[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8203-8252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 933. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for improvements in access to services in rural hospitals and 
critical access hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I join Senator Brownback 
in introducing The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act. This 
legislation is intended to ensure the future of small rural hospitals 
by restructuring the way they are reimbursed for Medicare services by 
basing the reimbursements on actual costs instead of the current pre-
set cost structure.

[[Page 8204]]

  Current law allows for very small hospitals--designated Critical 
Access Hospitals (CAH) to receive cost-based Medicare reimbursements. 
To qualify as a CAH the facility must have no more than 25 acute care 
beds.
  In rural communities, hospital facilities that are slightly larger 
than the 25 bed limit share with Critical Access Hospitals the same 
economic conditions, the same treatment challenges, the same disparity 
in coverage area but do not share the same reimbursement arrangement. 
These rural hospitals have to compete with larger urban-based hospitals 
that can perform the same services at drastically reduced costs. They 
are also discouraged from investing in technology and other methods to 
improve the quality of care in their communities because those 
investments are not supported by Medicare reimbursement procedures.
  The legislation would provide enhanced cost-based Medicare 
reimbursement by creating a new ``rural'' designation under the 
Medicare reimbursement system. This new designation would benefit five 
Nebraska hospitals. Hospitals in McCook, Beatrice, Columbus, Holdrege 
and Lexington would fall under this new designation, and would have 
similar benefits provided to nearly sixty other Nebraska hospitals 
classified under the CAH system.
  The legislation would also improve the hospitals with critical access 
status. Sixty CAH facilities in Nebraska already receive enhanced cost-
based reimbursements for inpatient and outpatient services. The 
legislation would further assist these existing CAH facilities by 
extending the enhanced cost-based reimbursement to certain post-acute 
and ambulance services and eliminating the current 35-mile test.
  Rural hospitals cannot continue to provide these services without 
having Medicare cover the costs. If something is not done, the larger 
hospitals may be forced to cut back on the number of beds they keep--
and the number of people they care for, and others may be forced to 
close their doors. These hospitals provide jobs, good wages, health 
care and economic development opportunity for these communities. 
Without access to these hospitals, these communities would not survive. 
The Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act will ensure that the 
community has access to high quality health care that is affordable to 
the patient and the provider.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 934. A bill to establish an expedited procedure for congressional 
consideration of health care reform legislation; to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the 
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation 
that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic 
policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.
  I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold town 
hall meetings. Year after year, the number one issue raised at these 
listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our health 
care system brings people to these meetings in droves. The frustration 
I hear, the anger and the desperation, have convinced me that we must 
change the system.
  So many people now come to tell me that they used to think government 
involvement was a terrible idea, but not anymore. Now they tell me that 
their businesses are being destroyed by health care costs, and they 
want the government to step in. These costs are crippling our economy 
just as the nation is struggling to rebound from the loss of millions 
of manufacturing jobs.
  Our health care system has failed to keep costs in check. Costs are 
skyrocketing, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to 
keep up. So in all too many cases, employers are left to offer sub-par 
benefits, or to wonder whether they can offer any benefits at all. 
Employers cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs 
are rising faster than inflation.
  One option that could help employers, especially small businesses, 
reduce their health care costs is to have them form health care 
cooperatives, where employers lower costs by purchasing care as a 
group. I have introduced a bill in the Senate to make it easier for 
business to create these cooperatives.
  But that legislation certainly isn't the magic bullet that can 
address the whole problem. We need to come up with more comprehensive 
ways to address rising costs. In most cases, costs are still passed on 
to employees, who then face enormous premiums that demand more and more 
of their monthly income. People tell me that they don't understand how 
anyone can afford these astronomical premiums, and what can you say to 
that?
  Well, we can say that it's time to move toward universal coverage. I 
believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this 
country. Universal coverage doesn't mean that we have to copy a system 
already in place in another country. We can harness our Nation's 
creativity and entrepreneurial spirit to design a system that is 
uniquely American. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by 
what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is 
ending a system where approximately 45 million Americans are uninsured, 
and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their 
premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to 
find long term care.
  We can't tolerate a system that strands so many Americans without the 
coverage they need. This system costs us dearly: Even though an 
estimated 45 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes 
more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries.
  Leaving this many Americans uninsured affects all of us. Those who 
are insured pay more because the uninsured can't afford to pay their 
bills. And those bills are exceptionally high, because the uninsured 
wait so long to see a doctor. The uninsured often live sicker, and die 
earlier, than other Americans, so they also need a disproportionate 
amount of acute care.
  In 2001 alone, health care providers provided $35 billion worth of 
uncompensated care. While providers absorb some of those costs, 
inevitably some of the burden is shifted to other patients. And of 
course the process of cost-shifting itself generates additional costs.
  We are all paying the price for our broken health care system, and it 
is time to bring about change.
  Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we 
should change the health care system in this country. Some propose 
using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others 
think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a 
national single payer health care system is the only way to go.
  I don't think we can ignore any of these proposals. We need to 
consider all of these as we address our broken health care system.
  As a former State legislator, I come to this debate knowing that 
States are coming up with some very innovative solutions to the health 
care problem. So in addition to the approaches already mentioned, I 
think we really need to look at what our States are doing, and add to 
the menu of possibilities an approach under which each State decides 
the best way to cover its residents.
  I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage 
creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, 
without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that states have 
a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, 
and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their 
State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, 
where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan 
to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage.
  This approach would achieve universal health care, without the 
Federal Government dictating to all of the states exactly how to do it. 
The Federal Government would provide States with the financial help, 
technical assistance and oversight necessary to accomplish this goal. 
In return, a State

[[Page 8205]]

would have to make sure that every resident has coverage at least as 
good as that offered in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program 
(FEHBP)--in other words, at least as good as the health insurance 
Members of Congress have.
  States would have the flexibility to expand coverage in phases, and 
would be offered a number of Federal ``tools'' to choose from in order 
to help them achieve universal coverage. States could use any number of 
these tools, or none of them, instead opting for a Federal contribution 
for a State-based ``single-payer'' system. In addition to designing and 
implementing a plan to achieve universal care, States would also be 
required to provide partial funding of these plans. The Federal 
Government would approve each State plan, and would conduct oversight 
of the implementation of these plans.
  Federal tools that States could choose from to help expand health 
coverage could include an enhanced Medicaid and SCHIP Federal match for 
expanding coverage to currently uninsured individuals; refundable and 
advanceable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance for 
individuals and/or businesses; the establishment of a community-rated 
health pool, similar to FEHBP, to provide affordable health coverage 
and expanded choices for those who enroll; and assistance with 
catastrophic care costs.
  States could be creative in the State resources they use to expand 
health care coverage. For example, a State could use personal and/or 
employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, create a 
single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to offer a 
regional health care plan.
  The approach I have set forth would guarantee universal health care, 
but still leave room for the flexibility and creativity that I believe 
is necessary to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, quality 
health care.
  As I have noted, there have been a number of interesting proposals to 
move us to universal health care coverage. While I will be advocating 
the State-based approach that I have just outlined, others have 
proposed alternative approaches that certainly merit consideration and 
debate.
  And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are 
introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health 
care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that 
Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the 
outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens 
of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay 
their premiums, Washington refuses to address the problem in a 
comprehensive way.
  That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force 
Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and 
Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to 
each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the 
session following enactment of the bill. If a committee chair fails to 
introduce a bill within the first month, then the ranking minority 
party member of the respective committee may introduce a measure that 
qualifies for the expedited treatment outlined in my bill.
  The measures introduced by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 
will be placed directly on the Senate Calendar. The measures introduced 
by the two committee chairs, or ranking minority members, will be 
referred to their respective committees.
  The committees have 60 calendar days, not including recesses of 3 
days or more, to review the legislation. At the end of that time, if 
either committee fails to report a measure, the bills will be placed 
directly on the legislative calendar.
  If the Majority Leader fails to move to one of the bills, any Member 
may move to proceed to any qualifying health care reform measure. The 
motion is not debatable or amendable. If the motion to proceed is 
adopted, the Chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a 
measure without intervening motion, order, or other business, and the 
measure remains the unfinished business of the Senate until the body 
disposes of the bill.
  Similar procedures are established for House consideration.
  I want to emphasize, my hill does not prejudge what particular health 
care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals 
that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate 
which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered.
  But what my bill does do is to require Congress to act.
  It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health 
care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money 
contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The 
legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer 
be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as 
never before for Congress to do something about the country's health 
care crisis.
  It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive 
health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay, because I 
believe the cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2005.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 934

       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 ``Reform Health Care Now 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENATE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Introduction.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the 
     commencement of the session of Congress that follows the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the chair of the Senate Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the Chair of the 
     Senate Committee on Finance, the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each 
     introduce a bill to provide a significant increase in access 
     to health care coverage for the people of the United States.
       (2) Minority party.--These bills may be introduced by 
     request and only 1 qualified bill may be introduced by each 
     individual referred to in paragraph (1) within a Congress. If 
     either committee chair fails to introduce the bill within the 
     30-day period, the ranking minority party member of the 
     respective committee may instead introduce a bill that will 
     qualify for the expedited procedure provided in this section.
       (3) Qualified bill.--
       (A) In general.--In order to qualify as a qualified bill--
       (i) the title of the bill shall be ``To reform the health 
     care system of the United States and to provide insurance 
     coverage for Americans.'';
       (ii) the bill shall reach the goal of providing health care 
     coverage to 95 percent of Americans within 10 years; and
       (iii) the bill shall be deficit neutral.
       (B) Determination.--Whether or not a bill meets the 
     criteria in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the Chair 
     of the Senate Budget Committee, relying on estimates of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, subject to the final approval of 
     the Senate.
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) Committee bills.--Upon introduction, the bill authored 
     by the Chair of the Senate Committee on Finance shall be 
     referred to that Committee and the bill introduced by the 
     Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions shall be referred to that committee. If either 
     committee has not reported the bill referred to it (or 
     another qualified bill) by the end of a 60 calendar-day 
     period beginning on the date of referral, the committee is, 
     as of that date, automatically discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill, and the bill is placed directly on 
     the chamber's legislative calendar. In calculating the 60-day 
     period, adjournments for more than 3 days are not counted.
       (2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the Senate 
     Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader shall, on 
     introduction, be placed directly on the Senate Calendar of 
     Business.
       (c) Motion to Proceed.--
       (1) In general.--On or after the third day following the 
     committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on 
     the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order 
     for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader, 
     to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified 
     bill. Notice shall first be given before proceeding. This 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be 
     offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on 
     which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer 
     it.

[[Page 8206]]

       (2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given 
     qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same 
     effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such 
     motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
       (3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is 
     privileged, and all points of order against the motion to 
     proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived. 
     The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not 
     subject to a motion to postpone.
       (4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is 
     not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in 
     order.
       (d) Consideration of Qualified Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the 
     chamber shall immediately proceed to the consideration of a 
     qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other 
     business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the 
     Senate until disposed of. A motion to limit debate is in 
     order and is not debatable.
       (2) Only business.--The qualified bill is not subject to a 
     motion to postpone or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business before the bill is disposed 
     of.
       (3) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be 
     offered to the bill.

