[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2216-2220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
Reed, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 371. A bill to provide for college quality, affordability, and 
diversity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to extend 
the promise of a quality education to all from birth through college. 
The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education 
and character of our people.
  Every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college 
should be able to go to college, unstopped by inability to pay.
  Jobs requiring post-secondary education are expected to account for 
over 40 percent of total job growth over the next decade. Workers with 
a bachelor's degree earn $1 million more over a lifetime than workers 
without a degree.
  But only 40 percent of whites, 30 percent of African Americans, and 
16 percent of Latinos age 18 to 24 attend college. Just as unsettling, 
is that over 40 percent of those who do attend college fail to earn a 
bachelor's degree within 6 years of their initial enrollment, and for 
minorities the percentage is far worse.
  We have to do more to help qualified students attend and finish 
college unburdened by crushing debt, and we must do more to help 
colleges train more and better teachers so that future college students 
are better prepared.
  Today, along with Democratic colleagues on the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee, I am introducing the College Quality, 
Affordability, and Diversity Improvement, QUAD, Act of 2005 to 
highlight our proposals to extend college opportunity.
  First and foremost, our bill helps more needy and middle class 
students be able to attend college. It increases the maximum Pell grant 
by $1,000 next year in order to keep pace with tuition increases. It 
doubles the maximum Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, makes it available for 
4 years of education instead of the current 2, and makes it refundable.
  Our bill helps alleviate student debt burden by eliminating 
origination fees on subsidized loans. It enables over 5 million 
borrowers with consolidated loans to refinance their loans just as they 
would a home mortgage to take advantage of lower interest rates.
  Our bill provides a new incentive to colleges to go into the Direct 
Loan program. The Direct Loan program saves the government and 
taxpayers money--11 cents on every dollar lent, according to the 
President's latest budget and Congressional Budget Office estimates. 
Under this bill, no one is forced into the Direct Loan program, but 
colleges in that cost-efficient program will get more funding dedicated 
to helping needy students. If private lenders are inspired to match or 
beat Direct Loan program associated benefits with their ``school as 
lender'' program, so be it. Either way, this proposal is a win for 
colleges, students and taxpayers.
  Our bill provides increased support for minority and first-generation 
college students through increased funding for successful programs such 
as TRIO and GEAR Up, as well as support for minority-serving 
institutions. It also creates a new program to help ensure poor and 
minority students stay in and finish college.
  To help meet our goal under No Child Left Behind to ensure a 
qualified teacher in every classroom, the bill expands and strengthens 
programs to recruit, train, and retain highly qualified teachers, 
paraprofessionals, principals, and superintendents.
  Because of the high costs of higher education for everyone, and 
because each individual's private interest in a college education is in 
our common interest, our bill works to help both low-income and hard-
pressed middle income families send their children to college and 
graduate.
  I hope the majority will look carefully at all the proposals 
contained in this legislation to see where we can find common ground.
  We should all commit that cost will never be a barrier to a college 
degree. Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we 
should make ``education security'' a promise to every young American. 
If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a 
college, we will guarantee that you can afford the cost of college 
education.
  That should be a goal we can all agree on.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
        Stevens, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 372. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for 
charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly 
compositions created by the donor; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today again with Senator Bennett to 
introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This bipartisan 
legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the 
United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while 
erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a 
disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and 
libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past three 
Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the 
President's 2001 tax cut bill, and in the Senate-passed version of the 
2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to 
thank Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd,

[[Page 2217]]

Durbin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, Stevens and Warner 
for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill.
  Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, 
writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to 
take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This 
is something that collectors who make similar donations are already 
able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works 
are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper 
and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is 
unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small--
that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation 
want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available 
to the public in the future--for study or for pleasure--this is 
something that artists should be allowed to do.
  In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works 
produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in 
the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and 
libraries helps develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and 
strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its 
cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum 
or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a 
greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, 
knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of 
them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.
  Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a 
deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress 
changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. 
Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums 
and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the 
Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the 
Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from 
authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the 
deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of 
these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer 
available to the general public.
  For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky 
planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of 
Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a 
private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive 
loss to our cultural heritage. Losses like this are an unintended 
consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should now be corrected.
  Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in 
response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of 
the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that 
time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse 
of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists 
who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly 
compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/
collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes 
providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing 
appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them 
to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel.
  In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, 
which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to 
display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work 
to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For 
example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be 
used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be 
sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be 
donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not 
intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting 
the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, 
the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the 
portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar 
works or related activities.
  This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment 
of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an 
artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs 
of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible 
from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, 
when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed 
on the fair market value.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated that our 
bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to 
pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage.
  I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan 
legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended 
consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the 
donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a 
critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, 
rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the 
public forever. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 372

