[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2861-2867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 457. A bill to require the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to issue guidance for, and provide oversight of, the 
management of micropurchases made with Governmentwide commercial 
purchase cards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.

[[Page 2862]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Russ Feingold, to introduce the ``Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act 
of 2005,'' to help eliminate wasteful spending that can occur when the 
Government neglects to pay attention to where it makes its purchases.
  Last year, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, now the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, explored the 
Government's use of purchase cards and we learned about ways to save an 
estimated $300 million annually through better management of purchase 
cards. Purchase cards are, in essence, credit cards that agencies give 
to its employees for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for 
the Federal Government. In fact, under Federal acquisition law, 
purchase cards are the Government's preferred method for making what 
are known as ``micropurchases''--that is items costing $2,500 or less. 
Although Government employees spend billions of dollars with purchase 
cards each year, Federal agencies do very little to analyze the items 
obtained with purchase cards in an attempt to get a better price for 
the Government.
  The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government 
to spend their tax dollars carefully and wisely. While this is true at 
all times, it is never more so than today when the Government is 
running large budget deficits. The Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs has a special role to play in 
reducing wasteful spending, and I have made this role a priority at the 
Committee. This legislation is one aspect of our committee's efforts to 
reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Government spending.
  Purchase cards came into Federal Government-wide use in 1989. They 
allow Government employees to easily and efficiently purchase routine 
items such as office supplies, computers and copying machines. While 
they are generally used for small purchases, they accounted for more 
than $16 billion in Federal spending in 2003. In 1994, they accounted 
for only $1 billion.
  This increase in use is good news because it means that more 
Government spending is being executed in an expeditious manner that 
reduces red tape and saves on administrative costs. At the same time, 
the use of purchase cards should enable us to conduct comprehensive 
analysis of how this $16 billion is spent and where. This information 
could be analyzed and used to further reduce the Federal Government's 
costs. At present, however, this is not being done.
  Last year, Senator Feingold, Representative Schakowsky and I released 
a report by the Government Accountability Office identifying missed 
opportunities for savings. According to that report the missed savings 
were due to both a lack of training and a lack of management attention 
and oversight. According to GAO, too many purchase cardholders failed 
to obtain readily available discounts on purchase cards buys. Even 
where the Government and the vendor had negotiated a discounted price 
for items through the General Services Administration schedules, 
Federal employees with purchase cards failed to take advantage of the 
discounted prices and their managers were completely unaware of those 
lost opportunities to save. One example of a repeated lost opportunity 
to save was the Department of the Interior's purchases of printer toner 
cartridges. One GSA schedule vendor offered the toner for only $24.99. 
Yet, of the Department's 791 toner cartridge purchases, only two were 
at or below that price. Some cartridges were purchased for $34.99, 
which is about 40 percent higher than the GSA schedule price.
  In addition to failing to use available schedule prices, GAO found 
that agencies failed to negotiate lower prices with vendors with whom 
they frequently used purchase cards. In the private sector, most 
companies that use the same vendor for a lot of purchases would 