     SEC. 3. HOUSE CONSIDERATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Introduction.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 calendar days after the 
     commencement of the session of Congress that follows the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the chair of the House Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the chair of the House Committee on Ways 
     and Means, the Majority Leader of the House, and the Minority 
     Leader of the House shall each introduce a bill to provide a 
     significant increase in access to health care coverage for 
     the people of the United States.
       (2) Minority party.--These bills may be introduced by 
     request and only 1 qualified bill may be introduced by each 
     individual referred to in paragraph (1) within a Congress. If 
     either committee chair fails to introduce the bill within the 
     30-day period, the ranking minority party member of the 
     respective committee may, within the following 30 days, 
     instead introduce a bill that will qualify for the expedited 
     procedure provided in this section.
       (3) Qualified bill.--
       (A) In general.--To qualify for the expedited procedure 
     under this section as a qualified bill, the bill shall--
       (i) reach the goal of providing healthcare coverage to 95 
     percent of Americans within 10 years; and
       (ii) be deficit neutral.
       (B) Determination.--Whether or not a bill meets the 
     criteria in subparagraph (A) shall be determined by the 
     Speaker's ruling on a point of order based on a Congressional 
     Budget Office estimate of the bill.
       (b) Referral.--
       (1) Committee bills.--Upon introduction, the bill authored 
     by the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     shall be referred to that committee and the bill introduced 
     by the Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     be referred to that committee. If either committee has not 
     reported the bill referred to it (or another qualified bill) 
     by the end of 60 days of consideration beginning on the date 
     of referral, the committee shall be automatically discharged 
     from further consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be 
     placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union. In calculating the 60-day period, 
     adjournments for more than 3 days are not counted.
       (2) Leader bills.--The bills introduced by the House 
     Majority Leader and House Minority Leader will, on 
     introduction, be placed directly on the Calendar of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union.
       (c) Motion to Proceed.--
       (1) In general.--On or after the third day following the 
     committee report or discharge or upon a bill being placed on 
     the calendar under subsection (b)(2), it shall be in order 
     for any Member, after consultation with the Majority Leader, 
     to move to proceed to the consideration of any qualified 
     bill. Notice must first be given before proceeding. This 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill can be 
     offered by a Member only on the day after the calendar day on 
     which the Member announces the Member's intention to offer 
     it.
       (2) Consideration.--The motion to proceed to a given 
     qualified bill can be made even if a motion to the same 
     effect has previously been rejected. No more than 3 such 
     motions may be made, however, in any 1 congressional session.
       (3) Privileged and nondebatable.--The motion to proceed is 
     privileged, and all points of order against the motion to 
     proceed to consideration and its consideration are waived. 
     The motion is not debatable, is not amendable, and is not 
     subject to a motion to postpone.
       (4) No other business or reconsideration.--The motion is 
     not subject to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
     motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to is not in 
     order.
       (d) Consideration of a Qualified Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the motion to proceed is adopted, the 
     chamber will immediately proceed to the consideration of a 
     qualified bill without intervening motion, order, or other 
     business, and the bill remains the unfinished business of the 
     House until disposed of.
       (2) Committee of the whole.--The bill will be considered in 
     the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule, and the 
     bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at 
     any time.
       (3) Limit debate.--A motion to further limit debate is in 
     order and is not debatable.
       (4) Relevant amendments.--Only relevant amendments may be 
     offered to the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 935. A bill to regulate .50 caliber sniper weapons designed for 
the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including 
armored vehicles and components of the Nation's critical 
infrastructure; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fifty Caliber 
Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005. I am joined by Senators Corzine 
and Durbin.
  This bill would add the .50-caliber sniper rifle to the list of 
``firearms'' governed by the National Firearms Act. This means that 
this weapon would be subject to the tax and registration rules imposed 
by the Internal Revenue Service under that Act. The practical effect 
would be that a transfer of such a weapon, by sale or by gift, would 
require registration pursuant to IRS regulations.
  The bill would not ban any guns, and existing .50 caliber owners 
would be unaffected by this law until, and unless, they sell or give 
away their weapon.
  I believe this is a reasonable compromise, respecting the rights of 
those who have followed the law, but making future changes in the law 
to regulate new .50-caliber guns.
  .50-caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of 
companies, are deadly, military weapons, designed for combat with 
wartime enemies. They are capable of piercing light armor at more than 
four miles. The guns are designed to enable a single soldier to destroy 
enemy aircraft, HumVees, bunkers, fuel stations, and communication 
centers, as well as target and kill enemy personnel. As a result, their 
use by military organizations worldwide has been spreading rapidly.
  This is a weapon designed to kill people efficiently, or destroy 
machinery, at a great distance. But along with the increasing military 
use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by 
violent criminals and terrorists around the world, and the potential 
for much worse.
  These weapons are deadly accurate up to 6,000 feet. This means that a 
shooter using a .50-caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than 
a mile away. To further illustrate what this means, a shooter standing 
on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial can kill a person standing on 
the White House lawn, or shoot down the President's helicopter.
  And the gun is effective at more than four miles. Although it may be 
hard to aim at this distance, the gun will still have its desired 
destructive effect. That means a shooter in Arlington Cemetery can send 
a bullet crashing into this building.
  This is, of course, is using ordinary ammunition. I had one of my 
staff members obtain a blank .50-caliber bullet. I was amazed to see 
what was brought back. Senate rules forbid me from bringing the bullet 
to the floor, so I will describe it for my colleagues. The casing for 
this bullet is about five inches in length, and three-quarters-of-an-
inch in diameter. The entire round is almost as big as my hand.
  But don't just take my word for it. Each one of my colleagues should 
examine these bullets for themselves. Take a look at the projectile 
these weapons fire. This is not a recreational gun that can be used for 
hunting.
  This gun can be used by civilians against armored limousines, 
bunkers, individuals, and aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the 
gun promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars'' 
worth of jet aircraft

[[Page 8207]]

with one or two dollars worth of cartridges.''
  A recent CNN news report powerfully illustrates this issue. In one 
on-camera demonstration, a .50 caliber bullet is fired through the door 
of a commercial jetliner--it continues to blast through a steel plate. 
A marksman on the steps of the Capitol could bring down a plane coming 
into National Airport.
  This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover General 
Accountability Office investigators, ``You'd better buy one soon. It's 
only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that 
travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will 
definitely ban .50-calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' In fact, 
many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety 
features to accommodate these guns.
  A study by the GAO revealed some eye-opening facts about how and 
where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports 
that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and 
international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, 
drug traffickers, and violent criminals.
  According to a special agent at ATF's Atlanta Field Division, the 
Barrett .50-caliber rifle is ``a tremendous threat'' for ``those most 
shocking and horrifying crimes, assassinations, murders, assaults on 
law enforcement officers.''
  But these fears are not hypothetical. Recently we have learned that 
Al Qaeda has received .50-caliber sniper rifles--rifles that were 
manufactured right here in the United States. Nearly two years ago 
today, Essam al Ridi, an Al Qaeda associate, testified that he acquired 
25 Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles and shipped them to Al Qaeda 
members in Afghanistan. We have no way of knowing whether Al Qaeda has 
obtained more or who has supplied them with these weapons, but we can 
be sure that any .50-caliber weapon in the hands of Al Qaeda will 
likely be used against Americans.
  In 1998, Federal law enforcement apprehended three men belonging to a 
radical Michigan militia group. The three were charged with plotting to 
bomb Federal office buildings, destroy highways and utilities. They 
were also charged with plotting to assassinate then-Governor Engler, 
Federal judges, and our colleague, Senator Levin. A .50-caliber sniper 
rifle was found in their possession along with a cache of weapons that 
included three illegal machine guns.
  One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased ten of these 
guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands 
of rounds of ammunition and other guns.
  At least one .50-caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities 
after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. 
The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the 
guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide.
  The U.S. Air Force has studied the scenario of a potential terrorist 
attack with a .50-caliber weapon. According to a November 2001 article 
in the Air Force's official magazine, Airman, an anti-sniper assessment 
claimed that planes parked on a fully protected U.S. airbase are as 
vulnerable as ``ducks on a pond'' because the weapons can shoot from 
beyond most airbase perimeters. The Air Force has addressed the issue 
and the effectiveness of specially-trained countersnipers to respond to 
a .50-caliber weapon attack on aircraft, fuel tanks, control towers, 
and personnel.
  I am glad to know our military has given some consideration to the 
threats posed by .50-caliber weapons, but I have real concerns over the 
threats posed to civilian aviation.
  Our Nation's airports in no way match the security measure at Air 
Force bases. These commercial facilities handle millions of passengers 
and tons of cargo each day and are especially vulnerable to the threats 
posed by .50-caliber weapons.
  Experts have agreed that .50-caliber weapons aimed at a plane while 
stationary, or taking off or arriving, could be just as disastrous as a 
hit from a missile launcher. Gal Luff, Co-Director of the Institute for 
the Analysis of Global Security, has described .50-caliber weapons as 
``lethal to slow moving planes.''
  For further illustration of the potential destruction of these 
weapons, simply listen to the manufacturers themselves. According to a 
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Model 82A1 .50-caliber sniper rifle 
brochure: ``The cost effectiveness of the Model 82A1 cannot be 
overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for less than ten 
U.S. dollars can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. 
The compressor sections of jet engines or the transmissions of 
helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of 
destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to 
a vital area.''
  The Nordic Ammunition Company is the developer of the Raufoss 
multipurpose ammunition for .50-caliber weapons that combines armor-
piercing, incendiary, and explosive features and was used by U.S. 
forces during the Gulf War. According to the company, the ammunition 
can ignite military jet fuel and has ``the equivalent firing power of a 
20mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircrafts, 
light armor vehicles, ships, and light fortifications.''
  Ammunition for these guns is also readily available in stores and on 
the Internet. This is perfectly legal. Even those categories which are 
illegal, such as the ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that 
explodes on impact can, according to a recent ``60 Minutes'' news 
report, be purchased online.
  Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing 
ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the 
investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored 
limousine or maybe to shoot down a helicopter.
  Current law classifies .50-caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to 
the least government regulation for any firearm. In other words, the 
law makes no distinction between the .22-caliber target rifle, a .30-06 
caliber hunter's weapon, and this large-caliber combat weapon. Simply, 
I believe the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
  This weapon is not in the same class as other rifles. Its power and 
range are of an order of magnitude higher.
  Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly-
regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many States allow 
possession of .50-caliber guns by those as young as 14-years old, and 
there is no regulation on second-hand sales.
  Just this past year, the RAND Corporation released a report which 
identified eleven potential terrorist scenarios at Los Angeles 
International Airport. In one scenario, ``a sniper, using a .50 caliber 
rifle, fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.'' The report concludes: 
``we were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions'' for 
such an attack.
  Last June, a Department of Homeland Security representative told the 
Dallas Morning News that ``we remain concerned about any weapon of 
choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50-
caliber rifle.'' I think the Department's concerns are well founded.
  The bottom line is that the .50-caliber sniper weapon represents a 
national security threat requiring action by Congress.
  This is a weapon which should not be available to terrorists and 
criminals, and should be responsibly controlled through carefully 
crafted regulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  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. 935

       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 ``Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons 
     Regulation Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Certain firearms originally designed and built for use 
     as long-range .50 caliber

[[Page 8208]]

     military sniper weapons are increasingly being sold in the 
     United States civilian market.
       (2) The intended use of these long-range firearms, and an 
     increasing number of models derived directly from them, is 
     the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, 
     including armored vehicles and components of the national 
     critical infrastructure, such as radar and microwave 
     transmission devices.
       (3) These firearms are neither designed nor used in any 
     significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting 
     purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended 
     for sporting and hunting use.
       (4) Extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these 
     weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing 
     incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce.
       (5) The virtually unrestricted availability of these 
     firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their 
     design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial 
     threat to the national security.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF .50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER THE 
                   NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking ``(6) 
     a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of 
     title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive 
     device.'' and inserting ``(6) a .50 caliber sniper weapon; 
     (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 
     921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive 
     device.''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5845 the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining terms relating to firearms) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapon.--The term `.50 caliber 
     sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire 
     cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant 
     of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.''.
       (2) Modification to definition of rifle.--Section 5845(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rifle) is 
     amended by inserting ``or from a bipod or other support'' 
     after ``shoulder''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall only apply to a .50 
     caliber sniper weapon made or transferred after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Sununu):
  S. 936. A bill to ensure privacy for e-mail communications; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I introduce today the Leahy-Sununu E-mail 
Privacy Act to ensure that last year's decision by the First Circuit 
Court of Appeals in a case called United States v. Councilman does not 
undermine the online privacy that Americans expect and cherish. Senator 
Sununu has been a leader on privacy issues, and I appreciate and 
welcome his support.
  In a strained reading of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 
(ECPA), the majority in this case effectively concluded that it was 
permissible for an Internet Service Provider to systematically 
intercept, copy and read its customers' incoming e-mails for corporate 
gain. This outcome is an unacceptable privacy intrusion that is 
inconsistent with Congressional intent and the commonly-held 
understanding of the protections provided by ECPA, and requires swift 
Congressional response. I offer the E-mail Privacy Act as a simple, 
straightforward way to prevent the erosion of the privacy protection 
Congress granted to e-mail and ensure that this outcome is not 
repeated.
  In 1986 Congress passed ECPA to update the Wiretap Act so that 
Americans could enjoy the same amount of privacy in their online 
communications as they do in the offline world. ECPA was a careful, 
bipartisan and long-planned effort to protect electronic communications 
in two forms--from real-time monitoring or interception as they were 
being delivered, and from searches when they were stored in record 
systems. We recognized these as different functions and set rules for 
each based on the relevant privacy expectations and threats to privacy 
implicated by the different forms of surveillance.
  The Councilman decision upset this careful distinction. Functionally, 
the ISP was intercepting e-mails as they were being delivered, yet the 
majority concluded that the relevant rules were those pertaining to 
stored communications, which exempt ISPs. Specifically, the majority 
rejected the argument put forth by the Justice Department that an 
intercept occurs--and the Wiretap Act--applies when an e-mail is 
acquired contemporaneously with its transmission, regardless of whether 
the transmission may be in electronic storage for a nanosecond at the 
time of acquisition. This majority's conclusion fails to consider the 
nature of electronic communications systems and belies the reality that 
such searches are functionally an interception.
  The implications of this decision are broad. While many ISPs are 
responsible online citizens, this does not change the fact that this 
decision essentially licenses ISPs to snoop. Even more worrisome is 
that this decision creates the opportunity for the type of Big Brother 
invasions that understandably make Americans cringe. For practical 
reasons, law enforcement often installs surveillance devices at these 
nanosecond storage points, but before doing so, they have obtained the 
appropriate legal permission to intercept e-mails--a Title III order. 
Under the majority's interpretation in the Councilman decision, law 
enforcement would no longer need to obtain a Title III order to conduct 
such searches, but rather could follow the less rigorous procedures for 
stored communications. For example, under the rules for stored 
communication, if law enforcement were to get the consent of a 
university-operated ISP, such searches could be performed without the 
knowledge of users. This is Carnivore unleashed if you will, and is 
simply not the outcome that Congress intended or the American people 
expect. Searches that occur in nanosecond storage points during the 
transmission process are in their function ``interceptions'' and should 
be treated as such and subject to the wiretap laws.
  The E-mail Privacy Act is a simple approach to prevent the erosion of 
privacy protections and clarifies that the wiretap laws apply to e-mail 
interceptions like those at issue in the Councilman case. In essence, 
the Act would amend ECPA to clarify that the definition of intercept is 
not a narrow, rigid concept, but is broad enough to include actions 
that are functionally equivalent to an interception. Importantly, these 
careful and slight changes would simply restore the status quo prior to 
the Councilman decision without disturbing other areas of ECPA and 
without raising controversial concerns that may be difficult to resolve 
in the few remaining days of this term.
  This is an important issue to the American people, and fortunately 
the E-mail Privacy Act provides a straightforward approach that we can 
all get behind. Again, I thank Senator Sununu for his support on this 
important legislation. I am sure he would join me in urging our 
colleagues to make e-mail privacy a top priority and support the E-mail 
Privacy 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. 936