       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 ``Artist-Museum Partnership 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN ITEMS CREATED BY 
                   THE TAXPAYER.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain 
     contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule for certain contributions of literary, 
     musical, or artistic compositions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution--
       ``(i) the amount of such contribution shall be the fair 
     market value of the property contributed (determined at the 
     time of such contribution), and
       ``(ii) no reduction in the amount of such contribution 
     shall be made under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Qualified artistic charitable contribution.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution' means a charitable contribution of 
     any literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly composition, or 
     similar property, or the copyright thereon (or both), but 
     only if--
       ``(i) such property was created by the personal efforts of 
     the taxpayer making such contribution no less than 18 months 
     prior to such contribution,
       ``(ii) the taxpayer--

       ``(I) has received a qualified appraisal of the fair market 
     value of such property in accordance with the regulations 
     under this section, and
       ``(II) attaches to the taxpayer's income tax return for the 
     taxable year in which such contribution was made a copy of 
     such appraisal,

       ``(iii) the donee is an organization described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A),
       ``(iv) the use of such property by the donee is related to 
     the purpose or function constituting the basis for the 
     donee's exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a 
     governmental unit, to any purpose or function described under 
     subsection (c)),
       ``(v) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written 
     statement representing that the donee's use of the property 
     will be in accordance with the provisions of clause (iv), and
       ``(vi) the written appraisal referred to in clause (ii) 
     includes evidence of the extent (if any) to which property 
     created by the personal efforts of the taxpayer and of the 
     same type as the donated property is or has been--

       ``(I) owned, maintained, and displayed by organizations 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A), and
       ``(II) sold to or exchanged by persons other than the 
     taxpayer, donee, or any related person (as defined in section 
     465(b)(3)(C)).

       ``(C) Maximum dollar limitation; no carryover of increased 
     deduction.--The increase in the deduction under this section 
     by reason of this paragraph for any taxable year--
       ``(i) shall not exceed the artistic adjusted gross income 
     of the taxpayer for such taxable year, and

[[Page 2218]]