negotiate some sort of volume discount. But before they would attempt 
to negotiate savings the company would first need to understand its 
spending patterns. Because Federal agencies lack a comprehensive 
understanding of where its employees are using Government purchase 
cards, Federal agencies are unable to replicate this practice.
  At my request, GAO analyzed purchase card use at the six Federal 
agencies that account for 85 percent of Government purchase card usage. 
As a result of that analysis, GAO estimated that $300 million per year 
could be saved if agencies improved their purchase card buying 
practices.
  Under our legislation, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, 
would direct agencies to better train their cardholders and more 
effectively analyze their spending data. It would also direct the GSA 
to increase its efforts to improve its efforts to secure discounts with 
vendors and provide agencies with more guidance to reduce wasteful 
spending.
  The American people have the right to expect the Federal Government 
to spend their tax dollars wisely. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor 
and support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Jeffords, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 458. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to give States the option to create a program that allows individuals 
receiving temporary assistance to needy families to obtain post-
secondary or longer duration vocational education; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Pathways to 
Self-Sufficiency Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to be joined in 
introducing this important legislation by my colleagues Senators 
Baucus, Bingaman, Jeffords and Rockefeller. 
  This legislation is based upon the highly esteemed Maine program 
called ``Parents as Scholars''. This program, which uses State 
Maintenance of Effort, MOE, dollars to pay TANF-like benefits to those 
participating in post-secondary education, is a proven success in my 
State and is a wonderful foundation for a national effort.
  We all agree that the 1996 welfare reform effort changed the face of 
this Nation's welfare system to focus it on work. To that end, I 
believe that this legislation bolsters the emphasis on ``work first''. 
Like many of my colleagues, I agree that the shift in the focus from 
welfare to work was the right decision, and that work should be the top 
priority. However, for those TANF recipients who cannot find a good job 
that will put them on the road toward financial independence, education 
might well be the key to a successful future of self-sufficiency.
  As we have seen in Maine, education has played a significant role in 
breaking the cycle of welfare and has given parents the skills 
necessary to find better paying jobs. And we all know that higher wages 
are the light at the end of the tunnel of public assistance.
  ``The Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act of 2005'' provides States with 
the option to allow individuals receiving Federal TANF assistance to 
obtain post-secondary or vocational education. This legislation would 
give States the ability to use Federal TANF dollars to give those who 
are participating in vocational or post-secondary education the same 
assistance as they would receive if they were working.
  We all know that supports like income supplements, child care 
subsidies, and transportation assistance among others, are essential to 
a TANF recipient's ability to make a successful transition to work. The 
same is true for those engaged in longer term educational endeavors. 
This assistance is especially necessary for those who are undertaking 
the challenge and the financial responsibility of post-secondary 
education, in the hopes of increasing their earning potential and 
employability. The goal of this program is to give participants the 
tools necessary to succeed into the future so that they can become, and 
remain, self-sufficient.
  Choosing to go to college requires motivation, and graduating from 
college requires a great deal of commitment and work--even for someone 
who isn't raising children and sustaining a family. These are 
significant challenges, and that's even before taking