       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 ``E-Mail Privacy Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF INTERCEPT.

       Section 2510(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``through the use of any electronic, mechanical, 
     or other device.'' and inserting ``contemporaneous with 
     transit, or on an ongoing basis during transit, through the 
     use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device or 
     process, notwithstanding that the communication may 
     simultaneously be in electronic storage;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 937. A bill to combat commercial sexual activities by targeting 
demand, to protect children from being exploited by such activities, to 
prohibit the operation of sex tours, to assist State and local 
governments to enforce laws dealing with commercial sexual activities, 
to reduce trafficking in persons, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to combat 
the

[[Page 8209]]

scourge of sex trafficking within our borders, by targeting and 
reducing demand. The bill is entitled the End Demand for Sex 
Trafficking Act of 2005.
  For the last four years, the President has been a stalwart champion 
of strengthening efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking and 
slavery, not just abroad, but within our very own borders as well. Last 
July, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing I chaired, highlighted 
many of the Administration's landmark efforts in this area to date.
  Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the institutions of 
slavery and involuntary servitude--institutions that this Nation fought 
a bloody war to destroy--continue to persist today--not just around the 
world, but hidden in communities across America. It has been nearly two 
centuries since the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and 
well over a century since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. 
Yet to this day, men, women and children continue to be trafficked into 
the United States, and coerced into lives of forced labor and sexual 
slavery. The stories they tell are tragic, disturbing, and heart-
rending. And the acts they endure are not just unconstitutional, not 
just criminal--they are profoundly evil, immoral, and wrong.
  Shortly after the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing I chaired, 
the President made clear that ending the demand for trafficking is a 
critical component of this effort, in remarks he delivered before the 
first national training conference on Human Trafficking in the United 
States: Rescuing Women and Children from Slavery, hosted by the Justice 
Department in Tampa, Florida, and attended by a representative from my 
office. As the President stated, ``we cannot put [human traffickers] 
out of business until and unless we deal with the problem of demand.''
  Moreover, as the State Department's 2004 Trafficking in Persons 
Report notes, ``[c]onsiderable academic, NGO, and scientific research 
confirms a direct link between prostitution and trafficking. In fact, 
prostitution and its related activities . . . contribute[] to 
trafficking in persons by serving as a front behind which traffickers 
for sexual exploitation operate. . . . [P]rostitution directly 
contributes to the modern-day slave trade and is inherently demeaning. 
When law enforcement tolerates . . . prostitution, organized crime 
groups are freer to traffic in human beings.''
  So it is appropriate to expand our fight against the most coercive 
forms of human trafficking and slavery our society has ever witnessed, 
to include an effort to combat sex trafficking and prostitution as 
well. And it is appropriate to target the demand for sex trafficking as 
an essential element of our strategy to eliminating sex trafficking 
within our borders.
  Accordingly, for the past several months, I have been working with 
various anti-trafficking organizations to craft legislation to focus 
attention on the demand for sex trafficking within our own country. 
Last October, Senators Schumer and Specter and I introduced an earlier 
version of the legislation I introduce today (S. 2916). Representatives 
Pryce and Maloney introduced a companion bill on the House side that 
same day. And today, I am introducing a revised version of the bill, 
designed to achieve precisely the same objective: ending demand for sex 
trafficking. I am pleased that Senator Specter has again agreed to co-
sponsor the legislation. Moreover, Senator Schumer remains a close 
partner on this bill. Our offices are still working out some drafting 
issues with some of the anti-trafficking groups, and I am hopeful that 
Senator Schumer will once again be the lead Democrat co-sponsor of the 
bill. A parallel bill will be introduced in the House later today by 
Representatives Deborah Pryce, Carolyn Maloney, and Bobby Scott.
  This legislation is the product of extensive discussions over the 
last several months between my office, Senator Schumer's office, and 
major anti-trafficking organizations, as well as the offices of 
Representatives Pryce and Scott. I am pleased to report that, as a 
result of those discussions, we now have a bill that is supported by a 
broad coalition of anti-trafficking and human rights organizations--
including the Ministerial Alliance of Midland, Texas, Faces of 
Children, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Concerned Women 
for America, the Hudson Institute, the Institute on Religion and 
Democracy, the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, the Leadership 
Council for Human Rights, the National Association of Evangelicals, the 
Polaris Project, the Protection Project, the Religious Freedom 
Coalition, the Salvation Army, Shared Hope International, the Southern 
Baptist Convention, Standing Against Global Exploitation (SAGE), the 
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, World Vision, and 
other organizations and advocates. I ask unanimous consent that letters 
of endorsement from various anti-trafficking organizations be included 
in the Record.
  In conclusion, this is important legislation to protect the victims 
of sex trafficking and to reduce demand. I hope that the Senate will 
act favorably on the bill.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Southern Baptist Convention,

                                    Nashville, TN, March 11, 2005.
     Mr. James Ho,
     Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Border Security, Immigration 
         and Citizenship, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Mr. Derek Lindblom,
     Counsel, Office of Senator Chuck Schumer, Hart Senate 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Ms. Shiloh Roehl,
     Legislative Director, Office of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, 
         Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Mr. Bobby Vasssar,
     Minority Counsel, House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim, Derek, Shiloh, and Bobby: I am pleased to notify 
     you that the following members and organizations of the 
     National Coalition for Religious Freedom and Human Rights 
     fully support the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, 
     including myself. Others have already notified you of their 
     support through personal letters. I am also confident that 
     additional organizations from our Coalition, and groups 
     closely aligned with us, will join in supporting this 
     historic legislation.
           Best regards,
         Barrett Duke, Chairman, National Coalition for Religious 
           Freedom and Human Rights, Vice President for Public 
           Policy and Research, Southern Baptist Ethics and 
           Religious Liberty Commission; Richard Cizik, Vice 
           President for Governmental Affairs, National 
           Association of Evangelicals; Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior 
           Fellow, The Beverly Lahaye Institute, Concerned Women 
           for America; Lisa Thompson, Initiative Against Sexual 
           Trafficking, Salvation Army; Nathan J. Diament, 
           Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish 
           Congregations of America; Faith McDonnell, Director, 
           Religious Liberty Programs, Institute on Religion and 
           Democracy; Donna M. Hughes, Professor & Carlson Endowed 
           Chair, Women's Studies Program, University of Rhode 
           Island; Kathryn Porter, President, Leadership Council 
           for Human Rights; Peggy Birchfield, Executive Director, 
           Religious Freedom Coalition; Michael Horowitz, Senior 
           Fellow, Hudson Institute; Debbie Fikes, Director, Basic 
           Ministries, International, Midland, TX; Margaret 
           Purvis, Chairwoman, Faces of Children, Midland, Texas; 
           Dr. Jae Joong Nam, President, AEGIS Foundation.
                                  ____

                                                   March 15, 2005.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. Deborah Pryce,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn and Representative Pryce: I am writing 
     to express my support for the End Demand for Sex Trafficking 
     Act of 2005.
       Though I and several of my colleagues had some serious 
     concerns about earlier versions of the legislation, I 
     appreciate your willingness to address our proposed changes. 
     I believe the bill introduced is greatly improved and will 
     have a positive effect on reducing demand for commercial sex 
     practices in the United States. Reducing demand for 
     commercial sex will help reduce the number of trafficking 
     victims and help prevent the sexual exploitation of women and 
     children.

[[Page 8210]]

       I commend you for commitment to helping end sex trafficking 
     and your commitment to human rights.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Linda Smith,

                                   Founder and Executive Director,
     Shared Hope International.
                                  ____

                                             Institute on Religion


                                            and Public Policy,

                                  Washington, DC., March 15, 2005.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I am writing in support of the End 
     Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005. This historic 
     legislation would bring significant attention to the true 
     roots of sexual trafficking: the demand for illegal sexual 
     activity. It would also combat the commercial sexual trade by 
     focusing law enforcement effort on consumers, traffickers, 
     and exploiters, ending the current isolation of the 
     individuals exploited in the illegal activity.
       The End Demand for Sexual Trafficking Act of 2005 is the 
     result of many hours of work by lawmakers, religious leaders, 
     and NGOs under your ledership and is a much-needed addition 
     to the United States' sexual trafficking laws. This bill will 
     hopefully focus the attention of sexual trafficking 
     prosecution on the traffickers and the ``johns'' who pay for 
     the illegal activities, thereby solidifying America's 
     position as the world leader in working to end sexual 
     trafficking and prostitution.
       With warm personal regards and best wishes, I am,
           Sincerely Yours,
                                              Joseph K. Grieboski,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                Faces of Children,


                                               Midland, Texas,

                                                   March 11, 2005.
     Re End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of Faces of Children an 
     ecumenical prayer ministry under the auspices of First 
     Presbyterian Church, Midland, Texas, we endorse the End 
     Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.
       Faces of Children is a prayer ministry that focuses on and 
     provides prayer support to children in crisis and in 
     distress. We care deeply about providing assistance to 
     victims, especially the youngest and most vulnerable ones, of 
     sex trafficking and about prosecuting those who take 
     advantage of them in the sex trade.
       We are most grateful to you for sponsoring this important 
     bill!
           Blessings,
     Margaret Purvis, Chair,
                                   Faces of Children, Midland, TX;
     Chris Laufer, Coodinator,
     Faces of Children, Midland, TX.
                                  ____

                                     Coalition Against Trafficking


                                                     in Women,

                                                    March 9, 2005.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: The Coalition Against Trafficking in 
     Women, an international organization working against sex 
     trafficking and prostitution in many parts of the world, 
     would like to express its support for the proposed ``End 
     Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.''
       We are confident that this bill, when passed and 
     implemented, will go a long way in deterring purchasers of 
     commercial sex acts, help protect children from being 
     exploited, prohibit the operation of sex tours, and assist 
     States and local governments in their efforts to reduce 
     trafficking and commercial sexual activities.
       We hope that this bill will soon be passed by the United 
     States Congress and appreciate your sponsorship of this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Janice G. Raymond,
     Co-Executive Director.
                                  ____


                  [From World Vision, March 10, 2005]

    World Vision Endorses Legislation to Combat Sex Trafficking and 
                     Increase Assistance to Victims

