry out, or contract with a private 
     entity to carry out, a study that examines methods to create 
     efficient reimbursement incentives for improving healthcare 
     quality in community health centers and other Federally 
     qualified health centers, rural health clinics, free clinics, 
     and other programs reimbursed primarily on a cost basis 
     deemed appropriate by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES.

       Section 914 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     299b-3) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Center for Best Practices.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall develop a Center for Best Practices to 
     provide technical assistance and develop best practices to 
     support and accelerate the efforts of States and healthcare 
     providers to adopt, implement, and effectively use health 
     information technology.
       ``(2) Center for best practices.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Director shall establish a voluntary Center for Best 
     Practices (referred to in this subsection as the `Center') 
     for States and healthcare stakeholders seeking to facilitate 
     mutual learning and accelerate the pace of innovation in, and 
     implementation of, health information technology. The Center 
     shall support activities to meet goals, including--
       ``(i) providing for the widespread adoption of 
     interoperable health information technology;
       ``(ii) providing for the establishment of regional and 
     local health information networks to facilitate the 
     development of interoperability across healthcare settings;
       ``(iii) the development of solutions to barriers to the 
     exchange of electronic health information; or
       ``(iv) other activities identified by the States or health 
     care stakeholders as a focus for developing and sharing best 
     practices.
       ``(B) Purposes.--The purpose of the Center is to--
       ``(i) provide a forum for the exchange of knowledge and 
     experience;
       ``(ii) accelerate the transfer of lessons learned from 
     existing public and private sector initiatives, including 
     those currently receiving Federal financial support;
       ``(iii) assemble, analyze, and widely disseminate evidence 
     and experience related to the adoption, implementation, and 
     effective use of health information technology;

[[Page 15217]]

       ``(iv) assure the timely provision of technical and expert 
     assistance from the Agency and its contractors;
       ``(v) accelerate the pace of health information technology 
     innovation; and
       ``(vi) provide technical assistance to entities developing 
     applications for demonstration grants under subsection (b).
       ``(C) Support for activities.--To provide support for the 
     activities of the Center, the Director shall--
       ``(i) modify the requirements, if necessary, that apply to 
     the National Resource Center for Health Information 
     Technology to provide the necessary infrastructure to support 
     the duties and activities of the Network and facilitate 
     information exchange across the public and private sectors;
       ``(ii) expand the Agency's focus on the adoption, 
     implementation, and effective use of health information 
     technology through the development of practical 
     implementation guidance based upon existing knowledge and 
     support for rapid-cycle implementation research to address 
     questions for which existing knowledge is insufficient; and
       ``(iii) develop the capacity to identify and widely share 
     in a timely manner innovative approaches to advancing health 
     information technology and its ultimate goal, the improvement 
     of the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care.
       ``(3) Technical assistance telephone number or website.--
     The Secretary shall establish a toll-free telephone number or 
     Internet website to provide healthcare providers with a 
     single point of contact to--
       ``(A) learn about Federal grants and technical assistance 
     services related to health information technology;
       ``(B) learn about qualified health information software 
     that has been certified to be in compliance with the 
     standards adopted by the Federal Government under section 
     2904 and is available for commercial use;
       ``(C) receive referrals to regional and local health 
     information networks for assistance with health information 
     technology;
       ``(D) provide information regarding--
       ``(i) the electronic submission of health data collected by 
     Federal agencies; and
       ``(ii) the uniform and consistent implementation of 
     standards; and
       ``(E) disseminate additional information determined by the 
     Secretary to be helpful to such providers.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.''.

      SEC. 4. HEALTH INFORMATION NETWORK DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 914 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     299b-3), as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Health Information Network Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may establish a 
     demonstration program under which grants or contracts shall 
     be awarded to support health information network planning, 
     implementation, and evaluation activities.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant or 
     contract under the demonstration program under paragraph (1), 
     an entity shall--
       ``(A) submit to the Director an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Director may require;
       ``(B) submit to the Director a strategic plan for the 
     implementation of data sharing and interoperability measures 
     across the various health care settings within the proposed 
     network;
       ``(C) be a public or nonprofit private entity that is or 
     represents a network or potential network that includes 
     healthcare providers and group health plans in a defined area 
     of geographic proximity or organizational affinity, and that 
     may include for profit entities so long as such an entity is 
     not the grantee;
       ``(D) demonstrate, where appropriate, the involvement and 
     commitment of the appropriate State or States;
       ``(E) specify a defined area of geographic proximity or 
     organizational affinity that the health information network 
     will encompass;
       ``(F) demonstrate active participation in the best practice 
     network described in subsection (d);
       ``(G) demonstrate compliance with the data standards and 
     technical policies adopted by the Federal Government under 
     section 2904(e);
       ``(H) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to 
     which such entity has achieved the measures under section 
     2909;
       ``(I) demonstrate financial need; and
       ``(J) agree to provide matching funds in accordance with 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     this subsection shall be used to establish and implement a 
     regional or local health information network.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     this subsection may not be used to purchase a health 
     information technology system that is not a qualified health 
     information technology system.
       ``(4) Matching requirement.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant or contract under this subsection an entity shall 
     contribute non-Federal funds to the costs of carrying out the 
     activities for which the grant or contract is awarded in an 
     amount equal to $1 for each of $2 of Federal funds, provided 
     under the grant.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $70,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 5. EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL ANTI-KICKBACK AND STARK LAWS FOR 
                   THE PROVISION OF PERMITTED SUPPORT.

       (a) Anti-kickback.--Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (H), as added by section 237(d) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2213)--
       (i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (H), as added by section 
     431(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 
     2287), as subparagraph (I);
       (D) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--
       (i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new:
       ``(J) during the 5-year period beginning on the date the 
     Secretary issues the interim final rule under section 5(c)(1) 
     of the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act, 
     the provision, with or without charge, of any permitted 
     support (as defined in paragraph (4)).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Permitted support.--
       ``(A) Definition of permitted support.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), in this section, the term `permitted 
     support' means the provision of any equipment, item, 
     information, right, license, intellectual property, software, 
     training, or service used for developing, implementing, 
     operating, or facilitating the use of systems designed to 
     improve the quality of health care and to promote the 
     electronic exchange of health information.
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `permitted support' shall not 
     include the provision of--
       ``(i) any support that is determined in a manner that is 
     related to the volume or value of any referrals or other 
     business generated between the parties for which payment may 
     be made in whole or in part under a Federal health care 
     program;
       ``(ii) any support that has more than incidental utility or 
     value to the recipient beyond the exchange of health care 
     information; or
       ``(iii) any health information technology system, product, 
     or service that is not in compliance with data standards 
     adopted by the Federal Government under section 2904 of the 
     Public Health Service Act.''.
       (b) Stark.--Section 1877(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395nn(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Permitted support.--During the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date the Secretary issues the interim final 
     rule under section 5(c)(1) of the Better Healthcare Through 
     Information Technology Act, the provision, with or without 
     charge, of any permitted support (as defined in section 
     1128B(b)(4)).''.
       (c) Regulations.--In order to carry out the amendments made 
     by this section--
       (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue 
     an interim final rule with comment period by not later than 
     the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (2) the Secretary shall issue a final rule by not later 
     than the date that is 180 days after the date that the 
     interim final rule under paragraph (1) is issued.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It is a privilege to join Senator Enzi, 
Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus and many other sponsors on this bill 
to modernize our health care system with information technology.
  The United States has the best doctors and hospitals in the world, 
but we will soon be left behind other industrialized nations if we fail 
to adopt modern technology. When enacted, this bill will be the first 
legislation to address the glaring lack of such technology in U.S. 
health care. Modern information technology can transform health care as 
profoundly as any medical discovery of the past, and the American 
people deserve that transformation.
  The Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 98,000 Americans 
die in hospitals each year because of medical errors--making it the 
eighth leading

[[Page 15218]]

cause of death in the United States. Elderly patients are prescribed 
improper medication in one out of every 12 physician visits. Adult 
Americans receive recommended care only 55 percent of the time. Nearly 
30 percent of health care spending, $300 billion a year, goes for 
treatments that may not improve health, are redundant, or are even 
wrong for the patient's condition. Medical experts agree that most of 
these shameful statistics could be drastically reduced by modern 
information technology in doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, 
pharmacies, clinical laboratories and public health departments across 
the country.
  It is not just quality of care that improves with use of Health IT--
the cost goes down as well. National health care spending now exceeds 
$1.7 trillion a year--and health spending and health insurance premiums 
continue to rise at rates much higher than general inflation. The 
Federal Government estimates that savings in the range of $140 billion 
a year, close to 10 percent of total health spending, could be achieved 
through widespread adoption of health IT. These system-wide savings 
would reduce insurance premiums by $700 a year for every family in 
America.
  Some States, including Massachusetts, are leading the way toward a 
fully interconnected health IT system, with cutting edge projects being 
conducted by organizations such as the Massachusetts e-Health 
Collaborative, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the New 
England Healthcare Institute and the Center for Information Technology 
Leadership. But, we still have much to do.
  Despite the obvious health benefit, most doctors and hospitals are 
not using this technology or preparing to do so. In fact, only 10 
percent of hospitals are using computerized prescribing. Another 20 
percent of hospitals are currently installing them. That leaves 70 
percent out. The United States ranks far below other industrial 
countries on IT in healthcare--lower than 12 out of 15 European 
nations.
  Part of the problem is the up-front cost of these systems. Doctors 
are not always confident that the system they invest in will be able to 
talk to other parts of the overall system. We need rules and standards 
for electronic data sharing to encourage doctors to accept them, as our 
bill proposes.
  The legislation establishes a public-private partnership to create 
national standards for health IT--a common language for doctors' 
computer systems to talk to each other. Targeted funding mechanisms 
will help doctors and hospitals acquire the technology they need for 
their patients. Grants will be available for cases of special need, 
such as doctors practicing in underserved areas. Financial assistance 
will also help establish regional health information technology 
organizations, such as networks of doctors, hospitals, health plans and 
pharmacies. These networks will be a crucial testing ground to work out 
how all parts of the health system can communicate to provide clinical 
information wherever and whenever it is needed.
  The bill also creates a Federal-State public-private loan fund to 
make loans available at low rates to help health care professionals to 
acquire the technology. The State fund will accept private sector 
contributions from health plans and large systems that would benefit 
from having more doctors using the technology. Insurers and large 
hospitals stand to gain the most savings from IT, and should contribute 
to this national effort.
  The bill will also help providers improve quality by establishing a 
Best Practices Center where IT users can learn from the experience of 
others, and by funding new programs to train health professionals to 
use the technology.
  We have a responsibility to make the miracles of modern medicine 
available to every American. Rising costs are crushing our health care 
system. Premiums are going through the roof. The ranks of the uninsured 
grow every day. Families have to choose between health care and 
groceries, rent, and college tuition. When millions of Americans 
struggle to afford health care for their families, it is profoundly 
wrong to squander more than half a trillion dollars each year on 
obsolete administrative expenses. That's not the American dream. We can 
find a better way.
  Other nations are taking action to use this extraordinary technology 
to cut costs and save lives--but America lags behind. We can't continue 
to let the high cost of health care price American goods and services 
out of the global marketplace.
  The need for this investment is urgent. In the words of Secretary 
Leavitt, ``Every day that we delay, lives are lost.'' The proposals we 
are introducing today will improve care, save lives and make health 
care more affordable for every American.
  I commend Senator Enzi, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their 
leadership, and I look forward to working closely with all our 
colleagues to see that these important proposals are enacted into law 
this year.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues in 
introducing the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act. 
This bill represents a strong step forward in modernizing our health 
care system and paving the way to greater efficiency and quality in the 
delivery of care.
  Health care costs are becoming an enormous drain on employers, 
employees, and the Nation as a whole. More Americans are uninsured, and 
premiums for health insurance are increasing at an unsustainable rate 
of 20, 30, and even 40 percent per year. Health care reform is needed 
to address the huge concerns of the American people and our Nation's 
businesses. Indeed, the fact that companies like GM are losing 
competitiveness and laying off 25,000 workers, in part due to health 
costs, is a strong sign that our current health care system is flawed.
  Solving these challenges will require new, bold policy initiatives to 
make health care coverage more affordable for employers, employees, and 
all Americans. Comprehensive efforts at change must be considered in 
our approach to health care reform. As a start, there are numerous 
improvements that can--and should--be made to fully pull the industry 
into the information age with the widespread adoption of information 
technology. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that many of our 
Nation's other systems, such as our banking systems, are decades ahead 
in providing a seamless national network facilitating nearly 
instantaneous and universal access to information. It is high time for 
this body to act to modernize our health system as well, for its 
adoption of IT systems has the promise to improve quality while 
simultaneously reducing cost.
  There are significant barriers to the adoption of IT by health care 
providers, including often-prohibitive costs of capital expenditures 
needed for hardware and software and a lack of uniform standards for 
the electronic exchange of information. Systems are prohibitively 
expensive for many physician practices and there is no guarantee of 
interoperability with the system used at a local hospital, lab, or 
pharmacy.
  The Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act addresses 
many of these barriers. It codifies existing efforts by the government 
to spur the use of health IT. It creates a public-private collaborative 
to build consensus on a single set of standards. To ensure that these 
standards will then be embraced, our bill requires Federal procurement 
of information technology, and data collection by Federal agencies to 
comply with them.
  A similar collaborative on a local scale already exists in Rhode 
Island. The Rhode Island Quality Institute links providers, hospitals, 
insurers, government, businesses, and the academic community in the 
pursuit of improving health care quality. I commend the Rhode Island 
Quality Institute for its statewide efforts to make Rhode Island a true 
health care improvement ``learning lab,'' and I believe that the bill 
we are introducing today will support these and similar efforts around 
the country.
  To do this, our legislation recognizes and aims to address the 
financing challenges faced by providers. The bill establishes a number 
of competitive

[[Page 15219]]