[[Page 2863]]

into consideration the cost associated with obtaining a Bachelor's 
degree. This legislation would provide those TANF recipients who have 
the ability and the will to go to college the assistance they need to 
sustain their families while they get a degree.
  The value of promoting access to education in this manner to get 
people off public assistance is proven by the success of Maine's 
``Parents as Scholars'', PaS, program. Maine's PaS graduates earn a 
median wage of $11.71 per hour after graduation up from a median of 
$8.00 per hour prior to entering college. When compared to the $7.50 
median hourly wage of welfare leavers in Maine who have not received a 
post-secondary degree, PaS graduates are earning, on average, $160 more 
per week. That translates into more than $8,000 per year--a significant 
difference.
  Furthermore, the median grade point average for PaS participants 
while in college was 3.4 percent, and a full 90 percent of PaS 
participants' GPA was over 3.0. These parents are giving their all to 
pull their families out of the cycle of welfare.
  Recognizing that work is a priority under TANF, and building upon the 
successful Maine model, the ``Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Act'' 
requires that participants in post-secondary and vocational education 
also participate in work. During the first 2 years of their 
participation in these education programs, students must participate in 
a combination of study time, employment or work experience for at least 
24 hours per week--the same hourly requirement that the President 
proposes in his welfare reauthorization proposal.
  During the second 2 years--for those enrolled in a four year 
program--the participant must work at least 15 hours in addition to 
class and study time, or engage in a combination activities, including 
study time work or work experience, and training, for an average of 30 
hours per week. And all the while, participants must maintain 
satisfactory academic progress as defined by their academic 
institution.
  The bottom line is that if we expect parents to move from welfare to 
work and stay in the work force, we must give them the tools to find 
good jobs. For some people that means job training, for others that 
could mean dealing with a barrier like substance abuse or domestic 
violence, and for others, that might mean access to education that will 
secure them a good job and that will get them off and, importantly, 
keep them off of welfare.
  The experience of several ``Parents as Scholar'' graduates were 
captured in a publication published by the Maine Equal Justice 
Partners, and their experiences are testament to the fact that this 
program is a critically important step in moving towards self-
sufficiency. In this report one graduate said of her experience, ``If 
it weren't for `Parents as Scholars' I would never have been able to 
attend college, afford child care, or put food on the table. Today, I 
would most likely be stuck in a low-wage job I hated barely getting by 
. . . I can now give my children the future they deserve.''
  Another said, ``By earning my Bachelor's degree, I have become self-
sufficient. I was a waitress previously and would never have been able 
to support my daughter. I would encourage anyone to better their 
education if possible.''
  These are but a few comments from those who have benefited from 
access to post-secondary education. Giving States the option use 
Federal dollars to support these participants will make a tremendous 
difference in their ability to sustain these programs which have proven 
results. In Maine, nearly 90 percent of working graduates have left 
TANF permanently and isn't that our ultimate goal?
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this 
legislation in the upcoming welfare reauthorization. It is a critical 
piece of the effort to move people from welfare to work permanently and 
it has been missing from the federal program for too long.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Lott, and Mr. 
        Cochran):