       Washington.--World Vision applauds Senator John Cornyn and 
     Representatives Chris Smith and Deborah Pryce for their 
     steadfast work to protect children from exploitation. We 
     support H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the introduction of the End 
     Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005. The combined 
     strengths of these two bills provide for effective measures 
     to help combat sex trafficking by increasing law enforcement 
     efforts, reducing demand and increasing services available to 
     victims.
       An estimated two million children currently are enslaved in 
     the global commercial sex trade, which has destroyed the 
     lives of countless women and children throughout history. For 
     children, the most vulnerable victims, the impact is 
     catastrophic, including: long-lasting physical and 
     psychological trauma, disease (including HIV/AIDS), violence/
     abuse, drug addiction, unwanted pregnancy, malnutrition, 
     social ostracism, a life of poverty and, in the worst cases, 
     death. Notably, this abhorrent abuse is found in nearly every 
     country, including the United States.
       The provisions included in the End Demand for Sex 
     Trafficking Act of 2005 will help remedy this problem by 
     increasing U.S. law enforcement action against the abusers, 
     including traffickers, pimps, brothel owners and 
     ``customers'' (a.k.a., ``Johns''), thereby curtailing demand. 
     In addition, the Trafficking Victims Protection 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 reauthorizes much-needed program 
     funds, provides for increased law enforcement programs and 
     tools and bolsters the TIP office at the Department of State. 
     Both bills measurably increase services available to victims.
       World Vision is delighted to support both of these bills 
     and we have full confidence in the U.S. Congress to resolve 
     any differences between the two bills in order to arrive at 
     the most effective legislation possible. We thank Senator 
     Cornyn and Representatives Smith and Pryce for their 
     leadership in addressing this global problem. We stand ready 
     to work with Congress on this important issue.
       World Vision is a Christian relief and development 
     organization dedicated to helping children and their 
     communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling 
     the causes of poverty . World Vision serves the world's 
     poor--regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender. In 
     2004, World Vision operated in nearly 100 countries around 
     the world.
                                  ____

                                                  Standing Against


                                          Global Exploitation,

                                 San Francisco, CA, March 8, 2005.
     Senator John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Honorable Senator John Cornyn: I am writing on behalf of 
     SAGE Project, Inc to strongly and enthusiastically endorse 
     the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, a bill 
     designed to combat commercial activities by targeting demand, 
     to protect children from being exploited by such activities, 
     to prohibit the operation of sex tours, to assist State and 
     local governments to enforce laws dealing with commercial 
     sexual activities, to reduce trafficking in persons and for 
     other purposes.
       SAGE has designed and implemented cutting-edge, model 
     restorative justice programs for customers of prostitutes 
     (the demand), trauma and drug recovery, and job training 
     programs for women, young men, and girls who are victims of 
     trafficking, prostitution, sexual exploitation and violence. 
     The personal knowledge and experience possessed by many of 
     the survivor, peer staff enables SAGE to effectively provide 
     support and engender trust without re-traumatizing even the 
     most fragile of clients. Through advocacy, educational 
     programs, and as a direct service provider for over 14 years, 
     SAGE has assisted in raising public awareness concerning the 
     sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and girls. As a 
     result of our interventions, SAGE has assisted over 1500 
     individuals to exit the criminal justice system, escape 
     traffickers and actively engage in prosecutions, receive 
     emergency housing and victim services, recover from abuse and 
     acquire appropriate services such as medical and mental 
     health care, substance abuse treatment, legal, immigration, 
     case management, educational and vocational training. Because 
     of SAGE's commitment to victims of exploitation and 
     trafficking, a web of prevention education, early 
     intervention and treatment services and a network of 
     survivor, peer led programs throughout the United States has 
     been created. SAGE is the co-founder of the first and largest 
     program for customers of prostitutes in the world. This 
     restorative justice program has been replicated in dozens of 
     other cities and funds a wide range of services for women and 
     girls.
       Studies show that most commercially sexually exploited 
     children (CSEC) are integrated into the mainstream sex 
     industry and tend to be concentrated in the cheaper end of 
     the prostitution market where conditions are the worse and 
     the concentration of customers/abusers the highest. Although 
     some children are prostituted by and/or specifically for 
     pedophiles and preferential abusers, the majority of the 
     several million men who annually exploit children are first 
     and foremost prostitute users of adult women who become child 
     sexual abusers through their prostitute use, rather than the 
     other way around. The world of prostitution whether legal or 
     illegal provides an arena where laws and rules which 
     constrain sex with minors can be evaded. Laws and social 
     conventions make it difficult and dangerous for individuals 
     to buy children for sexual purposes in non-commercial 
     contexts, but prostitution potentially provides instant 
     access, often to a selection of children. Men surveyed in San 
     Francisco through SAGE and the First Offenders Prostitution 
     Program respond when asked how a person justifies having sex 
     with an underage prostituted child, ''they don't even 
     think.'' They know that law enforcement efforts are focused 
     on the youth/child

[[Page 8211]]

     as the perpetrator and not on them. The End Demand for Sex 
     Trafficking Act of 2005 is the most historically significant 
     step toward ending the rape and sexual abuse of children 
     through prostitution and holding the true perpetrators 
     accountable.
       The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 clearly, 
     strongly, and unambiguously redefines ``child prostitution'' 
     as sexual abuse on young human beings. This sexual abuse of 
     children through prostitution is made possible by a society 
     that has sanctioned and institutionalized numbers of children 
     for whom routine abuse, torture, rape, trafficking and 
     kidnapping is considered acceptable. In essence, what society 
     is saying and enforcing through laws and inappropriate 
     interventions is that children and youth are consenting to 
     their own sexual abuse and that by consenting to this abuse 
     they are a danger to society. They are subject to arrest, 
     they are viewed as perpetrators, not victims, and they are 
     denied any services for their victimization. Many of these 
     girls have been exploited for pornography or have suffered or 
     witnessed physical and sexual violence. For these girls, the 
     average of entry into prostitution is 13-14, an age at which 
     these girls are entering an endless cycle of arrest, drug 
     addiction, and violence. The result is traumatic and profound 
     lack of self-esteem causing disempowered behaviors: dropping 
     out of school, prostitution, addiction, selling of drugs, and 
     violence. Their exploitation is perpetuated by continued 
     reliance on the very people who have physically, emotionally, 
     and sexually assaulted them. As these children age into 
     adults they remain trapped in a system of abuse and 
     exploitation and could not escape even if they wanted to. The 
     legal, mental and medical health, human rights consequences 
     of this abuse remains with the child or woman as she is 
     arrested, prosecuted, jailed, placed on probation and forced 
     into treatment. The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 
     2005 will send the message that now these severely victimized 
     and neglected children and women can depend on us for 
     protection and care.
       SAGE is committed to working with you and your office in 
     passing this historic legislation. Just ask.
           Truly,
                                                  Norma Hotaling ,
     Founder and Director, SAGE.
                                  ____

         Johns Hopkins University, The Paul H. Hitze School of 
           Advanced International Studies
                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 2005.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
     Hon. Deborah Pryce,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Cornyn and Representative Pryce: I am writing 
     on behalf of The Protection Project at The Johns Hopkins 
     University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), 
     to express my full support for the End Demand for Sex 
     Trafficking Act of 2005.
       The Protection Project is a legal human rights research 
     institute committed to the eradication of trafficking in 
     persons. The Protection Project strongly believes that 
     reducing demand is the most effective way to successfully 
     combat sex trafficking.
       The End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 is a 
     significant step forward in the fight against sex 
     trafficking, since it introduces appropriate measures to 
     promote the prosecution of purchasers of commercial sex acts, 
     exploiters of sexual activities and traffickers. In 
     particular, in regard to the prosecution of purchasers, I 
     strongly endorse Section 4(b)(1), which proposes measures 
     such as educational programs for first time purchasers of 
     ``unlawful commercial sex,'' publication of names and 
     addresses, the use of female decoys, statutory rape and 
     felony assaults prosecutions, and other programs enhancing 
     prosecution and reducing demand. I firmly believe that these 
     measures would significantly contribute to discouraging 
     demand.
       The Protection Project is committed to working with you and 
     supports the passage of this important legislation.
           Best Regards,

                                    Mohamed Y. Mattar, S.J.D.,

                                          Adjunct Professor of Law
     and Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              Polaris Project,

                                     Tokyo, Japan, March 10, 2005.
     Mr. James Ho,
     Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Border Security, Immigration 
         and Citizenship, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Mr. Derek Lindblom,
     Counsel, Office of Senator Chuck Schumer, Hart Senate 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Ms. Shiloh Roehl,
     Legislative Director, Office of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, 
         Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ho, Mr. Lindblom, and Ms. Roehl: On behalf of 
     Polaris Project, we write in support of the End Demand for 
     Sex Trafficking Act of 2005.
       We work everyday with women and children in the sex 
     industry who have been beaten, raped, and controlled through 
     threats of death and extreme violence, many of them U.S. 
     nationals who just a few years ago would be viewed as nothing 
     more than criminals. This historic legislation will help 
     change that injustice forever in the United States. The End 
     Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005 generates renewed hope 
     for our clients, for the survivors on our staff, and for the 
     rest of us who work everyday protecting some of the most 
     vulnerable women and children in our country.
       Thank you for your work.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Katherine Chon,
                                            Co-Executive Director.
                                                   Derek Ellerman,
     Co-Executive Director.
                                  ____


                 [From the Religious Freedom Coalition]

                         (By Peggy Birchfield)

  Statement by Religious Freedom Coalition Chairman, William J. Murray

       Although progress has been made in many areas since the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed in 2000, the 
     tragic human degradation of sexual trafficking continues to 
     increase in magnitude. The number of those adversely affected 
     continues to grow, especially among children, the most 
     pathetic victims.
       By focusing more on the male customers and on traffickers, 
     this proposed legislation can reduce prostitution by 
     redirecting law enforcement efforts which now 
     disproportionately lead to the arrest of the women involved 
     in prostitution, some of whom are trafficking victims.
       The legislators who have wisely recognized that 
     prostitution is not a ``victimless crime'' and who have taken 
     steps to reduce its prevalence are to be applauded. It has 
     long been realized that prostitution brutalizes and 
     desensitizes men, who come to view women as objects and not 
     as human beings. A new study has shown that prostitution also 
     leads to more criminal behavior in women, and not just in 
     drug related offenses. It was found that 7 out of 10 women 
     who were convicted of felonies of all kinds, first entered 
     the legal system because of an arrest for prostitution.
       Sex tourism is a growing industry that targets children in 
     third world countries, and the United States is the home of 
     probably more ``sex tourists'' than any other single nation. 
     The victims are not American children in this case, but are 
     poor and often abandoned children in foreign countries where 
     there is lax law enforcement. This new effort to stop the 
     victimization of these children should be supported in all 
     possible ways. The men who travel abroad to exploit children 
     and the tour operators who are well aware of the nature of 
     the trips they are providing, should be prosecuted.
       This bipartisan effort by members of the Senate and the 
     House to address this serious humanitarian issue is to be 
     highly commended, and I hope it will gain many more 
     supporters and cosponsors in Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 938. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to require that 
members of the National Guard and Reserve called or ordered to active 
duty for a period of more than 30 days to receive a basic allowance for 
housing at the same rate as similarly situated members of the regular 
components of the uniformed services; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is now fairly common on the Senate Floor 
to hear the statement that we cannot adequately defend our Nation today 
without our military reserves. Everybody knows that the activation of 
members of the National Guard and Reserve since September 11, 2001, 
represents the largest mobilization of our back-up military personnel 
since World War II. Everyone knows too that members of the National 
Guard and Reserve comprise over 50 percent of the forces on the ground 
in Iraq. And, yes, we all know that we are asking the reserves, 
particularly the National Guard, to help increase security within the 
domestic United States, whether at prominent events or along our porous 
national borders.
  It is critical that we go beyond mere statements and take concrete 
steps to preserve the readiness, morale, and general effectiveness of 
this force. This imperative extends particularly to redressing harmful 
policies that give the impression to our reservists that they are not 
an equally important part of the wider military and the defense of the 
Nation.
  Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation that will end 
one of the most glaring of these inequities. Our legislation, The 
National Guard and Reserves Housing Equity Act of 2005, effectively 
terminates a patently unfair low housing allowance provided to 
reservists when they are called up