grants and facilitates State loan programs that are designed to get 
qualified health IT systems in the hands of doctors, hospitals, and 
clinics. Other provisions, including modifications to Federal anti-
kickback and Stark laws and the establishment of a toll-free telephone 
number or Web site to assist physicians, will accelerate the 
implementation and integration of health IT.
  The combination of uniform standards, help for physicians to purchase 
health IT systems, and improved exchange of electronic information 
through a national system will ultimately move us toward a conversion 
to Electronic Medical Records. Records will seamlessly follow the 
patient and improve evidence-based medicine by allowing aggregate data 
to be used in the determination of best treatment practices. Decision 
support systems will provide doctors with the most up-to-date evidence-
based recommendations available.
  Perhaps most importantly, though, the use of IT offers the hope of 
reducing the thousands of medical errors each year that add to both 
unnecessary pain and suffering and the cost of health care. 
Computerized Physician Order Entry, or CPOE, could alone bring enormous 
savings to the health care system by reducing medication errors in 
hospitals and clinics.
  Systemic errors such as these account for many of the medical errors 
identified by the Institute of Medicine in their seminal study on this 
topic that estimated up to 98,000 avoidable deaths from medical errors 
each year. It will take government action and investment to bring about 
the technological sophistication and interoperability necessary to 
substantially reduce the incidence of these errors.
  I want to thank Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Dodd, and others for their 
efforts on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with each of 
them and the rest of my colleagues to bring our Nation's health system 
into the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 1356. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide incentives for the provision of high quality care under the 
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in 
introducing the Medicare Value Purchasing (MVP) Act of 2005. Senator 
Baucus shares my strong commitment to ensuring the vitality of the 
Medicare program for generations of beneficiaries to come. Two years 
ago, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the first ever 
Medicare prescription drug benefit, to create new coverage choices 
under the Medicare Advantage program, and to cover more preventive 
screening tests. The Medicare Modernization Act transformed Medicare 
benefits and choices.
  Over the past 40 years, Medicare has made immeasurable differences in 
the lives of our Nation's seniors and disabled citizens by providing 
beneficiaries with access to care. The bill that we are introducing 
today will ensure that they continue not only to have that access, but 
also have access to good care. Some folks might think I am saying that 
beneficiaries don't receive good care today. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. I know that physicians, hospitals, nurses and other 
providers across the country work every day to provide quality care. 
But just like all Medicare beneficiaries have the same benefits, all 
Medicare beneficiaries should get the highest quality care possible. 
And today, that's just not the case; there is tremendous room for 
improvement.
  A May 2005 Commonwealth Fund review of more than four hundred studies 
and data sets painted a mixed picture on the quality of care received 
by Medicare beneficiaries. The analysis found that many improvements 
are occurring--breast cancer screening rates have tripled and many 
patients with diabetes get the tests they need to keep them healthy. At 
the same time, the review showed that in some parts of the country, 
beneficiaries get recommended treatments, such as immunizations, but in 
other parts they don't. They found that improvements in care for 
Medicare beneficiaries have not kept pace with improvements among other 
groups. For example, between 1988 and 1994, the percent of forty-five-
year-olds to sixty-four-year-olds whose blood pressure was controlled, 
increased from 33 percent to 40 percent. Among Medicare beneficiaries, 
it stayed the same--just 24 percent. They also zeroed in on the need to 
strengthen programs to care for beneficiaries with a chronic illness. 
Research shows that twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five 
or more chronic illnesses. Caring for these beneficiaries accounts for 
nearly 70 percent of Medicare spending.
  One of the study's most disturbing findings was the States with 
higher spending per Medicare beneficiary tended to rank lower on 
twenty-two quality-of-care indicators. According to the researchers, 
this might reflect practice patterns that favor intensive, costly care 
rather than ``effective'' care. Simply stated, spending more, does not 
necessarily translate into better quality care for beneficiaries. Of 
the $300 billion Medicare dollars spent last year, I think it is safe 
to say that in many cases we--beneficiaries and taxpayers--did not get 
the absolute best value. Not even close.
  Why is that the case? In part, it is because of the way we pay for 
care. I am sure that everyone remembers ``To Err is Human'' in which 
the Institute of Medicine reported the startling fact that studies 
suggest that up to 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year from 
medical errors. It was in headlines for months.
  I would bet that not as many folks know about the IOM's follow-up 
report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm.'' In my opinion, that report is 
equally, if not more, important because it sets forth a wide-ranging 
strategy to address the deficiencies in our health care system that 
undermine the delivery of high quality care. Among the IOM's chief 
recommendations was a call to both public and private purchasers to 
examine their current payment methods to remove barriers that currently 
impede quality improvement, and to build stronger incentives for 
quality enhancement.
  The IOM specifically recommended that payment methods should provide 
``fair payment for good clinical management.'' Providers also need to 
be able to share in the benefits of quality improvement. Consumers and 
purchasers need opportunities to recognize quality differences and to 
use quality information when making health care decisions. In simplest 
terms, we need to better align financial incentives to help promote 
quality and to achieve better value. The Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission (MedPAC) has issued similar recommendations.
  Today, Medicare pays the same amount regardless of quality of care. 
Some people would argue that in fact, the current Medicare payment 
system rewards poor quality. For example, if a patient suffers a 
complication from subpar hospital care and ends up back in the same 
hospital to treat that complication, Medicare will pay the hospital for 
the patient's rehospitalization. On the other hand, if a hospital 
follows best practices of care and helps patients avoid complications 
that could require a rehospitalization, well, that hospital doesn't get 
anything. The hospital that provides lower quality care to the 
beneficiary gets another payment. The hospital that provides higher 
quality care to the beneficiary gets nothing.
  Over time, this perverse situation could disadvantage the hospital 
that delivers higher quality care to beneficiaries because it will get 
less revenue, which could compromise its ability to compete against 
other hospitals. This situation just does not make sense; neither to 
me, nor should it to beneficiaries. Providing lower quality care can 
lead to greater revenue, while providing higher quality care can 
penalize providers financially. It is the exact opposite of what we 
want and need for Medicare and beneficiaries. Of course, our Nation is 
blessed with millions of dedicated and qualified health care providers 
who care deeply about

[[Page 15220]]

the quality of care they provide to their patients. What we have is a 
systemic failure of Medicare payment systems to reward quality and 
provide the incentives to invest more in health care information 
technology and other efforts to improve health care quality. This bill 
creates the financial incentives that reward those providers who 
deliver that quality care today, and to those who make improvements 
where they are needed.
  The MVP Act seeks to remedy this situation and to implement the IOM's 
and MedPAC's recommendations by creating quality payments under 
Medicare for physicians and other providers, hospitals, health plans, 
skilled nursing facilities, home health, and end stage renal disease 
facilities. Senator Baucus and I know that it is a pretty ambitious 
strategy. We also recognize that this substantial departure from 
current payment practices cannot and should not happen overnight. 
Careful consideration of which quality measures that the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use in making quality-based 
payments will take some time. Providers will play a significant role in 
determining which measures to use. This is important--we need to make 
sure that the measures are valid and reliable. In addition, providers 
will need some time to become more proficient in collecting and 
reporting quality data for payment purposes.
  The MVP Act builds on the small step made in the MMA which 
established reporting incentives in its early years. Under the MMA, 
hospitals that report ten quality measures receive a full payment 
update, those that don't report, receive a smaller update. This 
approach has been successful. In 2005, 99 percent of hospitals reported 
the data and CMS has seen improvements in quality among the 
participating hospitals. Under the MVP Act, using the data from these 
reporting years, CMS will give providers an idea of where they stand on 
quality before quality payments will begin. This will allow providers 
the chance to fine tune their quality practices and data reporting 
capabilities before payments will be determined based on a specific 
provider's quality measures.
  For each provider group and facility, as well as Medicare Advantage 
plans under our legislation, CMS will then begin to make quality 
payments from a pool that initially will equal one percent of their 
Medicare payments. Over five years, quality payments will increase to 
two percent of total payments. Payments will be awarded for meeting 
performance thresholds and to those who demonstrate a level of 
improvement specified by CMS. This approach recognizes that we need to 
offer incentives to a broad base of providers--providers who perform 
well today deserve recognition; those that might not be performing 
well, but have improved, also should be recognized. Finally, CMS will 
report publicly on how various providers, facilities, and plans do with 
respect to quality. This information will help empower beneficiaries 
when making their health care decisions and when making informed 
choices.
  Our bill recognizes that the private sector has made a lot of 
progress in developing and adopting quality measures. There are several 
value-based purchasing projects underway around the country. We don't 
want to reinvent the wheel--we want to build on these initiatives. 
These private projects, along with its own projects, can help inform 
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as it works out 
technical details to implement quality-based payments using the 
framework established by the MVP Act.
  This framework is consistent with the thinking of CMS on quality-
based payments as expressed by Administrator Mark McClellan. It also is 
consistent with principles endorsed today by more than twenty of the 
Nation's leading consumer, employer, and labor organizations. In 
announcing the principles, Peter Lee, president and CEO of the Pacific 
Business Group on Health and co-chair of the Consumer-Purchaser 
Disclosure Project stated, ``We must move beyond a system that is 
performance-blind to one that rewards better quality and gives 
consumers tools to make informed choices.''
  Now some folks may think that Medicare shouldn't take on this issue--
that it might better for the private sector to do it alone. I 
respectfully disagree with that view. Medicare is the single largest 
purchaser of health care in the Nation. The IOM in ``Leadership by 
Example'' expressed its opinion that Federal Government health care 
programs can significantly influence how care is provided by the 
private sector. The Commonwealth Fund researchers share this view--that 
adopting quality payments in Medicare can influence the level of 
quality in all health care, not just care for the elderly.
  And there's a lot of health care to be influenced. Our Nation spent 
$1.8 trillion on health care last year. Health care spending is 
expected to reach more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product. 
But just like in Medicare, we are not always getting the best value for 
those dollars. That $1.8 trillion in spending translated to a 37th 
place ranking for the United States compared to other countries around 
the world, in quality, according to the World Health Organization 
(WHO). Spending more and more money without achieving commensurate 
improvements in quality is simply wasteful and unsustainable.
  Medicare is just one month shy of its fortieth anniversary--a 
tremendous milestone. It has positively affected the lives of millions 
of seniors and disabled citizens. We set a goal for ourselves forty 
years ago--to improve access to care. Providers and policymakers came 
together to make that goal a reality. It is time for a new goal, a new 
challenge--to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans get 
the best possible care and that as a nation, we get the highest value 
for our health care dollars. The MVP Act of 2005 provides us with a 
road map to live up to that challenge. I urge my colleagues to join me 
and Senator Baucus in advancing this important legislation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the ``Medicare 
Value Purchasing Act of 2005.''
  This bill will establish a new program to link a portion of 
Medicare's reimbursement for health care services to the quality of 
that care. This bill takes a crucial step towards improving the value 
of our health care dollar as well as the safety and quality of our 
Nation's health care system.
  Last week, I gave a statement in this Chamber about America's place 
in the world. I am proud of our Nation; I am proud of our enterprising 
spirit, our energy, our diversity, and the hope for a better future 
that is inherent to our roots. I am proud of this country, but I am 
disappointed in the state of our health care system and in the impact 
it is having on the lives of our fellow citizens, as well as on the 
economy and ultimately on our place in the world. As I look to the 
future, I see a stronger America, but I know we must work hard to make 
sure that vision is realized.
  We hear about the problem of increasing health care costs nearly 
every day--in newspaper headlines and in casual conversations. Per 
capita spending on health care in America is nearly 2\1/2\ times the 
average in the industrialized world. We spend over $5,000 per person on 
health care, and premiums for employer-sponsored coverage are rising 
five times faster than inflation.
  With all this money going into health care, one might assume we had 
the best health care in the world. But that assumption is wrong. 
Despite spending more per capita than any other developed nation, the 
World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in health care 
quality. As many as 98,000 patients die each year as a result of 
medical errors, and research has shown that in some cases more care, 
more specialists, and more treatments, actually result in worse 
outcomes for the patient.
  Costs are rising, we are not getting high-quality care for the 
dollars spent, and due to the nature of our health care system much of 
this burden is borne by employers. For the first time, the Big Three 
automakers are beginning to charge premiums and scale back benefits for 
their workers and retirees, because they can't afford the

[[Page 15221]]

cost of health care. All told, GM estimates that they will spend about 
$6 billion in 2005 on health care. This translates into $1,525 for 
every vehicle they sell. That is more than the company spends on steel.
  By comparison, Toyota's health care costs are about $1,000 less per 
vehicle. It is not surprising, therefore, that a recent survey of 
business leaders found that 65 percent of top Chief Financial Officers 
in the United States feel that it is very important for Congress to 
address the cost of health care. Their European and Asian counterparts 
did not cite the costs of health care among their top concerns.
  No other industry tolerates the level of disrepair that can be found 
in the U.S. health care system today. Many of my colleagues in the 
Senate agree that in order to improve the system, we need to do more to 
control health costs through efficient purchasing and the use of health 
information technology. In other words, we need to create a ``culture 
of efficiency'' in health care.
  How do we do that? First, we need to begin building a health 
information infrastructure that can reach providers and patients 
nationwide, from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, MT. We must take 
aggressive steps to establish standards and policies around this 
infrastructure, and to make initial investments in hardware, software, 
and training. I applaud my colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy 
for introducing important legislation on this topic today, the ``Health 
Information Technology and Quality Improvement Act of 2005''.
  Building a Health Information Infrastructure will facilitate the 
provision of high-quality care. But we also must begin rewarding 
quality in the way we pay for health care. Today, Medicare payment 
policies typically do not include mechanisms designed to encourage 
quality of care. Medicare does not distinguish between paying for care 
that is necessary and that which might be unnecessary or inappropriate.
   As a result, I worked with Senator Grassley to design a program that 
will tie a portion of Medicare reimbursement for hospitals, physicians, 
health plans, renal dialysis facilities, and home health agencies to 
the quality of care provided in these settings. Payment for these 
providers, as well as for Skilled Nursing Facilities, would also be 
linked to reporting data on quality of care and, after the first year 
of the program, to making this data available to the public.
  The Medicare Value-Based Purchasing program would begin paying for 
value in the health care system--good care, better patient outcomes, 
evidence-based medicine, and increased transparency. We have learned a 
lot from programs such as this that have begun on a smaller scale in 
the private sector, and we hope that taking this step forward in 
Medicare will drive the entire health care system toward a system of 
high-quality, high-value health care.
  But designing a program like this one is not easy, and I want to be 
clear on this point: I don't believe Congress should determine how the 
quality of health care is measured. That is why my bill sets up a 
system of stakeholder involvement at every step in the development and 
implementation of a Quality Measurement System for Medicare--in 
determining what measures of health care quality are appropriate for 
each provider group, in implementing a system of data collection and 
analysis, and in updating the measurement system in accordance with 
changing science. Providers, payers, patients, and many other groups 
are the key experts who should be involved in the details of a health 
care quality system--not Congress.
  But it is our job to lay out some of the parameters for the system, 
and to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the 
authority to follow them and create this new program. It is also our 
job to oversee such a program once it is enacted and implemented. Over 
the last year or so, we have met with provider groups, consumer 
organizations, researchers and policy experts, and many of the 
individuals who have built and participated in private-sector programs 
to drive quality improvement in health care.
  As I mentioned, our bill sets up a process by which a quality 
measurement system is developed in consultation with stakeholders and 
is uniquely tailored for the different groups of providers who 
participate in Medicare. This system should measure the quality of 
health care in a variety of ways, looking at processes of care, health 
information technology infrastructure, patient outcomes, patient 
experience of care, efficiency of resource use, and equity. For some 
groups of providers, only a very few measures of health care quality 
will be available when the program begins. These providers should not 
be penalized for that, but rather rewarded for reporting and improving 
the quality of the care they provide according to those measures. We 
may start small in some cases, but we can get the ball rolling.
  The bill sets up a two-phase approach to quality improvement. In the 
first phase, the annual update to a provider's reimbursement is tied to 
reporting data on quality of care. This data would be on the measures 
included in the Medicare Quality Measurement System which has been 
developed by the Secretary with stakeholder involvement. Some 
providers--such as hospitals, Medicare Advantage Plans, and renal 
dialysis facilities, are already reporting data on quality of care to 
Medicare and might move more quickly to the second phase of the 
program.
  In the second phase, those providers who report data on quality of 
care to the Secretary will be able to participate in value-based 
purchasing, where a portion of total payments to participants in each 
provider group is taken to form a quality pool. The funds in this pool 
are then reallocated to award providers who demonstrate high-quality 
care, or who show that they are improving. In theory, this sets up a 
system in which all providers could receive money back out of the 
pool--in essence it is a system that will ``raise all boats.'' 
Following the recommendation of the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, the portion of payments tied to quality in this second 
phase will be 1 percent in the first year of the program for each 
provider group, and will increase to 2 percent over five years.
  In addition to setting up this program, the ``Medicare Value 
Purchasing Act of 2005'' includes additional measures to facilitate 
quality improvement in the health care system, such as a provision to 
reduce the legal barriers to health IT adoption that are present in the 
Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws.
  It also includes several studies to look more closely at the true 
costs of health care, and the benefits--both human and financial--that 
can be gained from improving quality. The information generated by 
these studies will be critical in moving forward with value-based 
purchasing, allowing us to more accurately predict the program-wide 
savings from efforts to improve quality. Given that the Medicare Part A 
Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2020--decades earlier than Social 
Security--identifying these savings will be critical to preserving 
access, to care for Medicare beneficiaries and adequate reimbursement 
for providers.
  Senator Grassley and I set out to write a bill that would address 
value-based purchasing, set up a system of measuring quality of care in 
Medicare, and encourage the adoption of health information technology. 
We set out to write a bill that, in concert with the bill introduced by 
Senators Enzi and Kennedy would create a roadmap to a ``culture of 
efficiency'' in health care.
  That means that our bill does not put new money on the table to 
reward health care quality, and it does not fix the problems that 
currently exist with the physician payment system or with reimbursement 
updates to renal dialysis facilities. But nor does it mean that we are 
blind to these issues. Indeed, I know that sustained cuts to the 
physician fee schedule, which will take effect if current law is not 
changed--are not sustainable.
  I want to work with physicians and practitioners to find a 
sustainable solution to the problems with the physician fee schedule, 
and I want to work with the renal dialysis community to make sure that 
reimbursement is adequate so that facilities--especially