  S. 459. A bill to require a study and report regarding the 
designations and construction of a new interstate route from Savannah, 
Georgia to Knoxville, Tennessee; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today we are introducing legislation, 
two bills that I hope will pave the way to correct a half a century of 
transportation inequity in the Southern United States.
  First, I am introducing a bill, supported by Senators Isakson, Lott, 
and Cochran, that proposes a new interstate highway, Interstate 14 or 
``I-14,'' linking Augusta, Macon and Columbus, GA connecting through 
Montgomery, AL and going all the way to Natchez, MS.
  Second, my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson and I are 
proposing the creation of Interstate 3 or ``I-3'', linking Savannah and 
Augusta, GA to Knoxville, TN.
  In the 108th Congress, Senator Miller and I introduced these bills. 
If passed, they would require the Secretary of Transportation to study 
and report to the appropriate committees of Congress, before December 
31, 2005, the steps and estimated funding necessary to designate and 
construct these new interstate highways.
  These proposals are multi-purpose plans. They would naturally improve 
the interconnectivity and highway safety for those in the Deep South. 
Also, they would help provide the badly needed economic development to 
areas of the South ignored by our current interstate grid, and improve 
the national defense highway linkage for which our interstate system 
was originally designed. In addition, they could help provide critical 
environmental improvements for the entire Sunbelt region by reducing 
the air pollution and traffic congestion in some of our major 
gridlocked southern cities.
  The honorary name of the ``I-14'' plan helps to provide symbolic 
recognition to the promise of economic parity to freed slaves which was 
implied with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. As the South 
struggled to overcome four years of devastating war and find a way to 
integrate the newly emancipated slaves into the full benefits of 
citizenship, Congress passed this amendment, guaranteeing equal rights 
for all Americans.
  I am convinced that this area remains largely isolated from the 
economic expansion that transformed much of the rest of the South 
starting in the 60s. Many in this region still suffer from the lack of 
economic parity with America. Eighty percent of jobs in America are 
located within 10 miles of an interstate. In this case, there are 
regions where there is no interstate. It is my hope that the addition 
of I-14 will help bring and provide the promising economic development 
and much needed jobs to this region.
  The 3rd Infantry Division Highway Initiative Act is named for the 
U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division of Fort Stewart--division that served 
as the ``Tip of the Spear'' in the War on Terror in Iraq and whose 
soldiers conquered Najaf, seized Saddam International Airport and 
Saddam Hussein's palaces, and led the fighting on the day of Baghdad's 
historic liberation. The proposed route for ``I-3'' would provide a 
highway link between strategic defense interests in our region 
including Fort Gordon, Eisenhower Army Regional Medical Center, the 
Augusta Veterans Administration Hospitals, Fort Stewart, Hunter Army 
Airfield, and the Port of Savannah among others. In the process, we 
will provide long-needed North-South interstate access for Augusta, 
which happens to be Georgia's second largest city. It will also provide 
a direct interstate link between Fort Gordon in Augusta and Fort 
Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, which would serve both 
facilities well in warding off base closures now and in the future.
  It may take a decade to bring these projects to full completion. They 
are not a quick or easy fix, however they are the necessary, equitable 
and common sense solution.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 460. A bill to expand and enhance benefits for members of the 
Armed