[[Page 8212]]

for a relatively short-term of active service.
  This so-called lower allowance level, known officially as the Basic 
Allowance for Housing II, or B.A.H. II, puts on average almost $400 
less per month--per month--in the pockets of our reservists than what 
they would receive if they were regular, active duty members. To any 
reservist who leaves his or her community, profession, and family for 
active service, receiving B.A.H. II says that he or she is a second-
class member of the military. You might do the same job as a full-time 
member of the military and live in the same type of housing, but you do 
not deserve the same allowance. The allowance creates an unacceptable 
financial hardship that will decrease the willingness of any reasonable 
person to continue service.
  This is a very real problem. Last year, Congress and the President 
enacted a piece of legislation--which I sponsored along with my fellow 
Guard Caucus Co-Chair Senator Kit Bond--that authorized greater use of 
the National Guard for national homeland security missions. Using this 
new authority, members of the National Guard from my home State of 
Vermont were called to active duty late last year to help increase 
security along the Northern Border. Those members of the Guard worked 
side-by-side with their active duty counterparts. Yet the Guard 
personnel received over $300 less per month in housing allowances.
  I cannot tell you how many soldiers and airmen who participated in 
that mission came up to me and made clear how slighted and insulted 
they felt by that housing allowance. Those comments mirror what I heard 
from other members of the Guard who received B.A.H. II on a similar 
mission. This second-tier housing allowance really burns in the saddle 
of every citizen-soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, and it is having 
a real effect on morale.
  We simply cannot tolerate this inequity to continue, and it is within 
our power to do something about this. So we have a choice today: Either 
we can keep this second-tier housing allowance in place and send a 
signal that we need to save some dollars on the backs of those who have 
stepped forward to serve, or we can remedy this inequity, making the 
firm statement that we will take the real steps necessary to support 
our reservists and provide them the resources so that they can do their 
jobs and be treated fairly while they serve.
  The National Guard and Reserves Housing Equity Act of 2005 
specifically provides that any member of the reserves called up for 
more than 30 days will receive the exact same housing allowance as a 
regular active duty service-member. The legislation gives the Office of 
Secretary of Defense some discretion to set the allowance under the 30 
days, but it should be done on a pro-rated basis on the higher regular 
allowance. The effect of this legislation will be to end the category 
of Basic Allowance of Housing II.
  This legislation has been endorsed unanimously by the 35-military 
association umbrella group, The Military Coalition. So that all 
senators may read the specific views of the military associations, I 
ask that letters from the National Guard Association of the United 
States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
States, the Reserve Officers Associations, the Reserve Enlisted 
Association, the Association of the United States Army, and the Fleet 
Reserve Association be printed in the Record. The Military Officer's 
Association of America and the Air Force Sergeant's Association have 
also directly endorsed this legislation.
  We often hear statements about supporting our troops, but this is a 
chance to actually support them. This is an issue that literally 
affects our troops where they live. I invite our colleagues to join 
Senator Bond and me in co-sponsoring this legislation and in working to 
end this grossly unfair system. With the National Guard and Reserves 
Housing Equity Act of 2005, we are backing up our thanks with 
meaningful action. With this step we are saying that we are ready to 
provide a strong foundation of policies that will actually encourage 
our reservists to continue to serve the country superbly. This is the 
right thing to do, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to enacting this legislation this year.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing on behalf of the men and 
     women of the National Guard Association of the United States 
     to thank you for introducing legislation which addresses the 
     inequities in housing allowances paid to members of the 
     National Guard.
       Your bill, which reduces the threshold for receipt of full 
     BAH from 140 days to 30 days, will have an immediate and 
     positive impact on many of our members who are receiving 
     housing allowances at a rate which is on average $400 less 
     than the regular BAR rate. Because BAH II is not adjusted for 
     location, in some places the loss of income could be as high 
     as $1,000.00, depending on rank.
       As you know, when a Guard member is on duty, the mortgage 
     payment or rent is not reduced. Your bill will rectify this 
     injustice and allow National Guard members to receive full 
     BAH when on orders for more than 30 days.
       At no other time in recent history have the men and women 
     of the National Guard been asked to sacrifice so much for the 
     good of the Nation. We thank you for recognizing their 
     contribution and sacrifice and working to remove this 
     inequity in their housing allowance.
       Please don't hesitate to call on us if there is anything we 
     else we can do to support this worthwhile legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen M. Koper,
     Brigadier General, Retired President.
                                  ____

         Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
           States,
                                   Alexandria, VA, April 21, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the Enlisted men and women 
     of the Army and Air National Guard, thank you for introducing 
     legislation to reduce the threshold for the receipt of Basic 
     Allowance for Housing (BAH) to 30 days. This bill will 
     authorize National Guard and Reserve members on active duty 
     for more than 30 days to receive full BAH instead of the 
     lower BAH II they now receive if their orders are for less 
     than 140 days.
       Almost all National Guard members must maintain a private 
     residence while performing periods of active duty. Their rent 
     or mortgage payment doesn't go away when they are called to 
     active duty.
       National Guard and Reserve members who are on active duty 
     for less than 140 days receive BAH II instead of the BAH that 
     every other servicemembers receives. BAH II is based on the 
     old BAQ rate and is, on average, $400 less than the average 
     BAH rate. it is not adjusted for location. In some places, 
     such as the Washington, DC Metro area, the difference can be 
     $1,000, depending upon the rank of the servicemember.
       A significant percentage of mobilized Guard members earn 
     less on active duty than in their civilian careers and paying 
     them a reduced housing allowance only makes the financial 
     difficulty worse. Your bill would eliminate this inequity for 
     most National Guard and Reserve members by changing the 
     threshold from 140 days to 30 days.
       Thank you so much for addressing one of the many needs of 
     our National Guard members. EANGUS will support this 
     legislation in any way possible. If there is anything we can 
     do to assist, please let us know.
           Working for America's Best!
                                   MSG (Ret) Michael P. Cline AUS,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                 Reserve Enlisted Association,

                                                   April 21, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Hon. Christopher S. ``Kit'' Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Bond: The Reserve Officers 
     Association, representing over 75,000 Reserve Component 
     members and the Reserve Enlisted Association supporting all 
     Reserve enlisted members, supports your bill to require that 
     members of the National Guard and Reserve called or ordered 
     to active duty for a period of more than 30 days receive a 
     basic allowance for housing at the same rate as similarly 
     situated members of the regular components of the uniformed 
     services.
       This bill tears down a barrier at a time when the services 
     will need to rely on volunteerism as they run out of 
     mobilization authority. The lower Reserve Component housing 
     allowance has been reported by ROA members as a reason why 
     they are not encouraged to volunteer for active duty.

[[Page 8213]]

       Additionally, it will also help to offset pay differential 
     and positively affect the financial health of our military 
     families. The provisions of your bill meet sound business 
     practices by targeting entitlements and we are encouraged it 
     will receive bipartisan interest. Congressional support for 
     our nation's military men and women in the Guard and Reserve 
     is and always will be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Robert A. McIntosh,
       Major General (Ret), USAFR, ROA Executive Director.
     Lani Burnett,
       CMSgt, USAFR (Ret), REA Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                 Association of the U.S. Army,

                                    Arlington, VA, April 22, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of the more than 100,000 
     members of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), 
     I thank you for introducing legislation to reduce the 
     threshold for the receipt of Basic Allowance for Housing II 
     (BAH II) to 30 days.
       Almost all National Guard members must maintain a private 
     residence while performing periods of active duty. Their rent 
     or mortgage payment doesn't go away when they are called to 
     active duty.
       National Guard and Reserve members who are on active duty 
     for less than 140 days receive BAH II instead of the Basic 
     Allowance for Housing (BAH) that every other servicemember 
     receives. BAH II is based on the old BAQ rate and is, on 
     average, $400 less than the average BAH rate. It is not 
     adjusted for location. In some places, such as the 
     Washington, D.C. Metro area, the difference can be $1,000, 
     depending upon the rank of the servicemember.
       A significant percentage of mobilized Guard members earn 
     less on active duty than in their civilian careers and paying 
     them a reduced housing allowance only makes the financial 
     difficulty worse. Your bill would eliminate this inequity for 
     most National Guard and Reserve members by changing the 
     threshold from 140 days to 30 days.
       AUSA will support this legislation in any way possible. If 
     there is anything we can do to assist, please let us know.
           Sincerely,
                                               Gordon R. Sullivan,
     General, USA Retired.
                                  ____


                       Fleet Reserve Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 22, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: FRA wholeheartedly endorses your 
     introduction of legislation authorizing National Guard and 
     Reservists called to active duty for a period of more than 30 
     days to receive a basic allowance for housing (BAH) at the 
     same rate as their active duty counterparts.
       Current policy require Reservists serving less than 140 
     days receive ``BAH II,'' which is generally a flat-rate 
     amount based on pay grade and marital status rather than the 
     market-influenced, geographically-driven allowance that 
     active duty personnel receive.
       At the specific request of senior enlisted leaders of the 
     Coast Guard, FRA addressed this inadequacy in Congressional 
     testimony, recommending a policy change authorizing 
     Reservists activated 30 days or more to be eligible for 
     locally based BAH. This measure significantly helps ensure 
     Reservists' compensation reflects the duties our Nation has 
     asked them to perform.
       The Association salutes you for your efforts and is 
     committed to working toward enactment of this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph L. Barnes,
                                     National Executive Secretary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Reed):
  S. 941. A bill to amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
1978 to establish a program to provide assistance to States and 
nonprofit organizations to preserve suburban forest land and open space 
and contain suburban sprawl; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been 
faithful stewards of the forest because we understand its tremendous 
value to our economy and to our way of life. From the vast tracts of 
undeveloped land in the north to the small woodlots in the south, 
forest land helps shape the character of our entire State.
  While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forest for 
generations, there is a threat to Maine's working landscape that 
requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl, which has 
already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in southern 
Maine. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forest or farm land 
cannot compete with the value of developed land.
  Sprawl threatens our environment and our quality of life. It destroys 
ecosystems, increasing the risk of flooding and other environmental 
hazards. It burdens the infrastructure of the affected communities, 
increases traffic on neighborhood streets, and wastes taxpayer money. 
It leads to the fragmentation of woodlots, reducing the economic 
viability of the remaining working forests.
  No State is immune from the dangers of sprawl. For example, the 
Virginia State Forester says that since 1992, Virginia has lost 54,000 
acres of forest land per year to other uses.
  The Southeastern Michigan Council of Government reported that 
southeastern Michigan saw a 17 percent increase in developed land 
between 1990 and 2000.
  In my State of Maine alone, suburban sprawl has already consumed tens 
of thousands of acres of forest and farm land. The problem is 
particularly acute in southern Maine where an 108 percent increase in 
urbanized land over the past two decades has resulted in the labeling 
of greater Portland as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''
  I am particularly alarmed by the amount of working forest and farm 
land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that have given way 
to strip malls and cul-de-sacs. Once these forests, farms, and meadows 
are lost to development, they are lost forever.
  Maine is trying to respond to this challenge. The people of Maine 
continue to contribute their time and money to preserve important lands 
and to support our State's 88 land trusts. It is time for the Federal 
Government to support these State and community-based efforts.
  For these reasons, I am introducing the Suburban and Community 
Forestry and Open Space Program Act. This legislation, which was 
drafted with the advice of land owners and conservation groups, 
establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service 
to support locally driven land conservation projects that preserve 
working forests. Local government and nonprofit organizations could 
compete for funds to purchase land or access to land to protect working 
landscapes threatened by development.
  Projects funded under this initiative must be targeted at lands 
located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. In 
addition, this legislation requires that Federal grant funds be matched 
dollar-for-dollar by state, local, or private resources.
  This is a market-driven program that relies upon market forces rather 
than government regulations to achieve its objectives. Rather than 
preserving our working forests, farmland and open spaces by zoning or 
other government regulation, at the expense of the landowner, with this 
program we will provide the resources to allow a landowner who wishes 
to keep his or her land as a working woodlot to do so.
  My legislation also protects the rights of property owners with the 
inclusion of a ``willing-seller'' provision, which requires the consent 
of a landowner if a parcel of land is to participate in the program.
  The $50 million that would be authorized by my bill would help 
achieve a number of stewardship objectives: First, this bill would help 
prevent forest fragmentation and preserve working forests, helping to 
maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine's most significant 
industry.
  Second, these resources would be a valuable tool for communities that 
are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl.
  Understanding land ownership issues in other parts of the nation, I 
have included a geographic limitation in this bill. This limitation 
would exempt any state where the Federal Government owns twenty-five 
percent or more of that State's land from the Suburban and Community 
Forestry and Open Space Program. With the twenty-five percent 
limitation, a figure used in previous bills, the twelve States with the 
highest percentage of federally owned land would not be eligible to 
participate in this new program. Those