[[Page 15222]]

those in underserved areas--can keep their doors open. But I also ask 
these providers to work with me to move Medicare in the right 
direction--ultimately, better quality and value means better health 
care, better coverage, and a stronger system for all.
  Finally, I believe that quality improvement efforts should extend 
beyond Medicare, into the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, and into the 
private sector. Currently, programs at the State level have found ways 
to improve quality and find efficiencies through health information 
technology use in Medicaid. Our bill includes State government health 
program representatives in the process of developing the Quality 
Measurement System because we believe they have important perspective 
to share, and also because we believe that quality improvement policies 
are equally important for their programs. I look forward to working 
with Chairman Grassley on a bill to address quality of care in the 
Medicaid and SCHIP programs later this year.
  I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Grassley, Chairman Enzi, and 
Senator Kennedy, as well as their able health care staff, for their 
tireless work on this legislation. We feel passionately about this 
issue because it matters to all of us. We all want to ensure that the 
best care possible is provided. We know how hard health care providers 
work for their patients, and we believe they should be rewarded for 
that work. And we believe this issue should be advanced in the Congress 
as soon as possible.
  As I said, I have a vision of a stronger America. I envision a health 
care system in which quality and value are rewarded, in which 
innovative health information technology is accessible to all, in which 
data systems that can exchange crucial patient information to save 
lives and prevent mistakes, and in which American companies are not at 
a competitive disadvantage in the world because of health care costs. I 
call on my colleagues to support the important steps toward that vision 
that will be taken under the pieces of this legislation introduced 
today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer).
  S. 1357. A bill to protect public health by clarifying the authority 
of the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe performance standards for 
the reduction of pathogens in meat, meat products, poultry, and poultry 
products processed by establishments receiving inspection services and 
to enforce the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
System requirements, sanitation requirements, and the performance 
standards; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and 
Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation, commonly 
known as Kevin's Law, is dedicated to the memory of 2-year-old Kevin 
Kowalcyk, who died in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with 
E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Passage of this bill is vital because on 
December 6, 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded 
an earlier District Court decision that removes the Department of 
Agriculture's authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard 
for Salmonella. The 5th Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA 
seriously undermines the strong food safety improvements adopted by 
USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen 
Reduction (HACCP) rule.
  In 2003, there was another court case that calls into question USDA's 
authority to enforce basic sanitation standards. A company called 
Nebraska Beef sued USDA after the Department tried to shut down the 
plant for numerous sanitation violations. USDA settled the case because 
it feared losing yet again in court and having another vital piece of 
its authority struck down.
  According to the 5th Circuit's opinion in the Supreme Beef case and 
the settlement in the Nebraska Beef case, today, there is nothing USDA 
could do to shut down a meat grinding plant that insists on using low-
quality, potentially contaminated trimmings. These decisions seriously 
undermine the new meat and poultry inspection system.
  The HACCP rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the 
foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths, 
325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year according 
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To address the 
threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system 
based on two fundamental principles.
  The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to 
determine how to produce the safest products achievable. Industry had 
to examine their plants and determine how to control contamination at 
every step of the food production process, from the moment a product 
arrives at their door until the moment it leaves their plant.
  The second, even more crucial, principle was that plants nationwide 
must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. 
To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed 
Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for 
reducing pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet 
them. In theory, facilities failing to meet a standard are shut down 
until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard.
  So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for 
Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to 
meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. In addition, USDA 
reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have 
fallen substantially. Therefore the Salmonella standard has been 
successful. The Supreme Beef and Nebraska Beef decisions threaten to 
destroy this success because they restrict USDA's ability to penalize 
meat and poultry plants that violate a pathogen standard.
  The other major problem is we have an industry dead set on striking 
down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards. 
Ever since the original Supreme Beef decision, I have spent untold 
hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have 
enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry 
products. I have introduced bills to address this issue and I have 
worked with industry leaders trying to reach a reasonable compromise.
  However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, 
industry has continually backtracked and moved the finish line. Many 
times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their 
``pressing'' concern of the moment only to have them come back and say 
we hadn't gone far enough. We have to look out for the consumers of 
meat and poultry so our children, our families are not put at increased 
risk of getting ill or dying, because some in the industry want to 
backtrack on food safety.
  I plan to seek every opportunity to get this language enacted. I 
think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food 
safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in 
reducing dangerous pathogens.
  I hope that both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this 
legislation without delay. The effectiveness of our meat and poultry 
inspection system and the public's confidence in it are at stake.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
cosponsoring the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement 
Act, also referred to as Kevin's Law. Foodborne disease is a very 
serious concern for American consumers. According to CDC estimates, 76 
million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths occur 
each year in the United States from foodborne diseases; sadly, the 
majority of these fatal incidents involve children.
  Barbara Kowalcyk, a constituent of mine, has been a true pioneer in 
fighting to protect Americans from the harmful effects of food 
pathogens. Mother to 2\1/2\-year-old Kevin

[[Page 15223]]

Kowalcyk, Barbara's dedication stems from personal tragedy. Barbara 
went through what no mother should have to go through; she watched in 
agony as the life faded out of her little boy. Kevin died from an E. 
Coli infection before he even had the chance to step foot into a 
kindergarten classroom.
  Eager to ensure that no other parent suffers as she has, Barbara has 
become a thoughtful advocate for tougher food-safety laws. She has 
worked with me personally on the issue, and through her involvement 
with STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority. Barbara has been instrumental in 
educating policy makers about the threat of foodborne diseases such as 
E. Coli and Salmonella. Barbara's testimony in front of the Committee 
on Review of the Use of Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards 
for Safe Food at the National Academy of Sciences helped the NAS write 
its 2003 report Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food. Barbara 
realizes that these diseases are preventable, that we have technology 
and understanding to improve the safety of America's meat and poultry, 
and it is high time that we do it.
  Kevin's Law grants the USDA enforcement authority to enhance the 
regulatory structure for food safety. It includes key provisions that 
will allow the USDA to conduct scientific surveys to identify the 
foodborne pathogens that represent the largest threat to our public 
health and to set and update pathogen reduction standards to reduce the 
presence of these pathogens in meat and poultry. I applaud Senators 
Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this issue, and I thank 
Barbara Kowalcyk for her commitment to keeping American consumers safe 
from dangerous food products.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1358. A bill to protect scientific integrity in Federal research 
and policymaking; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Restore 
Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policymaking Act. I thank 
my House colleagues Henry Waxman and Bart Gordon, who introduced the 
original legislation in the House of Representatives. I also thank my 
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who is an original co-sponsor of this 
legislation.
  This bill prohibits censoring or tampering with government science 
and protects government scientists who blow the whistle on abuses.
  Thousands of scientists--including 48 Nobel Laureates--have come 
forward to express their concerns that science has been manipulated or 
silenced by the Bush Administration.
  We learned a few weeks ago, for example, that a White House lawyer 
with no scientific credentials had been revising government scientific 
reports on climate change to systematically weaken conclusions on 
global warming.
  In May, the New York Times reported that the southwestern regional 
director of the Fish and Wildlife Service instructed scientists on his 
staff to ignore the latest genetic data when determining protections 
for endangered species.
  In 2002, a professor invited to join an NIH advisory committee was 
called and asked for his views on a number of political issues, 
including whether he supported abortion rights and whether he had voted 
for President Bush. The professor--who had not voted for President 
Bush--was not appointed to the committee.
  These are disturbing examples of the intrusion of politics into 
science. We rely on science to give us objective facts, not political 
spin. The Restore Scientific Integrity Act will help protect science 
from political interference.
  The Act prohibits Federal employees from obstructing or censoring 
federally funded scientific research and from disseminating scientific 
information known to be false or misleading.
  The legislation prohibits the use of political litmus tests when 
appointing experts to serve on scientific advisory committees and 
strengthens protections against conflicts of interest.
  The bill extends whistleblower protections to federal employees who 
report allegations of political interference with science.
  The bill establishes that peer review processes should be established 
by science-based agencies, not by the Office of Management and Budget.
  And, the legislation directs the White House Science Advisor to 
prepare annual reports on scientific integrity in the federal agencies.
  These are common sense provisions that help protect government 
science from political interference. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
        Isakson):
  S. 1362. A bill to provide for enhanced Federal enforcement of, and 
State and local assistance in the enforcement of, the immigration laws 
of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland 
Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Craig and Senator Inhofe, who cosponsored an earlier version of the 
bill in the 108th Congress, and who are original sponsors of this 
year's legislation. Our bill takes the lead in encouraging a culture of 
cooperation among all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal, 
State, and local--it seeks to build an immigration law enforcement 
system that is inclusive of all law enforcement officers, has adequate 
detention bedspace, uses unified databases for information sharing from 
one level of law enforcement to another, and has adequate detention 
bedspace.
  These elements are a necessary foundation for any future 
comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased that the need for 
this foundation was recently recognized by Senators Kyl and Cornyn in 
the release of the enforcement principles of the immigration bill they 
are currently drafting. Changes in substantive immigration law are 
surely needed, but unless an effective enforcement mechanism is 
included, the new rules will also collapse under a rising tide of 
illegality.
  More than 15 years of service as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and then 
as Alabama's Attorney General--as well as my current role on the 
Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee--have taught 
me that the involvement of State and local law enforcement will be a 
critical part of any new and successful immigration enforcement scheme. 
Establishing an effective partnership between the 700,000 State and 
local law enforcement officers who patrol our streets every day and the 
small number of Federal immigration officers will be a test of our 
Nation's will to establish an effective and enforceable legal scheme 
for immigration.
  I care very deeply about the ability of State and local law 
enforcement to voluntarily aid the federal government in the 
enforcement of immigration law. As a result, I also care very deeply 
about tearing down barriers to that voluntary assistance. The need for 
this voluntary assistance has only grown stronger over the last year 
and a half, since I first introduced this legislation in the Senate. 
Over the course of that time we have heard about the need to reform our 
immigration laws to create a system that is as enforceable as it is 
generous and workable. Creation of an enforceable immigration system 
will undoubtedly require increased manpower, streamlined information 
sharing, and bedspace to hold those we apprehend.
  This legislation targets all three of these essential enforcement 
components, and will go a long way toward fixing our broken immigration 
enforcement system--the system that is currently allowing people to 
remain in the U.S. for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they 
came here.
  Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State 
and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources 
toward immigration law enforcement when they have other priorities, it 
is simply about welcoming their assistance in the realm of immigration 
law enforcement if they choose to give it.

[[Page 15224]]

  We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of 
immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens 
with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it 
is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about illegal 
immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that 
State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in 
stopping illegal immigration.
  A RoperASW poll published in March of 2003 titled ``Americans Talk 
About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree, 
and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require state 
and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their 
local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here 
illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85 
percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that 
Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and 
law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal 
immigrants with whom they come in contact.
  Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American 
population. It is important to note that these responses were collected 
in response to questions about requiring State and local immigration 
enforcement action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill 
that is about voluntary State and local action, would yield even 
stronger support.
  America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law. 
Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the 
street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
  In the world of immigration laws, the current facade of enforcement 
that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and 
irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country 
illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a 
brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to 
be a nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real 
effect on the lives of the people they govern.
  Our illegal alien population was at a record high two years ago and 
the numbers continue to climb. The lack of immigration enforcement in 
our country's interior has resulted in 8-12 million illegal aliens 
living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens 
joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that 
legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal 
aliens and absconders to disappear inside our borders.
  Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of 
Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''--
people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not 
shown up for their hearings. An estimated 40,000 absconders join that 
number every year.
  An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people 
convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been 
deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.
  The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien 
absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the 
State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''
  The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents 
whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The 
enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has just over 2,000 interior agents 
inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement 
solely to them will guarantee failure. If each interior agent 
investigated, arrested, prosecuted and deported an illegal alien every 
day, it would take almost 14 years to deport the current illegal alien 
population.
  State and local police, a force 700,000 strong, are the eyes and ears 
of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our 
streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is absolutely critical 
to the success of our immigration system.
  For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things 
need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement officers need clear 
authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC Immigration Violators File 
needs to contain all critical immigration information so that officers 
have quick roadside access to critical immigration information; 3. 
Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens 
apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to ignore State 
and local requests for assistance; 4. the Institutional Removal Program 
has to be expanded so that all criminal aliens are detained after their 
State sentences until deportation, instead of being released back into 
the community just to be searched for by Federal officials at a later 
date; and 5. critically needed Federal bed space has to be given to DHS 
so that the practice of ``catch and release'' can be ended and 
effective removal can begin.
  The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Craig, Senator 
Inhofe, and I are introducing today will do all of those things.
  Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration 
enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to 
author this bill, to push for the hearing on April 22 of 2004 in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee titled ``State and Local Authority to 
Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping 
Terrorists'', and to author a law review article in the April 2005 
issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review titled ``The Growing Role 
for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Real of Immigration Law.''
  A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell 
me that they had been shut out of the immigration enforcement system 
and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing 
illegal immigrant population.
  As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard 
the same story-- ``When we come across illegal aliens in our normal 
course of duty, we have given up calling because the INS tells us we 
have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even 
come pick them up.''
  Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that the aliens could 
not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were 
told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even 
though I believed that the legal authority of State and local officers 
to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. 
If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this 
authority, Congress needs to remove that doubt--which is exactly what 
this bill will do.
  Only two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have expressly ruled on State 
and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration 
law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a 
preexisting general authority, held that nothing in Federal law 
precludes the police form enforcing the criminal provisions of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Act. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 
F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).
  The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, 
concluding squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory 
authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United 
States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). 
As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general 
authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make 
arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.'' 
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).
  Again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``state and local 
police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective 
jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of 
Federal law, including immigration laws.''' United States v. Santana-
Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 
176 F.3d 1294, 1295).
  None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between 
criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions of the INA that 
render an alien

[[Page 15225]]

deportable. It appears that the Ninth Circuit started the confusion 
regarding the distinction between civil and criminal violations in 
Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the civil 
provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and therefore 
only the Federal Government has the power to enforce civil violations. 
See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).
  This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 
opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, of the Department of 
Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.
  Why was the Federal agency responsible for interior immigration 
enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to let illegal aliens 
go free?
  To be fair, ICE still does not have the manpower or detention space 
to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000 
appropriated detention beds, ICE tells us over and over again that they 
do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they 
apprehend; instead, they are forced to give first priority to detaining 
the worst of the worst individuals such as convicted felon aliens.
  It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key 
element of effective removal, we do not even detain all illegal aliens 
that have been convicted of crimes for removal. Last February, in a 
report titled ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of 
Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector 
General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal 
never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that 
only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed-- 35 percent 
of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state 
sponsors of terrorism.'' These percentages have not changed since 1996, 
when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found 
that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not 
detained are never removed.
  Just this month, during a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee 
Immigration and Terrorism Subcommittees titled ``The Southern Border in 
Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' we 
learned that in some jurisdictions--such as Harlingen Texas--``no 
show'' rates for immigration hearings are as high as 98 percent. Those 
numbers speak for themselves about our efficiency in the realm of 
immigration enforcement. The American people deserve better, they 
deserve to know that our laws will be enforced instead of ignored 
without consequence.
  But we can not lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal 
aliens that they have space to detain. We know that DHS is using all of 
the bed space that they have and that it is not enough they 
consistently tell us that they are releasing people that should be 
detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security 
Enhancement Act would add critical bed space DHS needs to fulfill its 
mission of interior enforcement.
  The third problem that was brought to my attention and motivated my 
desire to introduce this bill, is the inadequate way we share 
immigration information with State and local police. We have databases 
full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final 
deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to 
State and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to 
the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a 
wanted by DHS.
  The Hart Rhudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In 
Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``700,000 
local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual 
intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist watchlists.'' The 
first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the eyes and ears of 
local and State law enforcement officers in preventing attacks.'' On 
page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds 
of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the population of more 
than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and suggested that 
the burden could and should be shared with 700,000 local, county, and 
State law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the 
information void.
  Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE 
unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and 
local police can not quickly and accurately identify who they have 
detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they 
follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''
  State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal 
information in the NCIC, National Crime Information Center, database, 
which is maintained by the FBI. They can, and routinely do, access the 
NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect. An 
NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about 
individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false 
identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the 
NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an 
instant fingerprint scanner in his car.
  Separate from the NCIC, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support 
Center, which makes immigration information available to State and 
local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that 
most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the 
time to perform.
  The ability of the NCIC to convey immigration information to State 
and local police is not being fully utilized. To date, the Immigration 
Violators File of the NCIC contains just over 150,000 entries and only 
39,000 of those are alien absconders. This file should be greatly and 
rapidly expanded. At the very least, the NCIC should contain 
information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of 
departure, all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure 
agreements, and all aliens who have had their visas revoked. In truth, 
the NCIC should contain information on all violations of immigration 
law.
  If State and local police are not accessing the immigration 
information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way 
to get the information to them, through systems they are used to using. 
Our bill will get information to them through the system they are 
already using--the NCIC.
  Our bill will ensure that when an NCIC roadside check is done on an 
individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if 
the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has 
signed a legal document promising to leave, has overstayed their visa, 
or has had their visa revoked.
  Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State 
and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who 
will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to-
day basis.
  Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the 
weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted 
American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower, 
was stopped twice by police in Florida. Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was 
stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11. 
And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the 
Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia. 
Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against 
terrorism.
  The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by 
local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint 
collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and 
robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected 
by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities 
not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity 
of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.
  In New York a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench with her 
boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal 
immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2 
had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them--
thus, they were not deported as the law requires.