[[Page 2864]]

Forces and their families, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I recently returned from Iraq where I am 
proud to report that the men and women of the American military 
continue to perform magnificently. They are the best of America, and we 
owe them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen our military and 
enact a ``Military Family Bill of Rights.'' My hope is that Congress 
will act quickly to build the military ready to meet the challenges of 
this century. That requires a larger Army, a larger Marine Corps, and 
better policies for Americans in uniform and their families.
  We must begin by building a military sized and shaped for the 
challenges of the future. The military today, in particular the Army 
and the Marine Corps, is too small for the missions it faces. The 
evidence is everywhere.
  In the past, the Army gave units 2 years to reset, re-train, and 
prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division 
is headed back to Iraq after only one year. The 101st Airborne and the 
4th Infantry Divisions are headed back later this year after less than 
2 years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle 
of its second deployment to Iraq.
  Even with this timetable, we have made ends meet only through large 
contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the 
next rotation of U.S. forces, we are running out of Guard and Reserve 
units to call on because they've already been deployed. Fourteen of the 
National Guard's 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, 
recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 
205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for 
deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army 
dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has 
even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their 
mid-40s to their late 60s.
  The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the 
Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are ``rapidly 
degenerating into a broken force''--and cautioned that at this rate we 
will not be able to meet the needs of ``future missions.''
  The war on terror--which we know requires a comprehensive approach--
will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces 
must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they 
occur.
  Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American 
military power, including the ``Air War'' in Kosovo, has required a 
sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to 
provide post-conflict security and stability. There's no technological 
substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the 
worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of 
wishful thinking.
  The CIA's internal think-tank, the National Intelligence Council, 
recently drew an important conclusion about conflict over the next 15 
years: ``Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and 
youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict 
in certain regions.'' That's a warning about the danger of failed 
states--and this should be a wake-up call for American strategy.
  Failed states can become havens for terrorists. It was a failed state 
in Afghanistan that provided a training ground for al-Qaida. It was a 
failed state where al-Qaida made its plans, grew its forces, and 
emerged to threaten our national security.
  We need a comprehensive foreign policy strategy to deal with failed 
states, but we must also have a military ready to act if necessary. For 
the foreseeable future, the United States will need a larger ground 
force. Failure to build one now will only diminish our national 
security in the future.
  The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can 
smash an opposing Army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there 
is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the 
peace or secure a failed state. Those missions require an investment in 
the men and women of the American military--to expand their number, and 
to increase the number of forces that specialize in certain skills.
  To meet these needs, this legislation will expand the Active Duty 
Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 10,000 personnel.
  The men and women of the American military are sustained by the bonds 
they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw 
from home--from their families, their spouses, their children, their 
parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals 
nor parades--giving everything they can to the men and women they love, 
men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And 
so must we--with a new commitment to smarter defense policies, like 
those I outlined earlier, and better care for military families.
  So the legislation I offer today also includes a Military Family Bill 
of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law, to provide assistance to 
the families of the American military.
  Investing in military families isn't just an act of compassion--it's 
a smart investment in America's military. Good commanders know that 
while you may recruit an individual soldier or Marine, you ``retain'' a 
family. Nearly 50 percent of America's service members are married 
today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, 
especially the non-commissioned officers that are the backbone of the 
Army and Marine Corps, we have to keep faith with their families. If we 
don't, and those experienced, enlisted leaders begin to leave, America 
will have a broken, ``hollow'' military.
  We can begin by increasing the financial support military families 
receive. We can help them meet the increased expenses every military 
family faces when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for 
example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers 
make up the difference in lost wages. We should reward those patriotic 
business leaders. And since small businesses don't have the workforces 
that make it possible to spread such costs, we should offer a Small 
Business Tax Credit to those who make up the difference between a 
reservist's civilian and military pay. This legislation would also 
establish Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Grants to 
buttress existing loan programs that help small-businesses survive when 
a vital employee, or even the owner, is mobilized. It also creates the 
Reservists Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Task Force to help 
small businesses prepare for and cope with the mobilization of 
reservist-employees and owners. For all service members, this 
legislation permits penalty free withdrawals from Individual Retirement 
Accounts for deployment-related expenses, such as increased child-care 
and other costs.
  As many as one-in-five members of the National Guard and Reserves 
don't have health insurance. That is bad policy and bad for our 
national security. When units are mobilized, they count on all their 
personnel. But when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is 
mobilized, and unit members fail physicals because they haven't seen a 
doctor in 2 years, that's bad for readiness and that's bad for unit 
effectiveness. As part of the Military Family Bill of Rights, we will 
extend military health insurance eligibility to all members of the 
National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not.
  One of the unfortunate truths about war is that it takes lives--and 
mostly young lives. For their survivors, much of life remains, and we 
must be generous in our efforts to help them put their lives back 
together. Almost a year ago, I proposed increasing the military's death 
benefit to $250,000. When combined with the Servicemembers Group Life 
Insurance, a family would receive $500,000 when a loved-one dies in the 
service of our nation. No one can ever put a price on a life, but we 
ought to do what we can to help families coping with the worst of news. 
The President recently embraced