[[Page 8214]]

States, however, who are struggling most with the loss of working 
landscapes would be authorized to receive Federal assistance in their 
efforts to combat sprawl.
  Currently, if the town of Gorham, ME, or another community trying to 
cope with the effects of sprawl turned to the Federal Government for 
assistance, none would be found. My bill will change that by making the 
Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest and farm land 
and managing sprawl, while leaving decision-making at the state and 
local level where it belongs.
  In 2002, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the 
Senate approved version of the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the forestry 
title was stripped out of the Farm Bill conference report. Again, in 
2003, this legislation passed the Senate. This time, during 
consideration of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
  Unfortunately, this provision was removed from the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act conference report. This new Congress provides us a 
further opportunity to consider this legislation and ultimately have 
this bill enacted.
  There is great working being done on the local level to protect 
working landscapes for the next generation. By enacting the Suburban 
and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide an 
additional avenue of support for these conservation initiatives, help 
prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based 
industries.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 942. A bill to designate additional National Forest System lands 
in the State of Virginia as wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain 
and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail 
plans for the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
piece of legislation for my State, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 
2005. This bill will add seven new wilderness areas, six additions to 
existing wilderness areas, and two National Scenic Areas to the 
Jefferson National Forest. Congressman Rick Boucher is introducing 
companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.
  Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have strived to 
preserve Virginia's natural resources and heritage through the 
designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that 
Virginia boasts approximately 100,434 acres of designated wilderness 
lands. However, there is still much work to be done. Within the 
Jefferson National Forest, designated wilderness areas currently 
account for only 7 percent of the total forest acreage. If enacted, the 
Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2005 will substantially increase this 
figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in 
the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness 
areas and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.
  Virginia is blessed with great beauty and natural diversity. From the 
complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite vistas, 
streams, vegetation, and wildlife of the Shenandoah Mountains, 
residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural 
treasures. As demand for development in Virginia increases, it becomes 
incumbent upon Congress to act expeditiously to protect these wild 
lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can 
ensure that these areas retain their primeval character and influences.
  Mr. President, I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, and I enjoy 
opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to 
stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the 
wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, 
hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. In 
addition, the Act is flexible and provides for reasonable local forest 
management and emergency services in wilderness areas, such as the use 
of motorized equipment and aircraft for search and rescue operations; 
or to combat fire, insects and disease.
  I am particularly pleased to include in the legislation an 
authorization for the establishment of a non-motorized trail between 
County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018 outside of the new 
Raccoon Branch Wilderness area. This trail will follow the historic Rye 
Valley Railroad Grade and will be a popular route for mountain bikers, 
equestrians and hikers. In addition, this bill directs the Forest 
Service to develop trail plans for the wilderness and national scenic 
areas.
  As a father and a grandfather, I feel a weighty obligation to ensure 
that our children have lasting opportunities to enjoy Virginia's 
immense natural beauty and diversity. This legislation is a crucial 
step in our quest to preserve these lovely areas for the enjoyment and 
use of future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 943. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting 
and providing, through projects of persons and organizations with 
expertise in crane conservation, financial resources for the 
conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or 
indirectly affect cranes and the ecosystems of cranes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation 
Act of 2005. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, 
Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl and Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, 
have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation 
in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of 
these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen 
worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of 
Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane 
species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane 
conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, 
promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will 
go far beyond the boundaries of my home state. This bill is similar to 
legislation that I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses.
  In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided 
support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the 
creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. 
Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF 
distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation 
groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its 
establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover 
other species, such as elephants and great apes.
  Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to 
add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds 
in the world, with 11 of the world's fifteen species at risk of 
extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 
million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation 
project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial 
resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying 
conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The 
program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2010.
  In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this 
bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over five 
years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation 
should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative 
budget.
  I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant 
decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without 
further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success 
in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on 
earth. In 1941, only

[[Page 8215]]

21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast 
to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping 
crane's resurgence is attributed to the birds' tenacity for survival 
and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. 
Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in 
northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. Two new 
flocks of cranes are currently being reintroduced to the wild, one of 
which is a migratory flock on the Wisconsin to Florida flyway.
  The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress 
to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and 
international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from 
Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude 
of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National 
Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife 
Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home state in 
the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional 
watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, 
disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, 
and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made.
  The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom 
have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. 
Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping 
Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of 
farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery 
program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. One of 
the program's supporters has told me that this program is the 
conservation equivalent of putting a man on the moon. I think it is 
quite appropriate then that the Smithsonian announced that one of the 
ultralight planes from Operation Migration, which leads the migration 
from Necedah to Chassahowitzka, will be inducted into the National Air 
and Space Museum. The plane will be on display in the Museum early next 
year. I cannot think of a better way to showcase this innovative 
conservation program.
  Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, 
however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While 
over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping 
cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in 
Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and 
the wattled crane of Africa.
  The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the 
wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, 
open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to 
agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin 
development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent 
in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in 
decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population 
concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs 
through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population 
growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. 
Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences 
of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg 
stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane.
  Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in 
northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one 
resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the 
main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In 
Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.
  The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation 
of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found 
in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the 
mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 
to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of 
wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, 
and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of 
dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further 
endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or 
near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of 
oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and 
agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which 
cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in 
these regions.
  If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the 
ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the 
decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit 
can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local 
farming, education and enforcement projects that can have the greatest 
positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile 
habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these 
exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, 
I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2005.
  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. 943

       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 ``Crane Conservation Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) crane populations in many countries have experienced 
     serious decline in recent decades, a trend that, if continued 
     at the current rate, threatens the long-term survival of the 
     species in the wild in Africa, Asia, and Europe;
       (2) 5 species of Asian crane are listed as endangered 
     species under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1533) and appendix I of the Convention, which 
     species are--
       (A) the Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus);
       (B) the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis);
       (C) the white-naped crane (Grus vipio);
       (D) the black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis); and
       (E) the hooded crane (Grus monacha);
       (3) the Crane Action Plan of the International Union for 
     the Conservation of Nature considers 4 species of cranes from 
     Africa and 1 additional species of crane from Asia to be 
     seriously threatened, which species are--
       (A) the wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus);
       (B) the blue crane (Anthropoides paradisea);
       (C) the grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum);
       (D) the black-crowned crane (Balearica pavonina); and
       (E) the sarus crane (Grus antigone);
       (4)(A) the whooping crane (Grus americana) and the 
     Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) are listed 
     as endangered species under section 4 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533); and
       (B) with approximately 200 whooping cranes in the only 
     self-sustaining flock that migrates between Canada and the 
     United States, and approximately 100 Mississippi sandhill 
     cranes in the wild, both species remain vulnerable to 
     extinction;
       (5) conservation resources have not been sufficient to cope 
     with the continued diminution of crane populations from 
     causes that include hunting and the continued loss of 
     habitat;
       (6)(A) cranes are flagship species for the conservation of 
     wetland, grassland, and agricultural landscapes that border 
     wetland and grassland; and
       (B) the establishment of crane conservation programs would 
     result in the provision of conservation benefits to numerous 
     other species of plants and animals, including many 
     endangered species;
       (7) other threats to cranes include--
       (A) the collection of eggs and juveniles;
       (B) poisoning from pesticides applied to crops;
       (C) collisions with power lines;
       (D) disturbance from warfare and human settlement; and
       (E) the trapping of live birds for sale;
       (8) to reduce, remove, and otherwise effectively address 
     those threats to cranes in the wild, the joint commitment and 
     effort of countries in Africa, Asia, and North America, other 
     countries, and the private sector, are required;

[[Page 8216]]

       (9) cranes are excellent ambassadors to promote goodwill 
     among countries because they are well known and migrate 
     across continents;
       (10) because the threats facing cranes and the ecosystems 
     on which cranes depend are similar on all 5 continents on 
     which cranes occur, conservation successes and methods 
     developed in 1 region have wide applicability in other 
     regions; and
       (11) conservationists in the United States have much to 
     teach and much to learn from colleagues working in other 
     countries in which, as in the United States, government and 
     private agencies cooperate to conserve threatened cranes.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to perpetuate healthy populations of cranes;
       (2) to assist in the conservation and protection of cranes 
     by supporting--
       (A) conservation programs in countries in which endangered 
     and threatened cranes occur; and
       (B) the efforts of private organizations committed to 
     helping cranes; and
       (3) to provide financial resources for those programs and 
     efforts.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Conservation.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``conservation'' means the use of 
     any method or procedure to improve the viability of crane 
     populations and the quality of the ecosystems and habitats on 
     which the crane populations depend to help the species 
     achieve sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the 
     long-term viability of the species.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``conservation'' includes the 
     carrying out of any activity associated with scientific 
     resource management, such as--
       (i) protection, restoration, acquisition, and management of 
     habitat;
       (ii) research and monitoring of known populations;
       (iii) the provision of assistance in the development of 
     management plans for managed crane ranges;
       (iv) enforcement of the Convention;
       (v) law enforcement and habitat protection through 
     community participation;
       (vi) reintroduction of cranes to the wild;
       (vii) conflict resolution initiatives; and
       (viii) community outreach and education.
       (2) Convention.--The term ``Convention'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532).
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Crane Conservation 
     Fund established by section 6(a).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. CRANE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations and in consultation with other appropriate 
     Federal officials, the Secretary shall use amounts in the 
     Fund to provide financial assistance for projects relating to 
     the conservation of cranes for which project proposals are 
     approved by the Secretary in accordance with this section.
       (b) Project Proposals.--
       (1) Applicants.--
       (A) In general.--An applicant described in subparagraph (B) 
     that seeks to receive assistance under this section to carry 
     out a project relating to the conservation of cranes shall 
     submit to the Secretary a project proposal that meets the 
     requirements of this section.
       (B) Eligible applicants.--An applicant described in this 
     subparagraph is--
       (i) any relevant wildlife management authority of a country 
     that--

       (I) is located within the African, Asian, European, or 
     North American range of a species of crane; and
       (II) carries out 1 or more activities that directly or 
     indirectly affect crane populations;

       (ii) the Secretariat of the Convention; and
       (iii) any person or organization with demonstrated 
     expertise in the conservation of cranes.
       (2) Required elements.--A project proposal submitted under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall include--
       (A) a concise statement of the purpose of the project;
       (B)(i) the name of each individual responsible for 
     conducting the project; and
       (ii) a description of the qualifications of each of those 
     individuals;
       (C) a concise description of--
       (i) methods to be used to implement and assess the outcome 
     of the project;
       (ii) staff and community management for the project; and
       (iii) the logistics of the project;
       (D) an estimate of the funds and the period of time 
     required to complete the project;
       (E) evidence of support for the project by appropriate 
     government entities of countries in which the project will be 
     conducted, if the Secretary determines that such support is 
     required to ensure the success of the project;
       (F) information regarding the source and amount of matching 
     funding available for the project; and
       (G) any other information that the Secretary considers to 
     be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project to 
     receive assistance under this Act.
       (c) Project Review and Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) not later than 30 days after receiving a final project 
     proposal, provide a copy of the proposal to other appropriate 
     Federal officials; and
       (B) review each project proposal in a timely manner to 
     determine whether the proposal meets the criteria described 
     in subsection (d).
       (2) Consultation; approval or disapproval.--Not later than 
     180 days after receiving a project proposal, and subject to 
     the availability of appropriations, the Secretary, after 
     consulting with other appropriate Federal officials, shall--
       (A) consult on the proposal with the government of each 
     country in which the project is to be carried out;
       (B) after taking into consideration any comments resulting 
     from the consultation, approve or disapprove the proposal; 
     and
       (C) provide written notification of the approval or 
     disapproval to--
       (i) the applicant that submitted the proposal;
       (ii) other appropriate Federal officials; and
       (iii) each country described in subparagraph (A).
       (d) Criteria for Approval.--The Secretary may approve a 
     project proposal under this section if the Secretary 
     determines that the proposed project will enhance programs 
     for conservation of cranes by assisting efforts to--
       (1) implement conservation programs;
       (2) address the conflicts between humans and cranes that 
     arise from competition for the same habitat or resources;
       (3) enhance compliance with the Convention and other 
     applicable laws that--
       (A) prohibit or regulate the taking or trade of cranes; or
       (B) regulate the use and management of crane habitat;
       (4) develop sound scientific information on, or methods for 
     monitoring--
       (A) the condition of crane habitat;
       (B) crane population numbers and trends; or
       (C) the current and projected threats to crane habitat and 
     population numbers and trends;
       (5) promote cooperative projects on the issues described in 
     paragraph (4) among--
       (A) governmental entities;
       (B) affected local communities;
       (C) nongovernmental organizations; or
       (D) other persons in the private sector;
       (6) carry out necessary scientific research on cranes;
       (7) provide relevant training to, or support technical 
     exchanges involving, staff responsible for managing cranes or 
     habitats of cranes, to enhance capacity for effective 
     conservation; or
       (8) reintroduce cranes successfully back into the wild, 
     including propagation of a sufficient number of cranes 
     required for this purpose.
       (e) Project Sustainability; Matching Funds.--To the maximum 
     extent practicable, in determining whether to approve a 
     project proposal under this section, the Secretary shall give 
     preference to a proposed project--
       (1) that is designed to ensure effective, long-term 
     conservation of cranes and habitats of cranes; or
       (2) for which matching funds are available.
       (f) Project Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Each person that receives assistance under 
     this section for a project shall submit to the Secretary, at 
     such periodic intervals as are determined by the Secretary, 
     reports that include all information that the Secretary, 
     after consulting with other appropriate government officials, 
     determines to be necessary to evaluate the progress and 
     success of the project for the purposes of--
       (A) ensuring positive results;
       (B) assessing problems; and
       (C) fostering improvements.
       (2) Availability to the public.--Each report submitted 
     under paragraph (1), and any other documents relating to a 
     project for which financial assistance is provided under this 
     Act, shall be made available to the public.