[[Page 15226]]

  Fifty-six illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and 
convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation 
Predator'' found them living in New York and Northern New Jersey long 
after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped 
his 10-year-old niece; another had sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy; 
one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another had sexually assaulted 
a 2-year-old.
  The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of 
criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police 
are the front lines of combating alien crime. To leave them out of the 
enforcement system, as we do now, eliminates our most effective weapon 
against criminal and terrorist aliens.
  Many advocacy groups have vocally opposed the idea of State and local 
immigration law enforcement over the course of the last year. They 
would prefer that Congress not clarify this enforcement authority and 
that we leave State and local officers in the dark.
  Such groups contend that if immigration enforcement functions are 
performed by anyone other than Federal law enforcement officials, at 
least three negative consequences will ensue. First, they argue that 
State and local law enforcement entities will be handed an unfunded 
mandate and will be forced to enforce immigration law violations 
against their will and at their expense. Second, they argue that 
immigrant communities, and the victims and witnesses that live within 
them, will abandon their trust of, and cooperative partnership with, 
State and local law enforcement. And third, they argue that State and 
local law enforcement officers will abuse their inherent enforcement 
authority to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and 
discrimination.
  By making these claims, advocacy groups seek to maintain the 
ineffective status quo for enforcement by local officers and thwart the 
possibility of an effective enforcement partnership between the Federal 
Government and the States.
  The assertions of these advocacy groups are more myth than reality. 
The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden 
State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and 
sheriff's department across the country must make choices every day 
regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly, their 
legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut 
out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say 
that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to 
voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be 
forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their 
communities.
  The second myth that anti-local enforcement advocates would have 
policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership 
exists between local police and immigrant communities, and that 
immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of 
crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group, 
the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues: ``These 
combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact 
with law enforcement, putting entire communities at risk. For instance, 
immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the 
police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact 
with the officials.'' Again, the argument fails because State and local 
police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They 
are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to 
Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to 
investigate. To make sure that this is understood, the authors of this 
bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill 
requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses 
to Federal immigration authorities.
  Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective 
enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement 
officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to 
engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination. 
Specifically, the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State 
and local law enforcement participation because it claims such 
involvement is ``likely to result in increased racial profiling, police 
misconduct, and civil rights violations.'' This argument is curious 
because it would effectively grant more protection to non-citizens here 
illegally than to citizens, who are subject to arrest by State and 
Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is 
curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against 
citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally. State and local 
police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects 
and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama, 
State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New 
York, the NYC Police Department Operations Order #11 strictly prohibits 
racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York 
are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local 
police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the 
rest of the Nation is as well.
  Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the 
civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil 
rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local 
police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil 
rights; this bill does not change that fact.
  The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs 
too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think 
this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we 
can by electing to use resources already available to us--facilities 
closed down under the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990 and 
law enforcement officers across America already out on our streets 
doing their jobs. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch 
pennies. In immigration enforcement, it costs us too much not to 
enforce the law. It is time that Congress take responsibility for 
providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given 
them.
  When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law 
is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we 
simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.
  It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about 
what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most 
cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize 
our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws 
we already have.
  If State and local police are confused about their authority to 
enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This 
bill will do that. If State and local police cannot access immigration 
background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change 
that. This bill makes that information more accessible through 
expanding use of the NCIC. If DHS is not taking custody of illegal 
aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it 
possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of 
``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough 
detention space to hold people that break the law, then we need more 
detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace for 
immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into 
the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported, 
we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the 
Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred 
from the State prison to Federal officials at the end of the alien's 
prison sentence.
  Once again I would like to thank Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe for 
joining with me to introduce this legislation, and I would like to 
thank Congressman Norwood for introducing companion legislation in the 
House.

[[Page 15227]]

  It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control 
of our borders and that we lay the enforcement foundation for necessary 
immigration reforms. This bill is a critical step in the right 
direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and join us in 
working to pass the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005.
  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. 1362

       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 ``Homeland Security 
     Enhancement Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. STATE DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 101(a)(36) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(36)).

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT BY 
                   STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law and reaffirming 
     the existing inherent authority of States, law enforcement 
     personnel of a State or a political subdivision of a State 
     have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to 
     investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer 
     to Federal custody aliens in the United States (including the 
     transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention 
     centers), for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of 
     the immigration laws of the United States in the normal 
     course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such 
     personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or 
     preempted by a Federal law.

     SEC. 4. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVISION OF 
                   INFORMATION REGARDING ALIENS.

       (a) Violations of Federal Law.--A statute, policy, or 
     practice that prohibits a law enforcement officer of a State, 
     or of a political subdivision of a State, from enforcing 
     Federal immigration laws or from assisting or cooperating 
     with Federal immigration law enforcement in the course of 
     carrying out the law enforcement duties of the officer or 
     from providing information to an official of the United 
     States Government regarding the immigration status of an 
     individual who is believed to be illegally present in the 
     United States is in violation of section 642(a) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)) and section 434 of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1644).
       (b) Provision of Information Regarding Apprehended Illegal 
     Aliens.--
       (1) In general.--In compliance with section 642(a) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)) and section 434 of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1644), States and localities should provide to 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security the information listed in 
     subsection (c) on each alien apprehended or arrested in the 
     jurisdiction of the State or locality who is believed to be 
     in violation of an immigration law of the United States. Such 
     information should be provided regardless of the reason for 
     the apprehension or arrest of the alien.
       (2) Time limitation.--Not later than 10 days after an alien 
     described in paragraph (1) is apprehended, information 
     requested to be provided under paragraph (1) should be 
     provided in such form and in such manner as the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may, by regulation or guideline, require.
       (c) Information Required.--The information listed in this 
     subsection is as follows:
       (1) The name of the alien.
       (2) The address or place of residence of the alien.
       (3) A physical description of the alien.
       (4) The date, time, and location of the encounter with the 
     alien and reason for stopping, detaining, apprehending, or 
     arresting the alien.
       (5) If applicable, the driver's license number issued to 
     the alien and the State of issuance of such license.
       (6) If applicable, the type of any other identification 
     document issued to the alien, any designation number 
     contained on the identification document, and the issuing 
     entity for the identification document.
       (7) If applicable, the license plate number, make, and 
     model of any automobile registered to, or driven by, the 
     alien.
       (8) A photo of the alien, if available or readily 
     obtainable.
       (9) The fingerprints of the alien, if available or readily 
     obtainable, including a full set of 10 rolled fingerprints if 
     available or readily obtainable.
       (d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall reimburse States and localities for all reasonable 
     costs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     incurred by that State or locality as a result of providing 
     information required by this section.
       (e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility 
     act of 1996.--
       (A) Technical amendment.--Section 642 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373) is amended--
       (i) in subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c) by striking 
     ``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' and inserting 
     ``Department of Homeland Security''; and
       (ii) in the heading by striking ``IMMIGRATION AND 
     NATURALIZATION SERVICE'' and inserting ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     HOMELAND SECURITY''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1(d) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546) is 
     amended by striking the item related to section 642 and 
     inserting the following:

``Sec. 642. Communication between government agencies and the 
              Department of Homeland Security.''.
       (2) Personal responsibility and work opportunity 
     reconciliation act of 1996.--
       (A) In general.--Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1644) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' 
     and inserting ``Department of Homeland Security''; and
       (ii) in the heading by striking ``IMMIGRATION AND 
     NATURALIZATION SERVICE'' and inserting ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     HOMELAND SECURITY''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2 of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105) is amended by 
     striking the item related to section 434 and inserting the 
     following:

``Sec. 434. Communication between State and local government agencies 
              and the Department of Homeland Security.''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide the 
     reimbursements required by subsection (d).

     SEC. 5. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE FOR 
                   ALIENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Aliens Unlawfully Present.--Title II of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding after section 275 the following:

    ``criminal penalties for unlawful presence in the united states

       ``Sec. 275A. (a) In General.--In addition to any other 
     violation, an alien present in the United States in violation 
     of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both. The assets of any alien present in the 
     United States in violation of this Act shall be subject to 
     forfeiture under title 19, United States Code.
       ``(b) Affirmative Defense.--It shall be an affirmative 
     defense to a violation of subsection (a) that the alien 
     overstayed the time allotted under the alien's visa due to an 
     exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or physical 
     illness that prevented the alien from leaving the United 
     States by the required date.''.
       (b) Increase in Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry.--
     Section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1325(a)) is amended by striking ``6 months,'' and 
     inserting ``1 year,''.

     SEC. 6. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL 
                   CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.

       (a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall provide the National Crime Information Center 
     of the Department of Justice with such information as the 
     Director may have related to--
       (A) any alien against whom a final order of removal has 
     been issued;
       (B) any alien who is subject to a voluntary departure 
     agreement;
       (C) any alien who has remained in the United States beyond 
     the alien's authorized period of stay; and
       (D) any alien whose visa has been revoked.
       (2) Requirement to provide and use information.--The 
     information described in paragraph (1) shall be provided to 
     the National Crime Information Center, and the Center shall 
     enter the information into the Immigration Violators File of 
     the National Crime Information Center database, regardless of 
     whether--
       (A) the alien received notice of a final order of removal;
       (B) the alien has already been removed; or
       (C) sufficient identifying information is available for the 
     alien, such as a physical description of the alien.
       (b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section 
     534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page 15228]]

       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of 
     violations of the immigration laws of the United States, 
     regardless of whether the alien has received notice of the 
     violation, sufficient identifying information is available 
     for the alien, or the alien has already been removed; and''.
       (c) Permission To Depart Voluntarily.--Section 240B of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``120'' and 
     inserting ``30''.

     SEC. 7. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE 
                   UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR 
                   CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE 
                   CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     construct or acquire, in addition to existing facilities for 
     the detention of aliens, 20 detention facilities in the 
     United States that have the capacity to detain a total of not 
     less than 10,000 individuals at any time for aliens detained 
     pending removal or a decision on removal of such alien from 
     the United States.
       (2) Determination of location.--The location of any 
     detention facility built or acquired in accordance with this 
     subsection shall be determined by the Deputy Assistant 
     Director of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations 
     within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       (3) Use of installations under base closure laws.--In 
     acquiring detention facilities under this subsection, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent 
     practical, request the transfer of appropriate portions of 
     military installations approved for closure or realignment 
     under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 
     note) for use in accordance with paragraph (1).
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 241(g)(1) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(g)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``may expend'' and inserting ``shall 
     expend''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 8. FEDERAL CUSTODY OF ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENDED BY 
                   STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     after section 240C the following:


       ``TRANSFER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM STATE TO FEDERAL CUSTODY

       ``Sec. 240D. (a) In General.--If the head of a law 
     enforcement entity of a State (or, if appropriate, a 
     political subdivision of the State) exercising authority with 
     respect to the apprehension or arrest of an illegal alien 
     submits a request to the Secretary of Homeland Security that 
     the alien be taken into Federal custody, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security--
       ``(1) shall--
       ``(A) not later than 72 hours after the conclusion of the 
     State charging process or dismissal process, or if no State 
     charging or dismissal process is required, not later than 72 
     hours after the illegal alien is apprehended, take the 
     illegal alien into the custody of the Federal Government and 
     incarcerate the alien; or
       ``(B) request that the relevant State or local law 
     enforcement agency temporarily detain or transport the 
     illegal alien to a location for transfer to Federal custody; 
     and
       ``(2) shall designate at least one Federal, State, or local 
     prison or jail or a private contracted prison or detention 
     facility within each State as the central facility for that 
     State to transfer custody of criminal or illegal aliens to 
     the Department of Homeland Security.''.
       ``(b) Reimbursement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security 
     shall reimburse a State or a political subdivision of a State 
     for all reasonable expenses, as determined by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, incurred by the State or political 
     subdivision in the detention and transportation of a criminal 
     or illegal alien as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) Cost computation.--Compensation provided for costs 
     incurred under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be--
       ``(A) the product of--
       ``(i) the average cost of incarceration of a prisoner in 
     the relevant State, as determined by the chief executive 
     officer of a State (or, as appropriate, a political 
     subdivision of the State); multiplied by
       ``(ii) the number of days that the alien was in the custody 
     of the State or political subdivision; added to
       ``(B) the cost of transporting the criminal or illegal 
     alien from the point of apprehension or arrest to the 
     location of detention, and if the location of detention and 
     of custody transfer are different, to the custody transfer 
     point.
       ``(c) Requirement for Appropriate Security.--The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall ensure that illegal aliens 
     incarcerated in Federal facilities pursuant to this 
     subsection are held in facilities which provide an 
     appropriate level of security.
       ``(d) Requirement for Schedule.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a regular 
     circuit and schedule for the prompt transfer of apprehended 
     illegal aliens from the custody of States and political 
     subdivisions of States to Federal custody.
       ``(2) Authority for contracts.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may enter into contracts with appropriate State and 
     local law enforcement and detention officials to implement 
     this subsection.
       ``(e) Illegal Alien Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `illegal alien' means an alien who--
       ``(1) entered the United States without inspection or at 
     any time or place other than that designated by the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security;
       ``(2) was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who, at the time 
     the alien was taken into custody by the State or a political 
     subdivision of the State, had failed to--
       ``(A) maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien 
     was admitted or to which it was changed under section 248; or
       ``(B) comply with the conditions of any such status;
       ``(3) was admitted as an immigrant and has subsequently 
     failed to comply with the requirements of that status; or
       ``(4) failed to depart the United States under a voluntary 
     departure agreement or under a final order of removal.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Detention and 
     Transportation to Federal Custody of Aliens Not Lawfully 
     Present.--There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000 
     for the detention and removal of aliens not lawfully present 
     in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) for fiscal year 2006 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 9. IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING OF STATE AND 
                   LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.

       (a) Training Manual and Pocket Guide.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish--
       (A) a training manual for law enforcement personnel of a 
     State or political subdivision of a State to train such 
     personnel in the investigation, identification, apprehension, 
     arrest, detention, and transfer to Federal custody of aliens 
     in the United States (including the transportation of such 
     aliens across State lines to detention centers and the 
     identification of fraudulent documents); and
       (B) an immigration enforcement pocket guide for law 
     enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of 
     a State to provide a quick reference for such personnel in 
     the course of duty.
       (2) Availability.--The training manual and pocket guide 
     established in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available to all State and local law enforcement personnel.
       (3) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to require State or local law enforcement personnel 
     to carry the training manual or pocket guide established in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) with them while on duty.
       (4) Costs.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be 
     responsible for any and all costs incurred in establishing 
     the training manual and pocket guide under this subsection.
       (b) Training Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     make training of State and local law enforcement officers 
     available through as many means as possible, including 
     residential training at the Center for Domestic Preparedness 
     of the Department of Homeland Security, onsite training held 
     at State or local police agencies or facilities, on-line 
     training courses by computer, teleconferencing, and 
     videotape, or the digital video display (DVD) of a training 
     course or courses.
       (2) On-line training.--The head of the Distributed Learning 
     Program of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall 
     make training available for State and local law enforcement 
     personnel via the Internet through a secure, encrypted 
     distributed learning system that has all its servers based in 
     the United States, is sealable, survivable, and is capable of 
     having a portal in place within 30 days.
       (3) Federal personnel training.--The training of State and 
     local law enforcement personnel under this section shall not 
     displace the training of Federal personnel.
       (c) Clarification.--Nothing in this Act or any other 
     provision of law shall be construed as making any 
     immigration-related training a requirement for, or 
     prerequisite to, any State or local law enforcement officer 
     exercising the inherent authority of the officer to 
     investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest,

[[Page 15229]]

     detain, or transfer to Federal custody illegal aliens during 
     the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties 
     of the officer.
       (d) Training Limitation.--Section 287(g) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Such training shall not exceed 14 days or 80 hours, 
     whichever is longer.''.

     SEC. 10. IMMUNITY.

       (a) Personal Immunity.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a law enforcement officer of a State, or of a 
     political subdivision of a State, shall be immune, to the 
     same extent as a Federal law enforcement officer, from 
     personal liability arising out of the enforcement of any 
     immigration law. The immunity provided in this subsection 
     shall only apply to an officer of a State, or of a political 
     subdivision of a State, who is acting within the scope of 
     such officer's official duties.
       (b) Agency Immunity.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a law enforcement agency of a State, or of a 
     political subdivision of a State, shall be immune from any 
     claim for money damages based on Federal, State, or local 
     civil rights law for an incident arising out of the 
     enforcement of any immigration law, except to the extent that 
     the law enforcement officer of that agency, whose action the 
     claim involves, committed a violation of Federal, State, or 
     local criminal law in the course of enforcing such 
     immigration law.