[[Page 2865]]

a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I'm glad he has joined 
this effort.
  Our generosity must not stop there. At present, survivors of those 
killed in action have 180 days to move out of military housing. But for 
those with young children in school, 180 days may mean starting a 
school year in one State, and finishing it in another. With all the 
disruption the loss of a parent will bring to their lives, survivors 
should have the flexibility to stay in their homes for one year after 
the death of a service member. It's the least we can do for those who 
have paid the ultimate price.
  But let's be honest: No piece of legislation will ever anticipate all 
the needs of America's military families. Someone will always fall 
through the cracks. And the legislation I intend to offer will try to 
fix that. Take the case of Jay Briseno. Jay was wounded in Iraq and 
left paralyzed from the neck down. The law authorizes the VA to provide 
$11,000 to modify a disabled veteran's vehicle, but it doesn't provide 
the resources a family needs to buy the specially out-fitted vehicle 
Jay needed. In his case, a generous member of the community donated the 
van the Briseno's now use to drive Jay to doctors appointments and 
hospital visits. And we are all grateful for that act of generosity. 
But no family should ever have to be so dependent on charity to meet a 
basic need.
  Americans will do everything in our power to help military families. 
But not all Americans can afford to buy modified minivans for wounded 
veterans, and not all military families have the same needs. So as part 
of my Military Family Bill of Rights, we will establish a Military 
Family Relief Fund. Every American who pays taxes will be able to 
contribute by checking a box on their income tax returns. Just as we 
let Americans donate a few dollars to finance our presidential 
elections on their tax forms, we should give them this opportunity to 
say thank you to our troops. The program will meet the needs we can't 
expect with the flexibility and responsiveness our service members, 
veterans, and their families deserve.
  Supporting military families must also extend beyond service in 
uniform--with programs across government to help with jobs, VA 
benefits, healthcare, and education.
  Veterans possess great leadership and technical skills, but they 
often lack the financial resources to turn that potential into a viable 
enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated 
that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business 
when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this 
number rises to 28 percent. So the legislation I introduce today will 
create a new program, administered by the Small Business 
Administration, to provide very-low interest loans, up to $100,000, to 
help veterans start new small businesses.
  But in this time of war, we have another obligation to meet the needs 
of those suffering with the experience of war.
  The Pentagon believes that as many as 100,000 new combat veterans 
across the country will need some level of mental health care. The New 
England Journal of Medicine has reported as many as 1 in 6 soldiers 
returning from Iraq show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Fewer than 40 percent of those sought help. Military officials and 
mental health providers predict that up to 30 percent of returning 
soldiers will require psychiatric services associated with their 
experience in war. Through July of last year, 31,000 veterans of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for 
injuries--and 20 percent of those claims were for psychological 
conditions. These are levels not seen since the Vietnam War.
  Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the 
treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA 
Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The 
wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot sit back and wait 
for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive.
  Soldiers and Marines returning from war want to go home. They don't 
want to do anything that could jeopardize their homecoming. That's what 
happened to Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Reservist from Belchertown, MA. 
When he was leaving Iraq, his first instinct was to report traumatic 
memories of things he had seen in the war. But someone told him it 
might delay his return home, so Jeff kept quiet. But the safety, 
security, and joy of homecoming eluded Jeff. Haunted by the war and 
what he had seen, he began to drink heavily. He was plagued by 
recurring nightmares, and began talking about suicide. Last summer, 
Jeff took his own life. Jeff's story is a preventable tragedy, and a 
call to action. As part of the legislation I plan, keeping faith with 
Jeff's family who have become committed advocates in his memory, we 
will expand PTSD programs within the VA and require outreach efforts to 
find the veterans who need the care.
  Our obligation is to keep faith with the men and women of the 
American military and their families--whether they are on active duty, 
in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans.
  Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, 
today and always. Each of us can do something to ease their burden--but 
truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as 
individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to 
serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force 
in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing 
that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice 
life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares. We owe 
them not just thanks and best wishes, but action here in Congress. In 
today's ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to 
lose.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 461. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to require that 
a member of the uniformed services who is wounded or otherwise injured 
while serving in a combat zone continue to be paid monthly military pay 
and allowances, while the member recovers from the wound or injury, at 
least equal to the monthly military pay and allowances the member 
received immediately before receiving the wound or injury, to continue 
the combat zone tax exclusion for the member during the recovery 
period, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Kennedy, to introduce the Senate companion to the Crosby-Puller 
Combat Wounds Compensation Act.
  This legislation is designed to help our soldiers who are returning 
from combat with serious wounds to maintain their pay during their 
recovery. Too often, young wounded soldiers are struggling to recover 
from wounds of combat and, simultaneously struggling financially as 
well.
  A soldier's pay may be cut in half just as they are sent to the 
hospital. This adds to their stress and worries. It also can mean that 
family, including wives and children, cannot afford travel to the 
hospital to be nearby and support in the recovery.
  Congressman Markey introduced this bill during the last Congress, and 
he has introduced it this year. This legislation will maintain the full 
pay that the soldier received immediately prior to their injury, until 
they are discharged or regain active duty status.
  Over 5,700 soldiers have been seriously wounded in Iraq, and there 
have been others in combat areas around the globe, and sadly we must 
acknowledge that there will be more. Recovering soldiers and their 
families deserve our admiration and respect, and our full support. As 
they cope with the loss of a limb, or vision or mobility, they should 
not have to cope with bill collector or financial hardship. In my view, 
caring for our wounded soldiers and their families is a moral 
obligation and part of the cost of combat.
  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:

[[Page 2866]]



                                 S. 461

       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 ``Crosby-Puller Combat Wounds 
     Compensation Act''.

     SEC. 2. NO REDUCTION IN MONTHLY MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES 
                   FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WOUNDED 
                   OR INJURED IN COMBAT ZONES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 310 of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) No Reduction in Monthly Military Pay for Wounded or 
     Injured Members.--
       ``(1) Effect of wound or injury in combat zone.--For each 
     month during the period specified in paragraph (2), the total 
     amount of monthly military pay paid to a member who was 
     wounded or otherwise injured while assigned to duty in an 
     area for which special pay was available under this section 
     at the time the member was wounded or otherwise injured shall 
     not be less than the total amount of military pay paid to the 
     member for the month during which the member was wounded or 
     otherwise injured.
       ``(2) Duration.--Paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to 
     a wounded or injured member until the end of the first month 
     during which any of the following occurs:
       ``(A) The member is found to be physically able to perform 
     the duties of the member's office, grade, rank, or rating.
       ``(B) The member is discharged or separated from the 
     uniformed services.
       ``(C) The member dies.
       ``(3) Military pay defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `military pay' has the meaning given the term `pay' in 
     section 101(21) of this title, except that the term includes 
     allowances under chapter 7 of this title.''.
       (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--Subsection (b) of section 
     310 of title 37, United States Code, as amended by this 
     section, shall apply with respect to any pay period ending on 
     or after September 11, 2001, for members of the uniformed 
     services described in paragraph (1) of such subsection who 
     were wounded or otherwise injured on or after that date.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF TIME LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION OF COMBAT ZONE 
                   COMPENSATION BY REASON OF HOSPITALIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of section 
     112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by 
     striking ``; but this paragraph shall not apply for any month 
     beginning more than 2 years after the date of the termination 
     of combatant activities in such zone''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of 
     section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 
     by this section, shall apply to compensation received for 
     months ending after September 11, 2001, for members of the 
     uniformed services described in such subsections who were 
     wounded or otherwise injured on or after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 466. A bill to deauthorize a certain portion of the project for 
navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Ms. SNOWE. I rise today to reintroduce five different bills important 
to my State of Maine that were included in the Water Resources 
Development Act, WRDA, last year. Unfortunately, that larger Corps of 
Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the 
Senate adjourned the 108th Congress, but I am pleased that the Chairman 
of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently stated 
that WRDA is on the committee's agenda for consideration soon. My hope 
is that all five bills will once again be included in the WRDA 
legislation in the 109th Congress.
  All of my bills are non-controversial, and, importantly, are 
supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State 
officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river 
improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have 
the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers.
  The first bill, S. 462, pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, 
Maine. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel, FNC, would be of 
great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize 
mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with 
the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking 
permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be 
notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall 
within the federal navigational channel.
  My second bill, S. 463, concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, 
Maine. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages 
and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to 
Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of 
the nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal 
of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high 
demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a 
more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both 
moorings and shoreside facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty 
people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years 
to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.
  My third bill, S. 464, addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, Maine. 
The bill supports the City of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the 
Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification 
called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union 
River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater 
number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation 
and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the 
harbor area.
  My fourth bill, S. 465, will carry out a project for the mitigation 
of shore damage at Camp Ellis, Maine, attributable to the Saco River 
navigation project. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to 
carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to 
mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River project, waiving 
the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth 
in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it 
will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred 
project by non-Federal interests.
  My fifth bill, S. 466, will make the mooring of an historic 
windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong 
fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one 
of the fastest growing cities in the Midcoast area. Like many of the 
port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to 
confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but 
happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in 
positive and productive ways.
  The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, 
earning a well deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the 
World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and 
as such, are vitally important to both the City and the State. The 
image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed 
at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, 
graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers 
symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of 
adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American 
experience.
  Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the 
new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed 
Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is 
tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine 
Resources piers.
  The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the 
Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural 
beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly 
by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these 
businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the federal navigational channel 
will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for 
the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the 
State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a 
multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is $3.8 million 
a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over If $2.5 million a 
year in the state.
  I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in 
drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of 
Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city 
officials,

[[Page 2867]]

the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer 
vessels--Mainers and businesspeople with the vision and commitment we 
need to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this 
historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Corzine, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Chambliss, 
        and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 467. A bill to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2002; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
regarding terrorism Risk Insurance be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 467