     SEC. 6. CRANE CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund established by the 
     matter under the heading ``MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION 
     FUND'' in title I of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 2681-
     237; 16 U.S.C. 4246) a separate account to be known as the 
     ``Crane Conservation Fund'', consisting of--
       (1) amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     for deposit into the Fund under subsection (e);
       (2) amounts appropriated to the Fund under section 8; and
       (3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Fund under subsection (c).
       (b) Expenditures From Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), upon 
     request by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Fund to the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation, such amounts as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to provide assistance under section 5.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts in the Fund 
     available for each fiscal

[[Page 8217]]

     year, the Secretary may expend not more than 3 percent, or 
     $150,000, whichever is greater, to pay the administrative 
     expenses necessary to carry out this Act.
       (3) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the amounts 
     made available from the Fund for any fiscal year may be used 
     for projects relating to the conservation of North American 
     crane species.
       (c) Investments of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (4) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
       (d) Transfers of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to 
     the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least 
     monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on 
     the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in 
     amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required 
     to be transferred.
       (e) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may accept and use donations 
     to provide assistance under section 5.
       (2) Transfer of donations.--Amounts received by the 
     Secretary in the form of donations shall be transferred to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the Fund.

     SEC. 7. ADVISORY GROUP.

       (a) In General.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of 
     individuals representing public and private organizations 
     actively involved in the conservation of cranes.
       (b) Public Participation.--
       (1) Meetings.--The advisory group shall--
       (A) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open 
     to the public; and
       (B) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for interested 
     persons to present oral or written statements concerning 
     items on the agenda.
       (2) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public 
     timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
       (3) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group 
     shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to 
     the public.

     SEC. 8. FUNDING.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Fund $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2010, to remain available until expended.
       (b) Offset.--Of amounts appropriated to, and available at 
     the discretion of, the Secretary for programmatic and 
     administrative expenditures, a total of $25,000,000 shall be 
     used to establish the Fund.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, on Workers' Memorial Day, we 
remember and honor the working men and women here at home who have died 
or been injured on the job in the past year. We also think of their 
families and the losses they have suffered. And we pledge to do more to 
end the unsafe and unhealthy conditions that still plague so many 
workplaces across America.
  Thirty-five years have now passed since the enactment of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and that basic law has made 
an immense difference in the safety of our Nation's workers. The rate 
of fatalities, injuries, and illnesses dropped year after year--a 78 
percent reduction in the rate of workplace deaths and a 52 percent 
reduction in the rate of workplace-related injuries and illnesses since 
the law was passed, and the reductions have been even greater in 
industries that OSHA has targeted in its standards and enforcement 
activities.
  But we still have a long way to go. There are still too many workers 
being hurt on the job. An average of 15 workers are killed and 12,000 
more are injured every single day. That's over 5,500 worker deaths and 
4.4 million worker injuries a year. In Massachusetts, 72 workers died 
from traumatic injuries on the job in 2004 and over 600 died from 
occupational disease.
  These numbers represent real workers and their families. They 
represent fathers like Jeff Walters. His son Patrick was killed when a 
trench in Ohio caved in three years ago--at a company with a history of 
safety violations. They include people like Ron Hayes, who also lost 
his son in a workplace accident. Since then, he and his wife Dot have 
made safety their cause and done a great deal to help families whose 
lives have been hurt by these deaths--including deaths that in many 
cases could, and should have been prevented.
  Ron and Jeff asked us to prevent this from happening to other 
families. That's why I am introducing this bill--to fight for families 
like the Walters and the Hayes, and to do everything we can to see that 
other families don't have to suffer the same grief.
  Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. They 
blatantly ignore the law, but they are rarely held accountable, even 
when their actions or neglect kill loyal employees who work for them. 
Offenders never go to jail. Criminal penalties are so low that 
prosecutors don't pursue these cases. Employers who violate safety laws 
again and again pay only minimal fines--they treat them as just another 
cost of doing business.
  We cannot allow these shameful practices to continue. These companies 
are putting millions of workers at risk in factories, construction 
sites, nursing homes, and many other workplaces every day.
  We also need to hold this Administration accountable for improving 
worker safety and enforcing the safety laws. We should require OSHA to 
do more to stop serious safety violations before they can hurt or kill 
workers, instead of sweeping them under the rug. We also need to 
protect workers with the courage to speak out against health and safety 
violations in the workplace.
  The most glaring flaw in current law is that too many workers are 
left uncovered. The Protecting America's Workers Act will extend the 
scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover 8 million 
public employees and millions of transportation and other workers.
  In addition, the bill imposes jail time--up to ten years, instead of 
only six months under current law--on those whose blatant violation of 
safety laws leads to a worker's death. Incredibly, under current law, 
it is only a misdemeanor--punishable by 6 months in jail--for an 
employer to cause a worker's death through willfully violating our 
safety and health laws. In fact, we impose sentences twice that long 
for acts like harassing a wild burro on federal lands. Our laws should 
reflect our serious commitment to protecting workers' safety, instead 
of letting violators off with a slap on the wrist. We also increase 
civil penalties, to provide additional deterrence against employers.
  We require the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to 
investigate more cases. We give workers and their families more rights 
in the investigation, and provide stronger protections for workers who 
report health or safety violations.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for 
all of America's workers. The promise of OSHA is waiting to be 
fulfilled. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's dedicated 
working men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our 
complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine 
reality for every working family in every community in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Bayh, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Salazar, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Specter, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lautenberg, and 
        Mr. Obama):

[[Page 8218]]

  S. 945. A bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education, 
community prosecutors, and raining in our neighborhoods; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS). This program has achieved what my colleagues 
and I hoped for back when we were debating the 1994 Crime Bill. Prior 
to the final vote, in August of 1994, I stated that ``I will vote for 
this bill, because, as much as anything I have ever voted on in 22 
years in the U.S. Senate, I truly believe that passage of this 
legislation will make a difference in the lives of the American people. 
I believe with every fiber in my being that if this bill passes, fewer 
people will be murdered, fewer people will be victims, fewer women will 
be senselessly beaten, fewer people will continue on the drug path, and 
fewer children will become criminals.''
  Fortunately, with the creation of the COPS program, we were able to 
form a partnership amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
and create programs that helped drive down crime rates for eight 
consecutive years. In 1994 we had historically high rates of violent 
crimes, such as murders, forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults. We 
were able to reduce these to the lowest levels in a generation. We 
reduced the murder rate by 37.8 percent; we reduced forcible rapes by 
19.1 percent; and we reduced aggravated assaults by 25.5 percent. 
Property crimes, including auto thefts also were reduced from 
historical highs to the lowest levels in decades.
  How were we able to achieve such great results? Well, we all know it 
was a combination of factors, but most law enforcement officials credit 
the Office of Community Oriented Policing with a pivotal role. Indeed, 
in the words of Attorney General Ashcroft the Community Oriented 
Policing program (``COPS'') has been ``a miraculous success.'' Just a 
few months ago, Attorney General Gonzalez reached the same conclusion, 
stating that ``we put additional officers on the street and now we have 
crime at an all-time low.'' In addition, this program has been endorsed 
by every major law enforcement group in the Nation, including the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National 
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the National Sheriffs 
Association (NSA), the International Brotherhood of Police 
Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
Officials (NOBLE), the International Union of Police Associations 
(IUPA), the Fraternal Order of Police, and others. The bottom line is 
that from the Top Cop in the United States to the beat officer 
patrolling a local community, the impact of this program is clear.
  Rather than support this program, the Bush Administration and 
Republican leadership is set on eliminating it. President Bush has 
proposed cuts each year he has been in office, and while we have fought 
to maintain funding for COPS, we are fighting an uphill battle. Funding 
for State and local law enforcement programs run out of the Department 
of Justice is down 75.6 percent since fiscal year 2002. This year, 
funding for State and local law enforcement is at $118 million for the 
entire Nation, with no funding for hiring.
  These cuts are coming at the worst possible time. Local law 
enforcement is facing what I have called a perfect storm. The FBI is 
reprogramming its field agents from local crime to terrorism. 
Undoubtedly, this is necessary given the threats facing our Nation. 
But, this means that there will be less Federal assistance for drug 
cases, bank robberies, and violent crime. Local law enforcement will be 
required to fill the gap left by the FBI in addition to performing more 
and more homeland security duties. Due to budget restraints at the 
local level and the unprecedented cuts in Federal assistance they will 
be less able to do either. Articles in the USA Today and the New York 
Times highlighted the fact that many cities are being forced to 
eliminate officers because of local budgets woes. In fact, New York 
City has lost over 3,000 officers in the last few years. Other cities, 
such as Cleveland, Minnesota, and Houston, TX, are facing similar 
shortages. As a result, local police chiefs are reluctantly pulling 
officers from the proactive policing activities that were so successful 
in the nineties, and they are unable to provide sufficient numbers of 
officers for Federal task forces. These choices are not made lightly. 
Police chiefs understand the value of proactive policing and the need 
to be involved in homeland security task forces; however, they simply 
don't have the manpower to do it all. Responding to emergency calls 
must take precedence over proactive programs and task forces, and I 
fear that we will see the impact in our national crime rates soon. 
Local chiefs and sheriffs are reporting increased gang activity. And, 
murder rates and auto thefts--two very accurate indicators of crime 
trends--have gone up for three consecutive years.
  To me, cutting assistance for State and local law enforcement is 
inexplicable, particularly because the need for Federal assistance 
remains so pressing. In fact, last month I offered an amendment to 
restore funding for the COPS program in the sum of $1 billion. This 
amount would have provided enough funding to eliminate the backlog of 
pending officer requests of 10,000 from 3,700 jurisdictions throughout 
the Nation. And, it would have provided funding to support on-going 
needs this year. Unfortunately, this amendment was voted down on a 
party-line vote. The Bush Administration's response to these criticisms 
about its budget is that funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security is up. Undoubtedly, these are critical, necessary 
expenditures, and I believe that the Administration has not invested 
enough for homeland security. We have an obligation to do both. We must 
fund homeland security and invest in the programs that help reduce 
traditional crime and prevent terrorism. As terrorism and security 
experts have pointed out, funding additional officers through the COPS 
program can help do both.
  The legislation that I am introducing today provides $1.5 billion per 
year for six years for the COPS program. This includes $600 million per 
year for officer hiring grants, $350 million per year for technology 
grants, and $200 million per year to help local district attorneys hire 
community prosecutors. This funding will help keep faith with our State 
and local law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line 
every day to keep our communities safe from crime and terrorism. I 
would ask all of my colleagues to go to their local police chief or 
sheriff and ask them if they should support this legislation, and I 
hope that they will, because if they did, it would be passed 100-0.
  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. 945

       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 ``Providing Reliable Officers, 
     Technology, Education, Community Prosecutors, and Training In 
     Our Neighborhoods Act of 2005'' or the ``PROTECTION Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROVIDING RELIABLE OFFICERS, TECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION, 
                   COMMUNITY PROSECUTORS, AND TRAINING IN OUR 
                   NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE.