       ``(ii) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount which may be carried from such taxable year under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Artistic adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `artistic adjusted gross income' means 
     that portion of the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for 
     the taxable year attributable to--
       ``(i) income from the sale or use of property created by 
     the personal efforts of the taxpayer which is of the same 
     type as the donated property, and
       ``(ii) income from teaching, lecturing, performing, or 
     similar activity with respect to property described in clause 
     (i).
       ``(E) Paragraph not to apply to certain contributions.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any charitable 
     contribution of any letter, memorandum, or similar property 
     which was written, prepared, or produced by or for an 
     individual while the individual is an officer or employee of 
     any person (including any government agency or 
     instrumentality) unless such letter, memorandum, or similar 
     property is entirely personal.
       ``(F) Copyright treated as separate property for partial 
     interest rule.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution, the tangible literary, musical, 
     artistic, or scholarly composition, or similar property and 
     the copyright on such work shall be treated as separate 
     properties for purposes of this paragraph and subsection 
     (f)(3).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 373. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 to provide for a program to develop and demonstrate the cost-
effective operation of a fleet of renewable hydrogen passenger 
vehicles; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the past several years, among the 
most challenging issues for this Congress has been reform of the 
Nation's energy policy.
  Despite rising fuel costs and growing dependence on imported oil, 
despite evidence of global warming and concerns about the quality of 
our air and water, despite all the recent advances in renewable energy 
technology, we hobble along on an energy policy that is more than a 
decade out of date.
  Fortunately, there are several initiatives in energy policy on which 
there is wide bipartisan support.
  Perhaps the best example of an idea on which there is solid agreement 
is the importance of developing our hydrogen economy.
  Hydrogen has the potential to transform completely the way we think 
of transportation, with vehicles that consume no foreign oil, spew no 
smog, no toxic emissions, and zero greenhouse gases. But only if we 
make it the right way.
  You see, to get energy out of hydrogen, first you have to make it. 
And the way we make it is going to make all the difference to our 
energy future.
  Right now, the main way we make hydrogen is from natural gas.
  Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but its price is volatile. And 
as a fossil fuel, it is a finite resource and releases carbon dioxide 
and other greenhouse gases when burned.
  Ultimately, we hope to form hydrogen from pollution-free water, using 
wind or solar energy to extract the hydrogen--the H2--from 
the H2O. But this technology is still too expensive to make 
a significant contribution to our energy needs today.
  Thanks to research at some of the country's leading institutions, 
including those in my State of Iowa, a cost-effective technology is now 
available to produce hydrogen from another clean, renewable energy 
source: one that we grow right here at home.
  Hydrogen can now be formed from ethanol made entirely from corn and 
other agricultural products grown right here on American farms.
  Ethanol is an increasingly important source of fuel. It is made from 
corn and other agricultural products from farms throughout the Midwest 
and increasingly in other parts of the country. It is manufactured in 
plants scattered across rural America, and has become one of the most 
important value-added enterprises for our rural economies.
  Today, ethanol is made from corn, as well as from crop residues, 
stalks, and other low-cost biomass.
  By blending ethanol into conventional gasoline we reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, support rural economies, and make a cleaner-
burning fuel. But even blended fuel produces some pollution, and we 
still depend on imported oil for the gasoline component.
  A vital next step is to begin using ethanol to make hydrogen. 
Hydrogen from ethanol produces little in the way of pollution. Whatever 
carbon dioxide is released gets absorbed by next year's crop as it 
grows; and it's possibly the most economical way to make renewable 
hydrogen for the foreseeable future.
  Imagine hydrogen ``Made in the USA'' from crops ``Grown in the USA'' 
with generating facilities in rural communities in desperate need of 
jobs and economic growth.
  So why aren't all of our cars being converted to run on renewable 
farm-based hydrogen? As we all know, the fuel cells needed to convert 
that hydrogen efficiently into usable energy are still years from being 
commercially ready.
  However, hydrogen-powered internal combustion hybrid electric engines 
have been developed that can achieve over 90 percent of the 
environmental benefits and 100 percent of the reduced oil import 
benefits of fuel cells, and this technology is ready for demonstration 
right now.
  American businesses are ready to show the world that hydrogen can be 
produced from clean, farm-based renewable sources, and that renewable 
hydrogen can be used as a fuel for our cars and trucks.
  As we debate the bigger picture of our Nation's energy policy, we 
have the opportunity to make a small investment with huge potential.
  Now is the time for a renewable hydrogen transportation demonstration 
program.
  I am introducing the Renewable Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Act of 2005 
to provide a testing ground for renewable farm-based hydrogen 
transportation technology. We need to get renewable hydrogen production 
out into fueling stations, where it can be put through its paces, 
analyzed and improved for the day when fuel cells arrive, so we can 
supply our fuel cells with clean, renewable hydrogen right from day 
one.
  This bill would authorize $5 million over three years to develop and 
demonstrate the cost-effective operation of a small hydrogen-from-
ethanol reformer and a fleet of at least 10 internal combustion hybrid 
electric vehicles converted to run on that hydrogen.
  The program would allow investors, manufacturers and entrepreneurs to 
see first-hand that clean renewable hydrogen can be cost-effectively 
produced from farm-based fuels; that the technology to run our vehicles 
on renewable hydrogen is here and ready to deploy; and that renewable 
hydrogen is ready for the day that fuel cell vehicles arrive in local 
showrooms.
  The successful demonstration will help stimulate development of 
hydrogen fueling systems at existing gasoline fueling stations to 
convert ethanol to hydrogen onsite, thereby significantly accelerating 
the adoption of super-clean domestic renewable hydrogen as an 
alternative to gasoline made from imported oil.
  It includes monitoring of emissions and fuel economy data, quick 
start-up and rapid deployment--all for a tiny fraction of the funds 
already being invested in fuel cell research.
  This is not a large or costly initiative, but it is one that has the 
potential to take us a big step towards a clean, renewable hydrogen-
based economy. 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. 373

       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 ``Renewable Hydrogen Passenger 
     Vehicle Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. RENEWABLE HYDROGEN TRANSPORTATION DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) reductions in local air pollution, greenhouse gas 
     emissions, and oil imports resulting from the introduction of 
     vehicles with