       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 ``Terrorism Risk Insurance 
     Extension Act of 2005.''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program Years.--Section 108(a) of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 
     116 Stat. 2336) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (b) Continuing Authority of the Secretary.--Section 108(b) 
     of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 
     note, 116 Stat. 2336) is amended by striking ``arising out 
     of'' and all that follows through ``this title''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Program years.--Section 102(11) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 2326) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Program year 4.--The term `Program Year 4' means the 
     period beginning on January 1, 2006 and ending on December 
     31, 2006.
       ``(F) Program year 5.--The term `Program Year 5' means the 
     period beginning on January 1, 2007 and ending on December 
     31, 2007.
       ``(G) Other program years.--Except when used as provided in 
     subparagraphs (B) through (F), the term `Program Year' means, 
     as the context requires, any of Program Year 1, Program Year 
     2, Program Year 3, Program Year 4, or Program Year 5.''.
       (2) Insured losses.--Section 102(5) of the Terrorism Risk 
     Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 2324) 
     is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``on or before December 31, 2007, as 
     required by this title,'' before ``if such loss'';
       (B) by striking ``(A) occurs within'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) occurs on or before the earlier of the expiration 
     date of the insurance policy or December 31, 2008; and
       ``(B) occurs--
       ``(i) within''; and
       (C) by striking ``occurs to an air carrier'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(ii) to an air carrier''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--Section 102 of the Terrorism 
     Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 
     2323) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii)(I), by striking ``(5)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``(5)(B)(ii)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)''.
       (b) Applicable Insurer Deductibles.--Section 102(7) of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 
     116 Stat. 2325) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by inserting ``and each Program Year thereafter'' 
     before ``, the value''; and
       (B) by striking ``preceding Program Year 3'' and inserting 
     ``preceding that Program Year''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``for the Transition'' 
     and all that follows through ``Program Year 3'' and inserting 
     the following: ``for the Transition Period or any Program 
     Year''.
       (c) Continuation of Mandatory Availability.--Section 
     103(c)(1) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 
     U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 2327) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``last day of Program Year 2'' and 
     inserting ``termination date established under section 
     108(a)''; and
       (2) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting ``In 
     general.--''.
       (d) Duration of Policies.--Section 103(c) of the Terrorism 
     Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 
     2327) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Mandatory duration.--Coverage for insured losses 
     required by paragraph (1) under a policy issued at any time 
     during Program Year 5 shall remain in effect for not less 
     than 1 year following the date of issuance of the policy, 
     except that no loss occurring after the earlier of the 
     expiration date of the subject insurance policy or December 
     31, 2008, shall be considered to be an insured loss for 
     purposes of this title.''.
       (e) Insured Loss Shared Compensation.--Section 103(e) of 
     the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 
     note, 116 Stat. 2328) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``ending on'' and all 
     that follows through ``Program Year 3'' and inserting 
     ``ending on the termination date established under section 
     108(a)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``ending on'' and all 
     that follows through ``Program Year 3'' and inserting 
     ``ending on the termination date established under section 
     108(a)''.
       (f) Aggregate Retention Amount.--Section 103(e)(6) of the 
     Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note, 
     116 Stat. 2328) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) for Program Year 4, the lesser of--
       ``(i) $17,500,000,000; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount, for all insurers, of insured 
     losses during such Program Year; and
       ``(E) for Program Year 5, the lesser of--
       ``(i) $20,000,000,000; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount, for all insurers, of insured 
     losses during such Program Year.''.

     SEC. 4. COVERAGE OF GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.

       Section 103 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 
     U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 2327) is amended by striking 
     subsection (h) and inserting the following:
       ``(h) Applicability to Group Life Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by rule, apply the 
     provisions of this title to providers of group life 
     insurance, in the manner determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, consistent with the purposes of this title.
       ``(2) Consistent application.--The rules of the Secretary 
     under this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, apply 
     the provisions of this title to providers of group life 
     insurance in a similar manner as those provisions apply to an 
     insurer otherwise under this title.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In determining the applicability of 
     this title to providers of group life insurance, and the 
     manner of such application, the Secretary shall consider the 
     overall group life insurance market size, and shall consider 
     the establishment of separate retention amounts for such 
     providers.
       ``(4) Rulemaking required.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance 
     Extension Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue final 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.
       ``(5) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to affect or otherwise alter the applicability 
     of this title to any insurer, as defined in section 102.
       ``(6) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `group life insurance' means an insurance contract that 
     provides term life insurance coverage, accidental death 
     coverage, or a combination thereof, for a number of persons 
     under a single contract, on the basis of a group selection of 
     risks.''.

     SEC. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS.

       Section 108 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (15 
     U.S.C. 6701 note, 116 Stat. 2328) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e) Recommendations for Long-Term Solutions.--The 
     Presidential Working Group on Financial Markets shall, in 
     consultation with the NAIC, representatives of the insurance 
     industry, and representatives of policy holders, not later 
     than June 30, 2006, submit a report to Congress containing 
     recommendations for legislation to address the long-term 
     availability and affordability of insurance for terrorism 
     risk.''.

                          ____________________