     SEC. 11. PLACES OF DETENTION FOR ALIENS DETAINED PENDING 
                   EXAMINATION OR DECISION ON REMOVAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 241(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(g)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Policy on detention in state and local detention 
     facilities.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall ensure that an alien arrested under 
     section 287(a) is detained, pending the alien being taken for 
     the examination described in that section, in a State or 
     local prison, jail, detention center, or other comparable 
     facility, if--
       ``(A) such a facility is the most suitably located Federal, 
     State, or local facility available for such purpose under the 
     circumstances;
       ``(B) an appropriate arrangement for such use of the 
     facility can be made; and
       ``(C) such facility satisfies the standards for the 
     housing, care, and security of persons held in custody of a 
     United States marshal.''.
       (b) Detention Facility Suitability.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, a facility described in section 
     241(g)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added 
     by subsection (a), is adequate for detention of persons being 
     held for immigration related violations.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 241 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231) is amended by 
     striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.

     SEC. 12. INSTITUTIONAL REMOVAL PROGRAM.

       (a) Continuation.--
       (1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security shall 
     continue to operate and implement the program known on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act as the Institutional 
     Removal Program which--
       (A) identifies removable criminal aliens in Federal and 
     State correctional facilities;
       (B) ensures such aliens are not released into the 
     community; and
       (C) removes such aliens from the United States after the 
     completion of their sentences.
       (2) Expansion.--The Institutional Removal Program shall be 
     extended to all States. Any State that receives Federal funds 
     for the incarceration of criminal aliens shall--
       (A) cooperate with Federal officials who carry out the 
     Institutional Removal Program;
       (B) expeditiously and systematically identify criminal 
     aliens in its prison and jail populations; and
       (C) promptly convey such information to the Federal 
     officials who carry out the Institutional Removal Program as 
     a condition for receiving such funds.
       (b) Authorization for Detention After Completion of State 
     or Local Prison Sentence.--Law enforcement officers of a 
     State or political subdivision of a State have the authority 
     to--
       (1) hold an illegal alien for a period of up to 14 days 
     after the alien has completed the alien's State prison 
     sentence in order to effectuate the transfer of the alien to 
     Federal custody when the alien is removable or not lawfully 
     present in the United States; or
       (2) issue a detainer that would allow aliens who have 
     served a State prison sentence to be detained by the State 
     prison until personnel from the Bureau of Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement can take the alien into custody.
       (c) Technology Usage.--Technology such as videoconferencing 
     shall be used to the maximum extent possible in order to make 
     the Institutional Removal Program available in remote 
     locations. Mobile access to Federal databases of aliens, such 
     as the IDENT database maintained by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and live scan technology shall be used to the 
     maximum extent practicable in order to make these resources 
     available to State and local law enforcement agencies in 
     remote locations.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the Institutional Removal 
     Program--
       (1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       (4) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       (5) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       (6) $80,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2011.

     SEC. 13. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to require law 
     enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of 
     a State to--
       (1) report the identity of a victim of, or a witness to, a 
     criminal offense to the Secretary of Homeland Security for 
     immigration enforcement purposes;
       (2) arrest such victim or witness for a violation of the 
     immigration laws of the United States; or
       (3) enforce the immigration laws of the United States.

     SEC. 14. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, including any amendment made 
     by this Act, or the application of such provision to any 
     person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of 
     this Act, and the application of such provision to other 
     persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances, 
     shall not be affected by such invalidation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1363. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent 
dividends received from corporations in tax havens from receiving a 
reduced tax rate; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my two 
friends and Finance Committee colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator 
Kerry, in filing legislation to close a loophole in the 2003 tax cut 
bill. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 
provided for lower rates of taxation on dividend income. Formerly, 
taxpayers paid ordinary income rates on dividend income. Now, 
individuals who receive dividends are taxed at either a 15 percent for 
upper-income taxpayers, or a 5-percent rate for lower-income taxpayers. 
Further, in 2008, this lower rate becomes zero before the whole 
provision expires in 2009.
  The demand for lower rates was premised on the claim that dividend 
income was subject to double taxation; that is, taxed once by the 
corporate entity and then again by the shareholder. Assuming that is 
the case, then if we are sure the corporate entity is not subject to 
tax, the dividend should not be afforded the special rate. In fact, we 
heard testimony today in the Taxation Subcommittee that corporations 
with little or no taxes at the entity level really receive an 
additional benefit from the dividend tax break.
  Current law, however, allows dividends from ``qualified'' foreign 
corporations to benefit from these lower rates if the company is based 
in a U.S. possession, or based in a country with which the U.S. has a 
tax treaty, or has stock which is traded on a U.S. stock exchange. 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Kerry, and I have become concerned that the 
definition of qualifying foreign corporations is overly broad and may 
encompass companies in tax haven countries with little or no tax 
system. Providing this special benefit for such companies simply 
because its stock is traded on a U.S. exchange does not meet with the 
original intent of the legislative change. Our bill would shut down 
this loophole by modifying the ``stock exchange'' test to only allow 
this special rate for companies based in countries with a comprehensive 
income tax system. By doing this, we will address a current inequity 
between dividend-paying stocks and make sure that only stock of 
companies subject to tax at the corporate level enjoys this 
preferential rate.
  With every tax bill we enact, it is important to review the 
provisions from time to time to make sure the law works as intended. 
Here, I believe we have found a significant and unintended loophole. 
Certainly, as we debate whether to extend, expand, or eliminate these 
preferential rates, we

[[Page 15230]]

should also be open to improvements in the current law. I encourage my 
colleagues to join with us in working for such an improvement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 1364. A bill to amend part A of title II of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 to enhance teacher training and teacher preparation 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing, 
Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals, PRREP, Act to 
improve education and student achievement through high-quality 
preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers, 
early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators.
  As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 
we must ensure that educators receive the training and support 
necessary to thrive in our Nation's early childhood programs, 
elementary schools, and secondary schools. Improving teacher quality is 
the single most effective measure we can take to increase student 
achievement.
  With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act we took an important 
step toward demanding that all of the Nation's children are taught by 
highly qualified teachers. To meet the law's definition, teachers are 
generally required to hold a bachelor's degree, be fully certified by a 
State, and to demonstrate content knowledge of the subjects they teach. 
The deadline is looming, and the States are struggling to get all of 
their teachers deemed highly qualified by the coming school year.
  This struggle will not end at the initial deadline. Teacher turnover 
regularly drains schools of their most important resource, qualified 
educators. Higher standards for teacher credentials are essential, but 
at the same time make it even more challenging for schools to staff 
their classrooms. This is a critical moment for us to tackle persistent 
teacher attrition and to foment teacher retention. At the same time, we 
have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not 
only have the credentials, but also the skills and training to be truly 
effective in the classroom. By strengthening the State, partnership, 
and recruitment grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my 
legislation will accomplish both of these important goals.
  Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher 
shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and 
America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession 
within 3 years, and nearly one-half leave within 5 years. In high 
poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one-third 
higher than the rate for all teachers. A recent study in New York found 
that teachers who leave are likely to have greater skills than those 
who stay.
  The Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals Act 
focuses recruitment activities where high teacher turnover and 
shortages exist, where students are having trouble meeting academic 
standards, or where there is great difficulty demonstrating that 
teachers are highly qualified. The grants also allow funds for outreach 
to encourage recruitment in inner city and rural areas.
  Teachers consistently cite lack of administrative support as a 
primary reason for leaving a school and teaching altogether. My 
legislation would create a year-long clinical learning experience for 
prospective teachers, and establish a three-year residency program for 
new teachers that provides comprehensive induction. The legislation 
also includes provisions to develop managerial skills among principals 
so they can provide the most effective instructional leadership and 
classroom support for teachers during induction and beyond. Research 
consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of 
teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive 
induction programs can cut that number by half or more.
  Furthermore, my legislation promotes professional development 
throughout a teacher's career and strengthens teacher preparation 
programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to 
positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge 
of teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers 
to understand and respond effectively to diverse student populations, 
including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient 
students, and students with different learning styles or other special 
learning needs. The legislation also stresses the ability to integrate 
technology into the classroom, strategies to effectively use 
assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and an 
understanding of how to communicate with and involve parents in their 
children's education.
  My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning 
strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments 
such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise 
in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent 
development. It also ensures that States hold institutions of higher 
education and entities that provide alternative routes to State 
certification equally accountable for preparing highly qualified 
teachers and highly competent early childhood education providers.
  The State, partnership, and recruitment grants are currently funded 
at only $68 million a year--far too small of an investment for this 
critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of 
meeting the highly qualified requirements of No Child Left Behind, but 
for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this 
funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs.
  The PRREP Act is supported by a diverse array of education 
organizations, including the American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education, American Psychological Association, Council for 
Exceptional Children, National Association of Elementary School 
Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National 
Association for the Education of Young Children, National Council of 
Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and 
National PTA.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by 
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1364

       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 ``Preparing, Recruiting, and 
     Retaining Education Professionals Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.

       Section 201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1021) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 201. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are to--
       ``(1) improve student achievement;
       ``(2) improve the quality of the current and future 
     teaching force by improving the preparation of prospective 
     teachers and enhancing ongoing professional development 
     activities;
       ``(3) encourage partnerships among institutions of higher 
     education, early childhood education programs, elementary 
     schools or secondary schools, local educational agencies, 
     State educational agencies, teacher organizations, and 
     nonprofit educational organizations;
       ``(4) hold institutions of higher education and all other 
     teacher preparation programs (including programs that provide 
     alternative routes to teacher preparation) accountable in an 
     equivalent manner for preparing--
       ``(A) teachers who have strong teaching skills, are highly 
     qualified, and are trained in the effective uses of 
     technology in the classroom; and
       ``(B) early childhood education providers who are highly 
     competent;
       ``(5) recruit and retain qualified individuals, including 
     individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force 
     for early childhood education programs or in elementary 
     schools or secondary schools;

[[Page 15231]]

       ``(6) improve the recruitment, retention, and capacities of 
     principals to provide instructional leadership and to support 
     teachers in maintaining safe and effective learning 
     environments;
       ``(7) expand the use of research to improve teaching and 
     learning by teachers, early childhood education providers, 
     principals, and faculty; and
       ``(8) enhance the ability of teachers, early childhood 
     education providers, principals, administrators, and faculty 
     to communicate with, work with, and involve parents in ways 
     that improve student achievement.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this part:
       ``(1) Arts and sciences.--The term `arts and sciences' 
     means--
       ``(A) when referring to an organizational unit of an 
     institution of higher education, any academic unit that 
     offers 1 or more academic majors in disciplines or content 
     areas corresponding to the academic subject matter areas in 
     which teachers provide instruction; and
       ``(B) when referring to a specific academic subject matter 
     area, the disciplines or content areas in which academic 
     majors are offered by the arts and science organizational 
     unit.
       ``(2) Early childhood education program.--The term `early 
     childhood education program' means a family child care 
     program, center-based child care program, prekindergarten 
     program, school program, or other out-of-home child care 
     program that is licensed or regulated by the State serving 2 
     or more unrelated children from birth until school entry, or 
     a Head Start program carried out under the Head Start Act or 
     an Early Head Start program carried out under section 645A of 
     that Act.
       ``(3) Exemplary teacher.--The term `exemplary teacher' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(4) Faculty.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `faculty' means individuals in 
     institutions of higher education who are responsible for 
     preparing teachers.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `faculty' includes professors 
     of education and professors in academic disciplines such as 
     the arts and sciences, psychology, and human development.
       ``(5) High-need local educational agency.--The term `high-
     need local educational agency' means a local educational 
     agency that serves an early childhood education program, 
     elementary school, or secondary school located in an area in 
     which--
       ``(A)(i) 15 percent or more of the students served by the 
     agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line;
       ``(ii) there are more than 5,000 students served by the 
     agency from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
       ``(iii) there are less than 600 students in average daily 
     attendance in all the schools that are served by the agency 
     and all of whose schools are designated with a school locale 
     code of 7 or 8, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(B)(i) there is a high percentage of teachers who are not 
     highly qualified; or
       ``(ii) there is a chronic shortage, or annual turnover rate 
     of 20 percent or more, of highly qualified teachers.
       ``(6) High-need school.--The term `high-need school' means 
     an early childhood education program, public elementary 
     school, or public secondary school--
       ``(A)(i) in which there is a high concentration of students 
     from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
       ``(ii) that, in the case of a public elementary school or 
     public secondary school, is identified as in need of school 
     improvement or corrective action pursuant to section 1116 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       ``(B) in which there exists--
       ``(i) in the case of a public elementary school or public 
     secondary school, a persistent and chronic shortage, or 
     annual turnover rate of 20 percent or more, of highly 
     qualified teachers; and
       ``(ii) in the case of an early childhood education program, 
     a persistent and chronic shortage of early childhood 
     education providers who are highly competent.
       ``(7) Highly competent.--The term `highly competent' when 
     used with respect to an early childhood education provider 
     means a provider--
       ``(A) with specialized education and training in 
     development and education of young children from birth until 
     entry into kindergarten;
       ``(B) with--
       ``(i) a baccalaureate degree in an academic major in the 
     arts and sciences; or
       ``(ii) an associate's degree in a related educational area; 
     and
       ``(C) who has demonstrated a high level of knowledge and 
     use of content and pedagogy in the relevant areas associated 
     with quality early childhood education.
       ``(8) Highly qualified.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `highly qualified' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(B) Special education teachers.--When used with respect 
     to a special education teacher, the term `highly qualified' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 602 of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       ``(9) Induction.--The term `induction' means a formalized 
     program designed to provide support for, improve the 
     professional performance of, and promote the retention in the 
     teaching field of, beginning teachers, and that--
       ``(A) shall include--
       ``(i) mentoring;
       ``(ii) structured collaboration time with teachers in the 
     same department or field;
       ``(iii) structured meeting time with administrators; and
       ``(iv) professional development activities; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) reduced teaching loads;
       ``(ii) support of a teaching aide;
       ``(iii) orientation seminars; and
       ``(iv) regular evaluation of the teacher inductee, the 
     mentors, and the overall formalized program.
       ``(10) Mentoring.--The term `mentoring' means a process by 
     which a teacher mentor who is an exemplary teacher, either 
     alone or in a team with faculty, provides active support for 
     prospective teachers and new teachers through a system for 
     integrating evidence-based practice, including rigorous, 
     supervised training in high-quality teaching settings. Such 
     support includes activities specifically designed to 
     promote--
       ``(A) knowledge of the scientific research on, and 
     assessment of, teaching and learning;
       ``(B) development of teaching skills and skills in 
     evidence-based educational interventions;
       ``(C) development of classroom management skills;
       ``(D) a positive role model relationship where academic 
     assistance and exposure to new experiences is provided; and
       ``(E) ongoing supervision and communication regarding the 
     prospective teacher's development of teaching skills and 
     continued support for the new teacher by the mentor, other 
     teachers, principals, and administrators.
       ``(11) Parent.--The term `parent' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(12) Parental involvement.--The term `parental 
     involvement' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(13) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       ``(14) Professional development.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `professional development' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(B) Early childhood education providers.--The term 
     `professional development' when used with respect to an early 
     childhood education provider means knowledge and skills in 
     all domains of child development (including cognitive, 
     social, emotional, physical, and approaches to learning) and 
     pedagogy of children from birth until entry into 
     kindergarten.
       ``(15) Teaching skills.--The term `teaching skills' means 
     skills--
       ``(A) grounded in the disciplines of teaching and learning 
     that teachers use to create effective instruction in subject 
     matter content and that lead to student achievement and the 
     ability to apply knowledge; and
       ``(B) that require an understanding of the learning process 
     itself, including an understanding of--
       ``(i) the use of teaching strategies specific to the 
     subject matter;
       ``(ii) the application of ongoing assessment of student 
     learning, particularly for evaluating instructional practices 
     and curriculum;
       ``(iii) ensuring successful learning for students with 
     individual differences in ability and instructional needs;
       ``(iv) effective classroom management; and
       ``(v) effective ways to communicate with, work with, and 
     involve parents in their children's education.''.

     SEC. 3. STATE GRANTS.