[[Page 2219]]

     gasoline-powered internal combustion hybrid electric engines 
     will be only temporary, as improved fuel economy of the 
     hybrid vehicles is offset by increases in vehicle miles 
     traveled;
       (2) direct substitution of farm-based renewable fuels for 
     gasoline in gasoline-powered internal combustion hybrid 
     electric engines will result in further reductions in local 
     air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and oil imports;
       (3) for permanent reductions in criteria pollutants, 
     greenhouse gas emissions, and oil imports, Congress should 
     establish as a national goal the development of renewable 
     hydrogen as a clean effective energy carrier;
       (4) the development of vehicles powered by hydrogen derived 
     from domestic renewable resources such as ethanol, energy 
     crops, agricultural waste, landfill gas, municipal solid 
     waste, wind power, and solar electricity, will--
       (A) substantially and permanently reduce local air 
     pollution and greenhouse gas emissions;
       (B) improve the energy security of the United States; and
       (C) create domestic jobs;
       (5) notwithstanding paragraph (4), as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the fuel cell technology required to 
     make the most efficient use of renewable hydrogen is too 
     costly and has not achieved the reliability necessary for 
     consumer acceptance in the near term;
       (6) in the near term (before affordable and reliable fuel 
     cell vehicles are developed), hydrogen-powered internal 
     combustion engine hybrid electric vehicles have been 
     developed that can achieve more than 90 percent of the 
     environmental benefits and 100 percent of the oil import 
     reduction benefits of fuel cell vehicles;
       (7) in addition to robust research and development for fuel 
     cell vehicles, a program to develop and demonstrate renewable 
     hydrogen production and distribution technology is justified;
       (8) reforming ethanol at a vehicle fueling station may be 
     the least costly method of producing renewable hydrogen;
       (9) a low cost renewable hydrogen vehicle demonstration 
     program that will yield valuable information regarding an 
     interim transition strategy of using hydrogen-powered 
     internal combustion engine hybrid electric vehicles to pave 
     the way for fuel cell vehicles once fuel cell vehicles become 
     affordable and reliable can be implemented in 1 year; and
       (10) the introduction of commercial hydrogen internal 
     combustion engine hybrid electric vehicles can provide the 
     economic incentives to help stimulate development of hydrogen 
     fueling systems at existing gasoline fueling stations to 
     convert ethanol to hydrogen onsite, thereby significantly 
     accelerating the adoption of super-clean renewable hydrogen 
     as an alternative to gasoline made from imported crude oil.
       (b) Program.--Section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(c) Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy, in coordination 
     with the Secretary, shall conduct a 3-year program to develop 
     and demonstrate the cost-effective operation of a fleet of at 
     least 10 direct hydrogen passenger vehicles based on existing 
     commercial technology under which the hydrogen is derived 
     from ethanol or other domestic low-cost transportable 
     renewable feedstocks.
       ``(2) Goals.--The goals of the program shall include--
       ``(A) demonstrating the cost-effective conversion of 
     ethanol or other low-cost transportable renewable feedstocks 
     to pure hydrogen suitable for eventual use in proton exchange 
     membrane fuel cell vehicles at 1 or more local fueling 
     stations, including hydrogen compression and storage 
     necessary to fill vehicle tanks to their operational 
     pressure, using existing commercial reforming technology or 
     modest modifications of existing technology to reform ethanol 
     or other low-cost transportable renewable feedstocks into 
     hydrogen;
       ``(B) converting 10 or more commercially available internal 
     combustion engine hybrid electric passenger vehicles to 
     operate on hydrogen;
       ``(C) installing and operating an ethanol reformer or 
     reformer of another low-cost transportable renewable 
     feedstock (including onsite hydrogen compression, storage, 
     and dispensing) at the facilities of a fleet operator not 
     later than 1 year after commencement of the program;
       ``(D) operating the 10 or more hydrogen internal combustion 
     engine hybrid electric vehicles for a period of 2 years; and
       ``(E) collecting emissions and fuel economy data on the 10 
     hydrogen-powered vehicles over various operating conditions 
     and weather conditions.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $5,000,000.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 374. A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow 
Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by 
Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Parity 
Act. I am proud to be joined by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator 
Johnson, in introducing this legislation.
  Several Indian tribes that border the Missouri River in South Dakota 
have been compensated for damage to their tribal lands caused by Pick-
Sloan projects. Unfortunately, the compensation provided to those 
tribes has not been consistent. This legislation will allow the Lower 
Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes to be fairly compensated.
  The Tribal Parity Act passed the Senate three times during the 108th 
Congress, after being reported out of the Indian Affairs Committee 
without objection. This legislation has also been endorsed by the 
Governor of my home State, Governor Rounds, and a similar bill has been 
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues to get this compensation 
for the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. I hope we can pass it 
in an expeditious manner and send it to the House for timely 
consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Salazar, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Agriculture 
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, relating to risk zones 
for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the final 
rule promulgated by USDA that designates Canada as a Minimal-Risk 
Region for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE.
  I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle 
imports at this time is premature. Allowing the BSE rule to go forward 
could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in 
this country. Reopening the border poses serious economic risks for the 
U.S. cattle industry. And it complicates our efforts to reopen export 
markets.
  BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. After BSE was first identified 
in England in 1986, Europe was forced to destroy millions of head of 
cattle. And, around the world, dozens of human deaths from Creutzfeld--
Jacob's Disease have since been linked to BSE. So we must be very 
careful before we consider opening our border to imports from a country 
known to have BSE.
  Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have 
been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have 
developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the 
International Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE, experts 
have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef 
products and live cattle from countries that have or may have BSE. In 
particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed 
contaminated with animal proteins containing BSE, it is critical that 
countries adopt measures to ensure that animal proteins and other 
specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed.
  Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have fully followed OIE 
guidelines in developing its rules. Moreover, with respect to Canada, 
USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle 
feed is not contaminated with animal proteins.
  The United States has appropriately blocked cattle imports from 
Canada since Canada confirmed its first indigenous case of BSE in May 
of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a 
dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. 
This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the 
importation of U.S. cattle and beef products--a situation that 
continues today with regard to some of our most important customers.