       Section 202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1022) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 202. STATE GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts made available under 
     section 211(1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized 
     to award grants under this section, on a competitive basis, 
     to eligible States to enable the eligible States to carry out 
     the activities described in subsection (d).
       ``(b) Eligible State.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this part, the term `eligible State' 
     means--
       ``(A) a State educational agency; or
       ``(B) an entity or agency in the State responsible for 
     teacher certification and preparation activities.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The eligible State shall consult with 
     the Governor, State board of education, State educational 
     agency, State agency for higher education, State agency with 
     responsibility for child care, prekindergarten, or other 
     early childhood

[[Page 15232]]

     education programs, and other State entities that provide 
     professional development and teacher preparation for 
     teachers, as appropriate, with respect to the activities 
     assisted under this section.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to negate or supersede the legal authority under 
     State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public 
     official over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency, entity, or official.
       ``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an eligible State shall, at the time of the 
     initial grant application, submit an application to the 
     Secretary that--
       ``(1) meets the requirements of this section and other 
     relevant requirements for States under this title;
       ``(2) describes how the eligible State intends to use funds 
     provided under this section in accordance with State-
     identified needs;
       ``(3) describes the eligible State's plan for continuing 
     the activities carried out with the grant once Federal 
     funding ceases;
       ``(4) describes how the eligible State will coordinate 
     activities authorized under this section with other Federal, 
     State, and local personnel preparation and professional 
     development programs; and
       ``(5) contains such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Uses of Funds.--An eligible State that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds to reform 
     teacher preparation requirements, and to ensure that current 
     and future teachers are highly qualified and possess strong 
     teaching skills and knowledge to assess student academic 
     achievement, by carrying out 1 or more of the following 
     activities:
       ``(1) Reforms.--Implementing reforms that hold institutions 
     of higher education with teacher preparation programs 
     accountable for, and assist such programs in, preparing 
     teachers who have strong teaching skills and are highly 
     qualified or early childhood education providers who are 
     highly competent. Such reforms shall include--
       ``(A) State program approval requirements regarding 
     curriculum changes by teacher preparation programs that 
     improve teaching skills based on scientific knowledge--
       ``(i) about the disciplines of teaching and learning, 
     including effective ways to communicate with, work with, and 
     involve parents in their children's education; and
       ``(ii) about understanding and responding effectively to 
     students with special needs, including students with 
     disabilities, limited-English proficient students, students 
     with low literacy levels, and students with different 
     learning styles or other special learning needs;
       ``(B) State program approval requirements for teacher 
     preparation programs to have in place mechanisms to measure 
     and assess the effectiveness and impact of teacher 
     preparation programs, including on student achievement;
       ``(C) assurances from institutions that such institutions 
     have a program in place that provides a year-long clinical 
     experience for prospective teachers;
       ``(D) collecting and using data, in collaboration with 
     institutions of higher education, schools, and local 
     educational agencies, on teacher retention rates, by school, 
     to evaluate and strengthen the effectiveness of the State's 
     teacher support system; and
       ``(E) developing methods and building capacity for teacher 
     preparation programs to assess the retention rates of the 
     programs' graduates and to use such information for 
     continuous program improvement.
       ``(2) Certification or licensure requirements.--Ensuring 
     the State's teacher certification or licensure requirements 
     are rigorous so that teachers have strong teaching skills and 
     are highly qualified.
       ``(3) Alternative routes to state certification.--Carrying 
     out programs that provide prospective teachers with high-
     quality alternative routes to traditional preparation for 
     teaching and to State certification for well-prepared and 
     qualified prospective teachers, including--
       ``(A) programs at schools or departments of arts and 
     sciences, schools or departments of education within 
     institutions of higher education, or at nonprofit educational 
     organizations with expertise in producing highly qualified 
     teachers that include instruction in teaching skills;
       ``(B) a selective means for admitting individuals into such 
     programs;
       ``(C) providing intensive support, including induction, 
     during the initial teaching experience;
       ``(D) establishing, expanding, or improving alternative 
     routes to State certification of teachers for qualified 
     individuals, including mid-career professionals from other 
     occupations, paraprofessionals, former military personnel and 
     recent college graduates with records of academic 
     distinction, that have a proven record of effectiveness and 
     that ensure that current and future teachers possess strong 
     teaching skills and are highly qualified; and
       ``(E) providing support in the disciplines of teaching and 
     learning to ensure that prospective teachers--
       ``(i) have an understanding of evidence-based effective 
     teaching practices;
       ``(ii) have knowledge of student learning methods; and
       ``(iii) possess strong teaching skills, including effective 
     ways to communicate with, work with, and involve parents in 
     their children's education.
       ``(4) State certification reciprocity.--Establishing and 
     promoting reciprocity of certification or licensing between 
     or among States for general and special education teachers 
     and principals, except that no reciprocity agreement 
     developed pursuant to this paragraph or developed using funds 
     provided under this part may lead to the weakening of any 
     State certification or licensing requirement that is shown 
     through evidence-based research to ensure teacher and 
     principal quality and student achievement.
       ``(5) Recruitment and retention.--Developing and 
     implementing effective mechanisms to ensure that local 
     educational agencies, schools, and early childhood program 
     providers are able to effectively recruit and retain highly 
     qualified teachers, highly competent early childhood 
     education providers, and principals, and provide access to 
     ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers, 
     early childhood education providers, and principals, 
     including activities described in subsections (d) and (e) of 
     section 204.
       ``(6) Social promotion.--Development and implementation of 
     efforts to address the problem of social promotion and to 
     prepare teachers, principals, administrators, and parents to 
     effectively address the issues raised by ending the practice 
     of social promotion.''.

     SEC. 4. PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.

       Section 203 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1023) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 203. PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.

       ``(a) Grants.--From amounts made available under section 
     211(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to 
     award grants under this section, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to 
     carry out the activities described in subsections (d) and 
     (e).
       ``(b) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Eligible partnership.--In this part, the term 
     `eligible partnership' means an entity that--
       ``(A) shall include--
       ``(i) a partner institution;
       ``(ii) a school or department of arts and sciences within 
     the partner institution under clause (i);
       ``(iii) a school or department of education within the 
     partner institution under clause (i);
       ``(iv)(I) a department of psychology within the partner 
     institution under clause (i);
       ``(II) a department of human development within the partner 
     institution under clause (i); or
       ``(III) a department with comparable expertise in the 
     disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent 
     development within the partner institution under clause (i);
       ``(v) a high-need local educational agency; and
       ``(vi)(I) a high-need school served by the high-need local 
     educational agency under clause (v); or
       ``(II) a consortium of schools of the high-need local 
     educational agency under clause (v); and
       ``(B) may include a Governor, State educational agency, the 
     State board of education, the State agency for higher 
     education, an institution of higher education not described 
     in subparagraph (A) (including a community college), a public 
     charter school, other public elementary school or secondary 
     school, a combination or network of urban, suburban, or rural 
     schools, a public or private nonprofit educational 
     organization, a business, a teacher organization, or an early 
     childhood education program.
       ``(2) Partner institution.--In this section, the term 
     `partner institution' means a private independent or State-
     supported public institution of higher education, or a 
     consortium of such institutions, that has not been designated 
     under section 208(a) and the teacher preparation program of 
     which demonstrates that--
       ``(A) graduates from the teacher preparation program who 
     intend to enter the field of teaching exhibit strong 
     performance on State-determined qualifying assessments and 
     are highly qualified; or
       ``(B) the teacher preparation program requires all the 
     students of the program to participate in intensive clinical 
     experience, to meet high academic standards, to possess 
     strong teaching skills, and--
       ``(i) in the case of prospective elementary school and 
     secondary school teachers, to become highly qualified; and
       ``(ii) in the case of prospective early childhood education 
     providers, to become highly competent.
       ``(c) Application.--Each eligible partnership desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall--
       ``(1) contain a needs assessment of all the partners with 
     respect to the preparation, ongoing training, and 
     professional development of early childhood education 
     providers, general and special education teachers, and

[[Page 15233]]

     principals, the extent to which the program prepares new 
     teachers with strong teaching skills, a description of how 
     the partnership will coordinate strategies and activities 
     with other teacher preparation or professional development 
     programs, and how the activities of the partnership will be 
     consistent with State, local, and other education reform 
     activities that promote student achievement and parental 
     involvement;
       ``(2) contain a resource assessment that describes the 
     resources available to the partnership, including the 
     integration of funds from other related sources, the intended 
     use of the grant funds, including a description of how the 
     grant funds will be fairly distributed in accordance with 
     subsection (f), and the commitment of the resources of the 
     partnership to the activities assisted under this part, 
     including financial support, faculty participation, time 
     commitments, and continuation of the activities when the 
     grant ends;
       ``(3) contain a description of--
       ``(A) how the partnership will meet the purposes of this 
     part, in accordance with the needs assessment required under 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(B) how the partnership will carry out the activities 
     required under subsection (d) and any permissible activities 
     under subsection (e) based on the needs identified in 
     paragraph (1) with the goal of improving student achievement;
       ``(C) the partnership's evaluation plan pursuant to section 
     206(b);
       ``(D) how faculty at the partner institution will work 
     with, over the term of the grant, principals and teachers in 
     the classrooms of the high-need local educational agency 
     included in the partnership;
       ``(E) how the partnership will enhance the instructional 
     leadership and management skills of principals and provide 
     effective support for principals, including new principals;
       ``(F) how the partnership will design, implement, or 
     enhance a year-long, rigorous, and enriching preservice 
     clinical program component;
       ``(G) the in-service professional development strategies 
     and activities to be supported; and
       ``(H) how the partnership will collect, analyze, and use 
     data on the retention of all teachers, early childhood 
     education providers, or principals in schools located in the 
     geographic areas served by the partnership to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of its educator support system;
       ``(4) contain a certification from the partnership that it 
     has reviewed the application and determined that the grant 
     proposed will comply with subsection (f);
       ``(5) include, for the residency program described in 
     subsection (d)(3)--
       ``(A) a demonstration that the schools and departments 
     within the institution of higher education that are part of 
     the residency program have relevant and essential roles in 
     the effective preparation of teachers, including content 
     expertise and expertise in the science of teaching and 
     learning;
       ``(B) a demonstration of capability and commitment to 
     evidence-based teaching and accessibility to, and involvement 
     of, faculty documented by professional development offered to 
     staff and documented experience with university 
     collaborations;
       ``(C) a description of how the residency program will 
     design and implement an induction period to support all new 
     teachers through the first 3 years of teaching in the further 
     development of their teaching skills, including use of 
     mentors who are trained and compensated by such program for 
     their work with new teachers; and
       ``(D) a description of how faculty involved in the 
     residency program will be able to substantially participate 
     in an early childhood education program or an elementary or 
     secondary classroom setting, including release time and 
     receiving workload credit for their participation; and
       ``(6) include an assurance that the partnership has 
     mechanisms in place to measure and assess the effectiveness 
     and impact of the activities to be undertaken, including on 
     student achievement.
       ``(d) Required Uses of Funds.--An eligible partnership that 
     receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds 
     to carry out the following activities, as applicable to 
     teachers, early childhood education providers, or principals, 
     in accordance with the needs assessment required under 
     subsection (c)(1):
       ``(1) Reforms.--Implementing reforms within teacher 
     preparation programs, where needed, to hold the programs 
     accountable for preparing teachers who are highly qualified 
     or early childhood education providers who are highly 
     competent and for promoting strong teaching skills, including 
     integrating reliable evidence-based teaching methods into the 
     curriculum, which curriculum shall include parental 
     involvement training and programs designed to successfully 
     integrate technology into teaching and learning. Such reforms 
     shall include--
       ``(A) teacher preparation program curriculum changes that 
     improve, and assess how well all new teachers develop, 
     teaching skills;
       ``(B) use of scientific knowledge about the disciplines of 
     teaching and learning so that all prospective teachers--
       ``(i) understand evidence-based teaching practices;
       ``(ii) have knowledge of student learning methods; and
       ``(iii) possess teaching skills that enable them to meet 
     the learning needs of all students;
       ``(C) assurances that all teachers have a sufficient base 
     of scientific knowledge to understand and respond effectively 
     to students with special needs, such as providing instruction 
     to diverse student populations, including students with 
     disabilities, limited-English proficient students, students 
     with low literacy levels, and students with different 
     learning styles or other special learning needs;
       ``(D) assurances that the most recent scientifically based 
     research, including research relevant to particular fields of 
     teaching, is incorporated into professional development 
     activities used by faculty; and
       ``(E) working with and involving parents in their 
     children's education to improve the academic achievement of 
     their children and in the teacher preparation program reform 
     process.
       ``(2) Clinical experience and interaction.--Developing and 
     providing sustained and high-quality preservice clinical 
     education programs to further develop the teaching skills of 
     all general education teachers and special education 
     teachers, at schools within the partnership, at the school or 
     department of education within the partner institution, or at 
     evidence-based practice school settings. Such programs 
     shall--
       ``(A) incorporate a year-long, rigorous, and enriching 
     activity or combination of activities, including--
       ``(i) clinical learning opportunities;
       ``(ii) field experiences; and
       ``(iii) supervised practice; and
       ``(B) be offered over the course of a program of 
     preparation and coursework (that may be developed as a 5th 
     year of a teacher preparation program) for prospective 
     general and special education teachers, including mentoring 
     in instructional skills, classroom management skills, 
     collaboration skills, and strategies to effectively assess 
     student progress and achievement, and substantially 
     increasing closely supervised interaction between faculty and 
     new and experienced teachers, principals, and other 
     administrators at early childhood education programs, 
     elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing 
     support, including preparation time and release time, for 
     such interaction.
       ``(3) Residency programs for new teachers.--Creating a 
     residency program that provides an induction period for all 
     new general education and special education teachers for such 
     teachers' first 3 years. Such program shall promote the 
     integration of the science of teaching and learning in the 
     classroom, provide high-quality induction opportunities 
     (including mentoring), provide opportunities for the 
     dissemination of evidence-based research on educational 
     practices, and provide for opportunities to engage in 
     professional development activities offered through 
     professional associations of educators. Such program shall 
     draw directly upon the expertise of teacher mentors, faculty, 
     and researchers that involves their active support in 
     providing a setting for integrating evidence-based practice 
     for prospective teachers, including rigorous, supervised 
     training in high-quality teaching settings that promotes the 
     following:
       ``(A) Knowledge of the scientific research on teaching and 
     learning.
       ``(B) Development of skills in evidence-based educational 
     interventions.
       ``(C) Faculty who model the integration of research and 
     practice in the classroom, and the effective use and 
     integration of technology.
       ``(D) Interdisciplinary collaboration among exemplary 
     teachers, faculty, researchers, and other staff who prepare 
     new teachers on the learning process and the assessment of 
     learning.
       ``(E) A forum for information sharing among prospective 
     teachers, teachers, principals, administrators, and 
     participating faculty in the partner institution.
       ``(F) Application of scientifically based research on 
     teaching and learning generated by entities such as the 
     Institute of Education Sciences and by the National Research 
     Council.
       ``(4) Professional development.--Creating opportunities for 
     enhanced and ongoing professional development for experienced 
     general education and special education teachers, early 
     childhood education providers, principals, administrators, 
     and faculty that--
       ``(A) improves the academic content knowledge, as well as 
     knowledge to assess student academic achievement and how to 
     use the results of such assessments to improve instruction, 
     of teachers in the subject matter or academic content areas 
     in which the teachers are certified to teach or in which the 
     teachers are working toward certification to teach;
       ``(B) promotes strong teaching skills and an understanding 
     of how to apply scientific knowledge about teaching and 
     learning to their teaching practice and to their ongoing 
     classroom assessment of students;
       ``(C) provides mentoring, team teaching, reduced class 
     schedules, and intensive professional development;

[[Page 15234]]

       ``(D) encourages and supports training of teachers, 
     principals, and administrators to effectively use and 
     integrate technology--
       ``(i) into curricula and instruction, including training to 
     improve the ability to collect, manage, and analyze data to 
     improve teaching, decisionmaking, school improvement efforts, 
     and accountability; and
       ``(ii) to enhance learning by children, including students 
     with disabilities, limited-English proficient students, 
     students with low literacy levels, and students with 
     different learning styles or other special learning needs;
       ``(E) offers teachers, principals, and administrators 
     training on how to effectively communicate with, work with, 
     and involve parents in their children's education;
       ``(F) creates an ongoing retraining loop for experienced 
     teachers, principals, and administrators, whereby the 
     residency program activities and practices--
       ``(i) inform the research of faculty and other researchers; 
     and
       ``(ii) translate evidence-based research findings into 
     improved practice techniques and improved teacher preparation 
     programs; and
       ``(G) includes the rotation, for varying periods of time, 
     of experienced teachers--
       ``(i) who are associated with the partnership to early 
     childhood education programs, elementary schools, or 
     secondary schools not associated with the partnership in 
     order to enable such experienced teachers to act as a 
     resource for all teachers in the local educational agency or 
     State; and
       ``(ii) who are not associated with the partnership to early 
     childhood education programs, elementary schools, or 
     secondary schools associated with the partnership in order to 
     enable such experienced teachers to observe how teaching and 
     professional development occurs in the partnership.
       ``(5) Support and training for participants.--Providing 
     support and training for those individuals participating in 
     the required activities under paragraphs (1) through (4) who 
     serve as role models or mentors for prospective, new, and 
     experienced teachers, based on such individuals' experience. 
     Such support--
       ``(A) also may be provided to the preservice clinical 
     experience participants, as appropriate; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) release time for such individual's participation;
       ``(ii) receiving course workload credit and compensation 
     for time teaching in the partnership activities; and
       ``(iii) stipends.
       ``(6) Leadership and managerial skills.--
       ``(A) In general.--Developing and implementing proven 
     mechanisms to provide principals, superintendents, early 
     childhood education program directors, and administrators 
     (and mentor teachers, as practicable) with--
       ``(i) an understanding of the skills and behaviors that 
     contribute to effective instructional leadership and the 
     maintenance of a safe and effective learning environment;
       ``(ii) teaching and assessment skills needed to support 
     successful classroom teaching;
       ``(iii) an understanding of how students learn and develop 
     in order to increase achievement for all students; and
       ``(iv) the skills to effectively involve parents.
       ``(B) Mechanisms.--The mechanisms developed and implemented 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) may include any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Mentoring of new principals.
       ``(ii) Field-based experiences, supervised practica, or 
     internship opportunities.
       ``(iii) Other activities to expand the knowledge base and 
     practical skills of principals, superintendents, early 
     childhood education program directors, and administrators 
     (and mentor teachers, as practicable).
       ``(e) Allowable Uses of Funds.--An eligible partnership 
     that receives a grant under this section may use such funds 
     to carry out the following activities:
       ``(1) Dissemination and coordination.--Broadly 
     disseminating information on effective practices used by the 
     partnership, including teaching strategies and interactive 
     materials for developing skills in classroom management and 
     assessment and how to respond to individual student needs, 
     abilities, and backgrounds, to early childhood education 
     providers and teachers in elementary schools or secondary 
     schools that are not associated with the partnership. 
     Coordinating with the activities of the Governor, State board 
     of education, State higher education agency, and State 
     educational agency, as appropriate.
       ``(2) Curriculum preparation.--Supporting preparation time 
     for early childhood education providers, teachers in 
     elementary schools or secondary schools, and faculty to 
     jointly design and implement teacher preparation curricula, 
     classroom experiences, and ongoing professional development 
     opportunities that promote the acquisition and continued 
     growth of teaching skills.
       ``(3) Communication skills.--Developing strategies and 
     curriculum-based professional development activities to 
     enhance prospective teachers' communication skills with 
     students, parents, colleagues, and other education 
     professionals.
       ``(4) Coordination with other institutions of higher 
     education.--Coordinating with other institutions of higher 
     education, including community colleges, to implement teacher 
     preparation programs that support prospective teachers in 
     obtaining baccalaureate degrees and State certification or 
     licensure.
       ``(5) Teacher recruitment.--Activities described in 
     subsections (d) and (e) of section 204.
       ``(6) Program improvement.--Developing, for teacher 
     preparation program improvement purposes, methods and 
     infrastructure to assess retention rates in the teaching 
     field of teacher preparation program graduates and the 
     achievement outcomes of such graduates' students.
       ``(f) Special Rule.--No individual member of an eligible 
     partnership shall retain more than 50 percent of the funds 
     made available to the partnership under this section.
       ``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit an eligible partnership from using 
     grant funds to coordinate with the activities of more than 1 
     Governor, State board of education, State educational agency, 
     local educational agency, or State agency for higher 
     education.''.

     SEC. 5. RECRUITMENT GRANTS.

       Section 204 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1024) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 204. RECRUITMENT GRANTS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts made available 
     under section 211(3) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible applicants to enable the eligible applicants to 
     carry out activities described in subsections (d) and (e).
       ``(b) Eligible Applicant Defined.--In this part, the term 
     `eligible applicant' means--
       ``(1) an eligible State described in section 202(b) that 
     has--
       ``(A) high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates; or
       ``(B) high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates of 20 
     percent or more in high-need local educational agencies; or
       ``(2) an eligible partnership described in section 203(b) 
     that--
       ``(A) serves not less than 1 high-need local educational 
     agency with high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates 
     of 20 percent or more;
       ``(B) serves schools that demonstrate great difficulty 
     meeting State challenging academic content standards; or
       ``(C) demonstrates great difficulty meeting the requirement 
     that teachers be highly qualified.
       ``(c) Application.--Any eligible applicant desiring to 
     receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(1) a description of the assessment that the eligible 
     applicant, and the other entities with whom the eligible 
     applicant will carry out the grant activities, have 
     undertaken to determine the most critical needs of the 
     participating high-need local educational agencies;
       ``(2) a description of how the eligible applicant will 
     recruit and retain highly qualified teachers or other 
     qualified individuals, including principals and early 
     childhood education providers, or both, who are enrolled in, 
     accepted to, or plan to participate in teacher preparation 
     programs or professional development activities, as described 
     under section 203, in geographic areas of greatest need, 
     including data on the retention rate, by school, of all 
     teachers in schools located within the geographic areas 
     served by the eligible applicant;
       ``(3) a description of the activities the eligible 
     applicant will carry out with the grant; and
       ``(4) a description of the eligible applicant's plan for 
     continuing the activities carried out with the grant once 
     Federal funding ceases.
       ``(d) Required Uses of Funds.--An eligible applicant 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds--
       ``(1)(A) to award scholarships to help students pay the 
     costs of tuition, room, board, and other expenses of 
     completing a teacher preparation program;
       ``(B) to provide support services, if needed, to enable 
     scholarship recipients to complete postsecondary education 
     programs;
       ``(C) for followup services (including induction 
     opportunities, mentoring, and professional development 
     activities) provided to former scholarship recipients during 
     the recipients first 3 years of teaching; and
       ``(D) in the case where the eligible applicant also 
     receives a grant under section 203, for support and training 
     for mentor teachers who participate in the residency program; 
     or
       ``(2) to develop and implement effective mechanisms, 
     including a professional development system and career 
     ladders, to ensure that high-need local educational agencies, 
     high-need schools, and early childhood education programs are 
     able to effectively recruit and retain highly competent early 
     childhood education providers, highly qualified teachers, and 
     principals.
       ``(e) Allowable Use of Funds.--An eligible applicant 
     receiving a grant under this section may use the grant funds 
     to carry out the following:
       ``(1) Outreach.--Conducting outreach and coordinating with 
     urban and rural secondary

[[Page 15235]]

     schools to encourage students to pursue teaching as a career.
       ``(2) Early childhood education compensation.--For eligible 
     applicants focusing on early childhood education, 
     implementing initiatives that increase compensation of early 
     childhood education providers who attain degrees in early 
     childhood education.
       ``(3) Program improvement.--Developing, for teacher 
     preparation program improvement purposes, methods and 
     infrastructure to assess retention rates in the teaching 
     field of teacher preparation program graduates and the 
     achievement outcomes of such graduates' students.
       ``(f) Service Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish 
     such requirements as the Secretary finds necessary to ensure 
     that recipients of scholarships under this section who 
     complete teacher education programs subsequently teach in a 
     high-need local educational agency, for a period of time 
     equivalent to the period for which the recipients receive 
     scholarship assistance, or repay the amount of the 
     scholarship. The Secretary shall use any such repayments to 
     carry out additional activities under this section.''.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       Section 205 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1025) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``One-Time Awards;'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Composition of panel.--The peer review panel shall be 
     composed of experts who are competent, by virtue of their 
     training, expertise, or experience, to evaluate applications 
     for grants under this part. A majority of the panel shall be 
     composed of individuals who are not employees of the Federal 
     Government.'';
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Evaluation and priority.--The peer review panel shall 
     evaluate the applicants' proposals to improve the current and 
     future teaching force through program and certification 
     reforms, teacher preparation program activities (including 
     implementation and assessment strategies), and professional 
     development activities described in sections 202, 203, and 
     204, as appropriate. In recommending applications to the 
     Secretary for funding under this part, the peer review panel 
     shall--
       ``(A) with respect to grants under section 202, give 
     priority to eligible States that--
       ``(i) have initiatives to reform State program approval 
     requirements for teacher preparation programs that are 
     designed to ensure that current and future teachers are 
     highly qualified and possess strong teaching skills, 
     knowledge to assess student academic achievement, and the 
     ability to use this information in such teachers' classroom 
     instruction;
       ``(ii) include innovative reforms to hold institutions of 
     higher education with teacher preparation programs 
     accountable for preparing teachers who are highly qualified 
     and have strong teaching skills; or
       ``(iii) involve the development of innovative efforts aimed 
     at reducing the shortage of--

       ``(I) highly qualified teachers in high-poverty urban and 
     rural areas; and
       ``(II) highly qualified teachers in fields with 
     persistently high teacher shortages, including special 
     education;

       ``(B) with respect to grants under section 203--
       ``(i) give priority to applications from eligible 
     partnerships that involve broad participation within the 
     community, including businesses; and
       ``(ii) take into consideration--

       ``(I) providing an equitable geographic distribution of the 
     grants throughout the United States; and
       ``(II) the potential of the proposed activities for 
     creating improvement and positive change; and

       ``(C) with respect to grants under section 204, give 
     priority to eligible applicants that have in place, or in 
     progress, articulation agreements between 2- and 4-year 
     public and private institutions of higher education and 
     nonprofit providers of professional development with 
     demonstrated experience in professional development 
     activities.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The 
     Secretary may use available funds appropriated to carry out 
     this part to pay the expenses and fees of peer review panel 
     members who are not employees of the Federal Government.''; 
     and
       (3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Technical Assistance.--For each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may expend not more than $500,000 or 0.75 percent 
     of the funds appropriated to carry out this title for such 
     fiscal year, whichever amount is greater, to provide 
     technical assistance to States and partnerships receiving 
     grants under this part.''.

     SEC. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION.

       Section 206 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1026) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, including,'' and all 
     that follows through the period and inserting ``as a highly 
     qualified teacher.'';
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``highly''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``that 
     meet the same standards and criteria of State certification 
     or licensure programs.'';
       (D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Teacher and provider qualifications.--
       ``(A) Elementary and secondary school classes.--Increasing 
     the percentage of elementary school and secondary school 
     classes taught by teachers--
       ``(i) who have strong teaching skills and are highly 
     qualified;
       ``(ii) who have completed preparation programs that provide 
     such teachers with the scientific knowledge about the 
     disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent 
     development so the teachers understand and use evidence-based 
     teaching skills to meet the learning needs of all students; 
     or
       ``(iii) who have completed a residency program throughout 
     their first 3 years of teaching that includes mentoring by 
     faculty who are trained and compensated for their work with 
     new teachers.
       ``(B) Early childhood education programs.--Increasing the 
     percentage of classrooms in early childhood education 
     programs taught by providers who are highly competent.'';
       (E) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Decreasing shortages.--Decreasing shortages of--
       ``(A) qualified teachers and principals in poor urban and 
     rural areas; and
       ``(B) qualified teachers in fields with persistently high 
     teacher shortages, including special education.''; and
       (F) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6) Increasing opportunities for professional 
     development.--Increasing opportunities for enhanced and 
     ongoing professional development that--
       ``(A) improves--
       ``(i) the knowledge and skills of early childhood education 
     providers;
       ``(ii) the knowledge of teachers in special education;
       ``(iii) the knowledge of general education teachers, 
     principals, and administrators about special education 
     content and instructional practices;
       ``(iv) the knowledge and skills to assess student academic 
     achievement and use the results of such assessments to 
     improve instruction;
       ``(v) the knowledge of subject matter or academic content 
     areas--

       ``(I) in which the teachers are certified or licensed to 
     teach; or
       ``(II) in which the teachers are working toward 
     certification or licensure to teach; or

       ``(vi) the knowledge and skills to effectively communicate 
     with, work with, and involve parents in their children's 
     education;
       ``(B) promotes strong teaching skills and an understanding 
     of how to apply scientific knowledge about teaching and 
     learning to teachers' teaching practice and to teachers' 
     ongoing classroom assessment of students; and
       ``(C) provides enhanced instructional leadership and 
     management skills for principals.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``for'' and inserting ``for teachers, early childhood 
     education providers, or principals, as appropriate, according 
     to the needs analysis required under section 203(c)(1), 
     for''; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1) through (6) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) increased demonstration by program graduates of 
     teaching skills grounded in scientific knowledge about the 
     disciplines of teaching and learning;
       ``(2) increased student achievement for all students as 
     measured by the partnership, including mechanisms to measure 
     student achievement due to the specific activities conducted 
     by the partnership;
       ``(3) increased teacher retention in the first 3 years of a 
     teacher's career based, in part, on teacher retention data 
     collected as described in section 203(c)(3)(H);
       ``(4) increased success in the pass rate for initial State 
     certification or licensure of teachers;
       ``(5) increased percentage of elementary school and 
     secondary school classes taught by teachers who are highly 
     qualified;
       ``(6) increased percentage of early childhood education 
     program classes taught by providers who are highly competent;
       ``(7) increased percentage of early childhood education 
     programs and elementary school and secondary school classes 
     taught by providers and teachers who demonstrate

[[Page 15236]]

     clinical judgment, communication, and problem-solving skills 
     resulting from participation in a residency program;
       ``(8) increased percentage of highly qualified special 
     education teachers;
       ``(9) increased number of general education teachers 
     trained in working with students with disabilities, limited-
     English proficient students, and students with different 
     learning styles or other special learning needs;
       ``(10) increased number of teachers trained in technology; 
     and
       ``(11) increased number of teachers, early childhood 
     education providers, or principals prepared to work 
     effectively with parents.''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``, with particular attention to the 
     reports and evaluations provided by the eligible States and 
     eligible partnerships pursuant to this section,'' after 
     ``funded under this part''; and
       (B) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources'' 
     and inserting ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions''.

     SEC. 8. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROGRAMS THAT PREPARE TEACHERS.

       Section 207 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1027) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as 
     subsections (a) through (e), respectively;
       (3) in subsection (a), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``, 
     within 2 years'' and all that follows through ``the 
     following'' and inserting ``, on an annual basis and in a 
     uniform and comprehensible manner that conforms with the 
     definitions and reporting methods previously developed for 
     teacher preparation programs by the Commissioner of the 
     National Center for Education Statistics, a State report card 
     on the quality of teacher preparation in the State, which 
     shall include not less than the following'';
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``teaching candidates'' and inserting 
     ``prospective teachers''; and
       (ii) by striking ``candidate'' and inserting ``prospective 
     teacher'';
       (C) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``teaching candidates'' and inserting 
     ``prospective teachers'';
       (ii) by striking ``teacher candidate'' and inserting 
     ``prospective teacher''; and
       (iii) by striking ``candidate's'' and inserting 
     ``teacher's'';
       (D) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``how the State has 
     ensured that the alternative certification routes meet the 
     same State standards and criteria for teacher certification 
     or licensure,'' after ``if any,'';
       (E) in paragraph (8)--
       (i) by striking ``teacher candidate'' and inserting 
     ``prospective teacher''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(including the ability to provide 
     instruction to diverse student populations (including 
     students with disabilities, limited-English proficient 
     students, and students with different learning styles or 
     other special learning needs) and the ability to effectively 
     communicate with, work with, and involve parents in their 
     children's education)'' after ``skills'';
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) Information on the extent to which teachers or 
     prospective teachers in each State are prepared to work in 
     partnership with parents and involve parents in their 
     children's education.'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(1), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2)--
       (A) by striking ``not later than 6 months of the date of 
     enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and'';
       (B) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)'';
       (C) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources'' 
     and inserting ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions''; and
       (D) by striking ``not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998'';
       (5) in subsection (c)(1), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2)--
       (A) by striking ``(9) of subsection (b)'' and inserting 
     ``(10) of subsection (a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``and made available not later than 2 years 
     6 months after the date of enactment of the Higher Education 
     Amendments of 1998 and annually thereafter'' and inserting 
     ``, and made available annually''; and
       (6) in subsection (e)(1), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2)--
       (A) by striking ``not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and 
     annually thereafter, shall report'' and inserting ``shall 
     report annually''; and
       (B) by striking ``methods established under subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``reporting methods developed for teacher 
     preparation programs''.

     SEC. 9. STATE FUNCTIONS.