[[Page 2220]]

  So it is very important that USDA move slowly and deliberately and 
evaluate all possible risks before re-opening the border to Canadian 
cattle.
  But the USDA rule does not do this. In particular, Canada has not 
effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 
years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose 
and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed 
by the OIE.
  Since USDA announced its proposed final rule designating Canada as a 
Minimum-Risk Region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE 
cases. The most recent one is particularly disturbing because it 
involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on 
animal proteins in cattle feed. This raises serious questions about 
whether the Canadian feed ban is being effectively enforced.
  These questions are only reinforced by other evidence of lax 
enforcement in Canada.
  For example, numerous Canadian newspapers have reported that Canadian 
Food Inspection Agency tests indicate a disturbingly high level of non-
compliance with Canada's overall livestock feed regulations.
  An article in the Vancouver Sun indicates that secret tests found 
animal proteins that violated Canada's feed regulations in 41 of 70 
Canadian feed samples. More than half of these ``vegetarian'' feed 
samples contained animal proteins. More than half. Clearly, feed 
regulation compliance in Canada is not up to par.
  Since October, 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 
19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are 
contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of those import alerts 
against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force.
  Finally, Canada has recently issued new rules to further restrict the 
Use of animal proteins in livestock feed as well as in fertilizer. 
Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce 
the potential for the cross contamination of livestock feed products 
and fertilizers with animal proteins that might contain the BSE prions. 
To me, this suggests that even Canadian officials are concerned that 
the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be 
inadequate.
  In addition, as noted in a letter I, along with Senators Harkin, 
Johnson and Salazar, recently sent to Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, 
there is concern, that not enough time has elapsed to be sure that 
Canada's education, surveillance and testing measures are truly 
indicative of their level of BSE risk.
  The bottom line is this. Canada has not achieved the necessary level 
of compliance with OIE rules to justify designating it as a minimal 
risk region.
  Canada's failure to enforce its BSE measures could have serious 
consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border.
  First and most obviously, it would create potential dangers for 
consumers in this country.
  Second, it would pose dangers for the health of our U.S. cattle herd.
  Third, even if we do not end up with BSE-tainted imports, the 
perception of heightened risk for consumers could have adverse economic 
consequences for the U.S. cattle industry.
  Finally, our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef 
exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the 
U.S. I fear that reopening the border now, before we have reached 
agreement on reopening our export markets, will only give our trade 
partners an excuse to further delay reopening these critical markets 
for U.S. producers.
  Yesterday's announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the 
importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 
months of age is a small step in the right direction. However, this 
announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's 
compliance with its feed regulations, which has been cited as the 
primary basis for extending a Minimal-Risk Region designation to 
Canada.
  It was my hope that our new Secretary of Agriculture would withdraw 
the proposal to resume trade with Canada when he learned of these 
serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule 
from going forward is for the Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of 
disapproval.
  Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue on how to move forward 
in a way that will ensure the safety of the U.S. cattle herd and help 
open export markets. Our consumers and livestock producers deserve 
nothing less.

                          ____________________