       Section 208 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1028) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``, not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998,'';
       (B) by inserting ``and within entities providing 
     alternative routes to teacher preparation'' after 
     ``institutions of higher education'';
       (C) by inserting ``and entities'' after ``low-performing 
     institutions'';
       (D) by inserting ``and entities'' after ``those 
     institutions''; and
       (E) by striking ``207(b)'' and inserting ``207(a)'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Teacher Quality Plan.--In order to receive funds 
     under this Act, a State shall submit a State teacher quality 
     plan that--
       ``(1) details how such funds will ensure that all teachers 
     are highly qualified; and
       ``(2) indicates whether each teacher preparation program in 
     the State that has not been designated as low-performing 
     under subsection (a) is of sufficient quality to meet all 
     State standards and produce highly qualified teachers with 
     the teaching skills needed to teach effectively in the 
     schools of the State.'';
       (4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of Education''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``of this Act''; and
       (5) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 10. ACADEMIES FOR FACULTY EXCELLENCE.

       Part A of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 210 as section 211; and
       (2) by inserting after section 209 the following:

     ``SEC. 210. ACADEMIES FOR FACULTY EXCELLENCE.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts made available 
     under subsection (e), the Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to eligible entities to enable such entities to create 
     Academies for Faculty Excellence.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     consortium composed of institutions of higher education 
     that--
       ``(A) award doctoral degrees in education; and
       ``(B) are partner institutions (as such term is defined in 
     section 203).
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The term `eligible entity' may include 
     the following:
       ``(A) Institutions of higher education that--
       ``(i) do not award doctoral degrees in education; and
       ``(ii) are partner institutions (as such term is defined in 
     section 203).
       ``(B) Nonprofit entities with expertise in preparing highly 
     qualified teachers.
       ``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring to receive 
     a grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1) a description of how the eligible entity will provide 
     professional development that is grounded in scientifically 
     based research to faculty;
       ``(2) evidence that the eligible entity is well versed in 
     current scientifically based research related to teaching and 
     learning across content areas and fields;
       ``(3) a description of the assessment that the eligible 
     entity will undertake to determine the most critical needs of 
     the faculty who will be served by the Academies for Faculty 
     Excellence; and
       ``(4) a description of the activities the eligible entity 
     will carry out with grant funds received under this section, 
     how the entity will include faculty in the activities, and 
     how the entity will conduct these activities in collaboration 
     with programs and projects that receive Federal funds from 
     the Institute of Education Sciences.
       ``(d) Required Use of Funds.--Each eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds 
     to enhance the caliber of teaching undertaken in preparation 
     programs for teachers, early childhood education providers, 
     and principals and other administrators through the 
     establishment and maintenance of a postdoctoral system of 
     professional development by carrying out the following:
       ``(1) Recruitment.--Recruit a faculty of experts who are 
     knowledgeable about scientifically based research related to 
     teaching and learning, who have direct experience working 
     with teachers and students in school settings, who are 
     capable of implementing scientifically based research to 
     improve teaching practice and student achievement in school 
     settings, and who are capable of providing professional 
     development to faculty and others responsible for preparing 
     teachers, early childhood education providers, principals, 
     and administrators.
       ``(2) Professional development curricula.--Develop a series 
     of professional development curricula to be used by the 
     Academies for Faculty Excellence and disseminated broadly to 
     teacher preparation programs nationwide.
       ``(3) Professional development experiences.--Support the 
     development of a range

[[Page 15237]]

     of ongoing professional development experiences (including 
     the use of the Internet) for faculty to ensure that such 
     faculty are knowledgeable about effective evidence-based 
     practice in teaching and learning. Such experiences shall 
     promote joint faculty activities that link content and 
     pedagogy.
       ``(4) Development programs.--Provide fellowships, 
     scholarships, and stipends for teacher educators to 
     participate in various faculty development programs offered 
     by the Academies for Faculty Excellence.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 211 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     redesignated by section 10, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``part $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999'' 
     and inserting ``part, other than section 210, $500,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006'';
       (2) by striking ``4 succeeding'' and inserting ``5 
     succeeding'';
       (3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``45'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (4) in paragraph (2), by striking ``45'' and inserting 
     ``60''; and
       (5) in paragraph (3), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``20''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1366. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for 
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by Senators 
Snowe, Kerry, Smith, and Schumer in re-introducing legislation we call 
the Public Good IRA Rollover Act to allow taxpayers to make tax-free 
distributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for 
gifts to charity. I think that the charitable IRA rollover approach in 
this legislation, which has received strong support from the charitable 
community, will encourage significant new giving.
  As a Nation, we often look to a strong network of charities, large 
and small, to offer financial and other support to families and 
individuals who need help when government assistance is unavailable. 
That is why I think it's critically important for Congress to do 
everything we can to help encourage the work of worthy charities.
  Unfortunately, Congress has tried but failed in the past several 
years to pass major legislation that would be helpful to the Nation's 
charities. This legislation has stalled, in part, because of the 
efforts of some in Congress to add controversial measures that 
undermine the bipartisan support needed to enact this kind of 
legislation into law.
  One of the non-controversial tax incentives included in the Senate's 
version of that legislation is our measure that would permit 
individuals to make gifts to charities from their IRAs without adverse 
tax consequences. I have previously described on the Senate floor that 
charities are frequently asked by people about using their IRAs to make 
charitable donations. However, I'm told that many donors decide not to 
make a gift from their IRAs after they are told about the potential tax 
consequences under current law.
  The Public Good IRA Rollover Act would eliminate this obstacle. 
Specifically, the bill we are introducing today would allow individuals 
to make tax-free distributions to charities from their IRAs at the age 
of 70\1/2\ for direct gifts and age 59\1/2\ for life-income gifts. 
These changes to the Tax Code could put billions of additional dollars 
from a new source to work for the public good.
  Tax-favored charitable IRA rollovers have previously garnered broad 
bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate. In fact, the Senate-passed CARE Act in the last Congress 
included the provisions of our bill.
  The Bush administration also supports charitable IRA rollovers. In 
his FY 2006 budget submission, President Bush has proposed, once again, 
to allow individuals to make certain tax-free charitable IRA 
distributions after age 65. While the President's charitable IRA 
proposal has merit, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act is superior in one 
important respect: By allowing tax-free life-income gifts from an IRA. 
Life-income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where 
the giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined 
period. Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise 
funds, and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from 
IRAs. But life-income gifts are not part of the administration's 
proposal. Again, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act permits individuals 
to make tax-free life-income gifts at the age of 59\1/2\.
  When the Senate Finance Committee crafts charitable giving tax 
incentive legislation in the 109th Congress, I hope they will adopt, 
once again, the IRA charitable rollover approach used in the Public 
Good IRA Rollover Act. The benefits of this approach are two-fold. 
First, the life-income gift provision in our bill would stimulate 
additional charitable giving. The evidence also suggests that people 
who make life-income gifts often become more involved with charities. 
They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues to make 
charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions for 
charity in their life-time giving plans and at death. Second, this 
approach comes at little or no extra cost to the government when 
compared to other major charitable IRA rollover proposals.
  In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to review and consider 
cosponsoring this bill. With your help, we can help enact into law tax-
free IRA rollover provisions that a senior official from a major 
charity once said would be ``the single most important piece of 
legislation in the history of public charitable support in this 
country.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 1367. A bill to provide for recruiting, selecting, training, and 
supporting national teacher corps in underserved communities; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Reid, 
Senator DeWine, and Senator Clinton to introduce a bill to authorize 
funding for the Teach for America program. Teach for America, TFA, 
calls upon our Nation's most promising future leaders, recent college 
graduates of all backgrounds and academic majors, to spend two years 
teaching in schools in lower income areas, usually inner cities or 
rural communities. Our legislation authorizes up to $25 million so that 
the highly successful program, which began as a privately funded, non-
profit effort, can rapidly expand.
  TFA was founded in 1990 by Wendy Kopp, a young woman who had just 
graduated from Princeton. It served just six communities in that first 
year. Today it serves 22, and hopes to keep growing. TFA raises more 
than 75 percent of its operating budget through non-Federal sources, 
primarily through philanthropic gifts in the communities it serves.
  The results of this program have been notable, as reported in a study 
last year by Mathematica Policy Research, an independent research firm: 
``Even though Teach for America teachers generally lack any formal 
teacher training beyond that provided by Teach for America, they 
produce higher student test scores than the other teachers in their 
schools--not just other novice teachers or uncertified teachers, but 
also veterans and certified teachers.''
  Probably more exciting than the success of the program in teaching 
students is the impact it has had on its ``corps members.'' Teach for 
America isn't just for education majors, it's primarily there to 
attract highly successful college graduates who wouldn't otherwise go 
into education. Of its 9,000 alumni, 60 percent are still involved in 
education today. The 2005 National Teacher of the Year, Jason Kamras, a 
teacher here in Washington, DC, who was honored in a Rose Garden 
ceremony by President Bush, is an alumnus of Teach for America. And my 
own education policy advisor is also an alumna of the program.
  So, in addition to providing better education for students in poorer 
school systems, this program is creating a new cadre of highly talented 
and highly motivated individuals who now understand what it's like to 
teach in a

[[Page 15238]]

classroom and who are dedicated to improving our education system. 
That's probably the greatest benefit of the program.
  And that's why I'm glad to join the Senator from Nevada in 
introducing this legislation to provide Federal funding to help TFA 
expand to new communities and recruit even more corps members.
  Teach for America is aiming to grow from 3,000 to 8,000 corps 
members, from 22 to 35 regional sites, and from 250,000 to 700,000 
students by 2010. To reach these growth goals, the program must recruit 
more than 4,000 new teachers each year by 2010, and it must grow its 
total annual budget from $40 million today to $100 million by 2010.
  The legislation that Senator Reid and I offer today will not turn 
Teach for America into a Federal program, but it will supplement their 
privately raised funds to help TFA attain their worthy goals. The bill 
provides up to $25 million to that end. Interest by college graduates 
in TFA is very high--17,000 applied for the 2,100 teaching slots last 
year. Additional funding will allow more of those 17,000 to serve 
poorer children in classrooms across the country.
  In the upcoming issue of U.S. News and World Report, there is an 
excellent article about Teach for America by David Gergen. I ask 
unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  I hope other Senators will join with the Senator from Nevada and I in 
supporting this important legislation. Teach for America has helped 
more than 1 million students and is creating a highly talented pool of 
individuals to advance our education system into the next century. 
Providing Federal support to this non-profit program will help it 
expand not only to help more students, but also to create an even wider 
and stronger pool of talented individuals to advocate the best for our 
schools for decades to come.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the U.S. News & World Report, July 4, 2005]

                        A Teacher Success Story

                           (By David Gergen)

       With tribal warfare spreading in politics, corporate 
     chieftains heading to jail, the news media sinking, and 
     casualties rising in Iraq, it's easy these days to be 
     discouraged. No wonder over 60 percent of Americans think the 
     country has swerved off track. But hold on. To lift your 
     spirits, just spend a little time with leaders of the younger 
     generation.
       This spring on many college campuses, something absolutely 
     remarkable happened: Talented young people lined up by the 
     scores to teach lower-income kids in urban and rural public 
     schools. In years past, investment banks like Goldman Sachs 
     were the recruiting powerhouses at top campuses; this year, 
     they were joined by Teach for America, a program that 
     expresses the fresh idealism and social values of this new 
     generation.
       At Yale, no fewer than 12 percent of the graduating 
     seniors--nearly 1 out of every 8--applied. At Dartmouth and 
     Amherst, some 11 percent did; at Harvard and Princeton, 8 
     percent. Hundreds more signed up at Northwestern, Boston 
     College, the University of Texas, and the University of 
     California-Los Angeles. Altogether, over 17,000 seniors 
     applied for 2,100 openings.
       A few words of background: Sixteen years ago, Teach for 
     America was merely an idea in a thesis by a Princeton senior, 
     Wendy Kopp. She thought the country needed an organization 
     modeled after the Peace Corps that would attract top college 
     graduates into classrooms with poor kids. With thesis in 
     hand, she bravely ventured out to raise money, find recruits, 
     and find school superintendents who would hire them. Kopp 
     experienced the bumps and detours of every new start-up, but 
     a year later, she had 500 recruits.
       This summer, the newest class of teachers will enroll in a 
     five-week training institute to prepare them for the 
     classroom. In the fall, they will report for work at some of 
     the toughest public schools in America, classified by the 
     federal government as ``high need.'' Some 95 percent of their 
     students will be minorities. Each member of the program is 
     committed to two years of teaching, paid by the local school 
     systems at the same rate as other starting teachers; at the 
     end of their service, they may qualify for a $9,500 
     scholarship for graduate study.
       As you can imagine, skeptics have popped up all along the 
     way: professors at schools of education scoffing that college 
     graduates who haven't enrolled in formal teacher education 
     will never succeed in the classroom; cynics who say that 
     these are just a bunch of elitist kids punching their tickets 
     to make it into law or business school who will then turn 
     their backs on social reform. Well, the doubters just don't 
     get this young generation.
       A year ago, Mathematica Policy Research found that students 
     of Teach for America recruits got better results in math and 
     the same gains in reading as did those of other teachers, 
     including veteran instructors. In math, the TFA students made 
     a month more progress than other students. The results partly 
     reflect the fact that 70 percent of Teach for America 
     volunteers come from among the nation's most highly rated 
     colleges, compared with fewer than 3 percent of other 
     teachers; the results also reflect the passion that these 
     volunteers bring to their work.
       Dedicated to the cause. The 10,000 alumni of TFA have not 
     turned their backs after their service, either. The 
     organization says that nearly two thirds still work full time 
     in education, most in low-income communities. TFA alum Jason 
     Kamras, a math teacher in a Washington, D.C., public school, 
     was just named national teacher of the year. Two other 
     alumni, Mike Feinberg and David Levin, founded and now run 
     what is probably the most successful set of charter schools 
     in the country: the KIPP academies (Knowledge Is Power 
     Program). Started in Houston and New York, the academies have 
     become a network of 38 schools in low-income communities that 
     demand extra studies by students, balance that with 
     extracurricular activities like martial arts, music, chess, 
     and sports, and--guess what?--have achieved the largest and 
     quickest improvement in learning around the country. No fewer 
     than 25 principals in KIPP schools are alumni of Teach for 
     America.
       What does all this mean? First, the nation owes a debt of 
     gratitude to Wendy Kopp. She represents the emergence of a 
     new breed of social entrepreneur, talented doers who are 
     unleashing their generation's innovation and idealism to 
     address long-standing social problems. Even as they struggle 
     for the resources to turn their visions into reality, the 
     success of Kopp and others shows that this has the makings of 
     a social movement.
       But it also shows that the rest of us need to wake up and 
     see what we can do to help. It's time for the country to 
     embrace the national service movement with serious money--not 
     the cheap change we are putting today into AmeriCorps. It's 
     time to scale up nonprofits so that when 17,000 kids 
     volunteer, there are 17,000 openings. It's time, in short, to 
     recognize the greatness that lies in the next generation.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Alexander in 
introducing this legislation authorizing Teach for America to recruit, 
select, train, and support its national teacher corps in underserved 
communities.
  This bill comes at a crucial time. Federal law now requires more from 
our teachers, yet we have dwindling resources to draw from.
  Many local education agencies are finding themselves having to 
supplement their teacher corps.
  Clark County, NV, is the fifth largest school district in the 
Nation--in the fastest growing State. As one can only imagine, the 
influx of new residents has an incredible impact on our public works, 
especially our schools.
  Clark County's outgoing superintendent told me that the district 
spends close to $1 million annually for teacher recruitment efforts 
across the country.
  Clark County School District has made great strides in its commitment 
to reversing the trend of sagging high school graduation rates and 
college attendance by hiring nearly 2,000 new teachers a year to fill 
its classrooms.
  But, last year, the school district did something that several other 
urban and rural districts around the country did: they partnered with 
Teach for America in order to augment their qualified teaching staffs.
  Founded by Wendy Kopp, who conceived the idea for the program in her 
senior thesis at Princeton, Teach for America recruits some of the 
Nation's best college graduates to become teachers in low-performing 
urban or rural school districts for 2 years.
  From the 500 college graduates who began teaching in its inaugural 
year, Teach for America has grown to more than 3,100 corps members 
teaching in 21 regions across the country.
  Indeed, this highly selective program--in which only 2,000 out of 
16,000 applicants were accepted in 2003--has a powerful impact on the 
communities in which it serves.
  This legislation authorizes Teach for America to receive $25 million 
to execute several activities related to teacher readiness, 
recruitment, and placement. Reports are also required, citing the 
progress of the Teach for America corps members.

[[Page 15239]]

  I would not be Senator if it had not been for a couple of dedicated 
teachers. One teacher was Ms. Dorothy Robinson. Ms. Robinson pulled me 
out of class one day and said, ``Harry, I've watched your progress and 
I really think you should go to college and become a lawyer.''
  I said, ``OK,'' and went back to class.
  That is why I have dedicated myself at the Federal level to ensure 
that Teach for America and Clark County have the resources they need to 
continue this partnership.

                          ____________________