       (a) COPS Program.--Section 1701(a) of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd(a)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``and prosecutor'' after ``increase police''; 
     and
       (2) inserting ``to enhance law enforcement access to new 
     technologies,'' after ``presence,''.
       (b) Hiring and Redeployment Grant Projects.--Section 
     1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting after ``Nation'' the following: ``, or pay 
     overtime to existing career law enforcement officers to the 
     extent that such overtime is devoted to community-oriented 
     policing efforts''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by--
       (i) striking ``, or pay overtime''; and

[[Page 8219]]

       (ii) striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) promote higher education among in-service State and 
     local law enforcement officers by reimbursing them for the 
     costs associated with seeking a college or graduate school 
     education.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking all that follows 
     ``SUPPORT SYSTEMS.--'' and inserting ``Grants pursuant to--
       ``(A) paragraph (1)(B) for overtime may not exceed 25 
     percent of the funds available for grants pursuant to this 
     subsection for any fiscal year;
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(C) may not exceed 20 percent of the 
     funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection in any 
     fiscal year; and
       ``(C) paragraph (1)(D) may not exceed 5 percent of the 
     funds available for grants pursuant to this subsection for 
     any fiscal year.''.
       (c) Additional Grant Projects.--Section 1701(d) of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``integrity and ethics'' after 
     ``specialized''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after ``enforcement officers'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``, school officials, 
     religiously-affiliated organizations,'' after ``enforcement 
     officers'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by using 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools to serve as a law enforcement liaison 
     with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies, and to combat school-related crime and 
     disorder problems, gang membership and criminal activity, 
     firearms and explosives-related incidents, the illegal use 
     and possession of alcohol, and the illegal possession, use, 
     and distribution of drugs;'';
       (4) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (12), by striking the period that appears 
     at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) develop and implement innovative programs (such as 
     the TRIAD program) that bring together a community's sheriff, 
     chief of police, and elderly residents to address the public 
     safety concerns of older citizens.''.
       (d) Technical Assistance.--Section 1701(f) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``use up to 5 percent of the funds 
     available for grants pursuant to subsection (a) in any fiscal 
     year to'' after ``The Attorney General may'';
       (B) by inserting at the end the following: ``In addition, 
     the Attorney General may use up to 5 percent of the funds 
     available for grants pursuant to subsections (d), (e), and 
     (f) in any fiscal year for technical assistance and training 
     to States, units of local government, Indian tribal 
     governments, and to other public and private entities for 
     those respective purposes.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``under subsection (a)'' 
     after ``the Attorney General''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``the Attorney General may'' and inserting 
     ``the Attorney General shall'';
       (B) by striking ``operation of training centers'' and 
     inserting ``regional community policing institutes, training 
     centers,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``representatives of police labor and 
     management organizations, community residents,'' after 
     ``supervisors,''.
       (e) Technology and Prosecution Programs.--Section 1701 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) is amended by--
       (1) striking subsection (k);
       (2) redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as 
     subsections (g) through (k); and
       (3) striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Law Enforcement Technology Program.--Grants made 
     under subsection (a) may be used to assist police 
     departments, in employing professional, scientific, and 
     technological advancements that will help them--
       ``(1) improve police communications through the use of 
     wireless communications, computers, software, videocameras, 
     databases, and other hardware and software that allow law 
     enforcement agencies to communicate more effectively across 
     jurisdictional boundaries and effectuate interoperability;
       ``(2) develop and improve access to crime solving 
     technologies, including DNA analysis, photo enhancement, 
     voice recognition, and other forensic capabilities; and
       ``(3) promote comprehensive crime analysis by utilizing new 
     techniques and technologies, such as crime mapping, that 
     allow law enforcement agencies to use real-time crime and 
     arrest data and other related information, including non-
     criminal justice data, to improve their ability to analyze, 
     predict, and respond pro-actively to local crime and disorder 
     problems, as well as to engage in regional crime analysis.
       ``(f) Community-Based Prosecution Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be 
     used to assist State, local or tribal prosecutors' offices in 
     the implementation of community-based prosecution programs 
     that build on local community-oriented policing efforts.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under this 
     subsection may be used to--
       ``(A) hire additional prosecutors who will be assigned to 
     community prosecution programs, including programs that 
     assign prosecutors to handle cases from specific geographic 
     areas, to address specific violent crime and other local 
     crime problems (including intensive illegal gang, gun, and 
     drug enforcement projects and quality of life initiatives), 
     and to address localized violent and other crime problems 
     based on needs identified by local law enforcement agencies, 
     community organizations, and others;
       ``(B) redeploy existing prosecutors to community 
     prosecution programs as described in paragraph (1) of this 
     section by hiring victim and witness coordinators, 
     paralegals, community outreach, and other such personnel; and
       ``(C) establish programs to assist local prosecutors' 
     offices in the implementation of programs that help them 
     identify and respond to priority crime problems in a 
     community with specifically tailored solutions.
       ``(3) Allocation.--At least 75 percent of the funds made 
     available under this subsection shall be reserved for grants 
     under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) and of those 
     amounts no more than 10 percent may be used for grants under 
     paragraph (2)(B) and at least 25 percent of the funds shall 
     be reserved for grants under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (2) to units of local government with a population 
     of less than 50,000.''.
       (f) Retention Grants.--Section 1703 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd-2) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(d) Retention Grants.--The Attorney General may use no 
     more than 50 percent of the funds under subsection (a) to 
     award grants targeted specifically for retention of police 
     officers to grantees in good standing, with preference to 
     those that demonstrate financial hardship or severe budget 
     constraint that impacts the entire local budget and may 
     result in the termination of employment for police officers 
     funded under subsection (b).''.
       (g) Definitions.--
       (1) Career law enforcement officer.--Section 1709(1) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8(1)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``criminal laws'' the following: ``, including sheriffs 
     deputies charged with supervising offenders who are released 
     into the community but also engaged in local community-
     oriented policing efforts.''.
       (2) School resource officer.--Section 1709(4) of title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796dd-8(4)) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) to serve as a law enforcement liaison with other 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement and regulatory 
     agencies, to address and document crime and disorder problems 
     including gangs and drug activities, firearms and explosives-
     related incidents, and the illegal use and possession of 
     alcohol affecting or occurring in or around an elementary or 
     secondary school;'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) to train students in conflict resolution, restorative 
     justice, and crime awareness, and to provide assistance to 
     and coordinate with other officers, mental health 
     professionals, and youth counselors who are responsible for 
     the implementation of prevention/intervention programs within 
     the schools;'';
       (C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (D) in subparagraph (G) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) to work with school administrators, members of the 
     local parent teacher associations, community organizers, law 
     enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical 
     personnel in the creation, review, and implementation of a 
     school violence prevention plan;
       ``(I) to assist in documenting the full description of all 
     firearms found or taken into custody on school property and 
     to initiate a firearms trace and ballistics examination for 
     each firearm with the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms;
       ``(J) to document the full description of all explosives or 
     explosive devices found or taken into custody on school 
     property and report to the local office of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and
       ``(K) to assist school administrators with the preparation 
     of the Department of Education, Annual Report on State 
     Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which tracks the 
     number of students expelled per year for bringing a weapon, 
     firearm, or explosive to school.''.

[[Page 8220]]

       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     part Q, to remain available until expended--
       ``(i) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(ii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(iii) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(iv) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(v) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(vi) $1,150,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``3 percent'' and inserting ``5 percent'';
       (B) by striking ``1701(f)'' and inserting ``1701(g)'';
       (C) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``Of the 
     remaining funds, if there is a demand for 50 percent of 
     appropriated hiring funds, as determined by eligible hiring 
     applications from law enforcement agencies having 
     jurisdiction over areas with populations exceeding 150,000, 
     no less than 50 percent shall be allocated for grants 
     pursuant to applications submitted by units of local 
     government or law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction 
     over areas with populations exceeding 150,000 or by public 
     and private entities that serve areas with populations 
     exceeding 150,000, and no less than 50 percent shall be 
     allocated for grants pursuant to applications submitted by 
     units of local government or law enforcement agencies having 
     jurisdiction over areas with populations less than 150,000 or 
     by public and private entities that serve areas with 
     populations less than 150,000.'';
       (D) by striking ``85 percent'' and inserting 
     ``$600,000,000''; and
       (E) by striking ``1701(b),'' and all that follows through 
     ``of part Q.'' and inserting the following: ``1701 (b) and 
     (c), $350,000,000 to grants for the purposes specified in 
     section 1701(e), and $200,000,000 to grants for the purposes 
     specified in section 1701(f).''.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud today with Senator Biden 
and several of our colleagues to introduce a bill to reauthorize the 
Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program, which has been so 
vitally important to my State of West Virginia. The bill authorizes 
$1.15 billion to fund operations of the U.S. Department of Justice's 
COPS Office and to put 50,000 new police officers on the streets of the 
United States through 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill because I 
understood how important this program could be when we passed it 
originally as part of President Clinton's 1994 Crime bill, because I've 
seen how important it is to my State of West Virginia, and because I 
know that there are few government programs that have done more to make 
the whole country safer and more secure.
  President Clinton had a goal of placing 100,000 new police officers 
on our streets. As hard as it is to believe, there are opponents of the 
COPS program. In an attempt to defend their desire to end the program, 
they are quick to point out that the goal has been met, and even 
exceeded. They would have you believe that the Federal Government 
should get out of the business of helping local law enforcement do 
their jobs. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when police 
departments have taken on seemingly innumerable crucial 
responsibilities in addition to their roles in fighting crime, plans to 
close out this program have been included in the President's budget 
each year since he took office. For the Fiscal Year 2006 budget, 
funding for hiring new officers was zeroed out, and funds for ongoing 
projects were slashed by varying degrees.
  There is simply no justification for not continuing the successes of 
this program. The COPS program has allowed State, local, and tribal law 
enforcement agencies in all 50 States and the District of Columbia to 
hire 118,000 new officers since 1994. The violent crime rate has 
dropped 30 percent in the same period. Recently, Attorney General 
Alberto Gonzales made the connection himself, commenting that these 
officers were put on the street and crime is at a thirty-year low.
  The COPS program has sent more than $40 million to my home State of 
West Virginia, allowing 166 jurisdictions to hire nearly 700 officers. 
There is no way that the citizens of my State could afford to hire and 
train this many officers in this amount of time, and no feasible way to 
replace the benefits the COPS program produces. Many of these towns had 
never had their own police officers before this, and I can tell you 
that the presence of those officers has changed lives for the better 
throughout my State.
  West Virginia has also benefited from some specialized programs 
administered by the COPS Office. Our schools, which were once refuges 
from crime and danger, now have safety and security concerns best 
handled by trained law enforcement professionals. The COPS in Schools 
(CIS) program has provided $2 million to hire 20 school resource 
officers (SROs). In 2004 alone we received more than $457,000 to hire 
four SROs. Law enforcement agencies in my State have also received $4.7 
million in COPS technology grants, and were making headway on a 
burgeoning crisis in methamphetamine production with the COPS METH 
grant program. This assistance has allowed police in my State to tap 
into crime-fighting and data-sharing technologies, and helped protect 
my constituents from a drug problem spreading through rural America 
like wildfire.
  I look forward to enactment of this legislation, and the new 
assistance it will bring to state and local law enforcement agencies 
throughout West Virginia. Specifically, this legislation will provide: 
$600 million per year through 2011 for 50,000 more cops across the 
country; $350 million per year for law enforcement technologies, 
including interoperable communications equipment, state-of-the-art DNA 
analysis, and computer crime mapping; and $200 million annually to hire 
new prosecutors, to finish the job our new officers have started.
  I commend Senator Biden for his tireless work on behalf of law 
enforcement and I pledge to do all that I can to see this bill enacted 
for the good of the people of West Virginia and for all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 946. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
multi-channel video programming distributors to provide a kid-friendly 
tier of programming; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly believe that parents in our 
country should have more wholesome entertainment choices for their 
children. To make that possible, I am today introducing legislation to 
require that cable and satellite owners allow parents to purchase a 
child-friendly tier of television programming.
  For years, the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission 
have labored, to little avail, to turn off offensive programming with a 
variety of technologies. My legislation would ensure that America's 
families, 24/7, could turn on programming that is reliably friendly to 
our children.
  While the legislation ensures that parents have more choices, the 
entertainment industry is assured that it has choices as well. Under 
the bill, Congress does not direct how the law is to be implemented. 
The Congress does not set prices. And the Congress does not take any 
step that is inconsistent with the first amendment.
  About the only part of the legislation that is nonnegotiable is my 
belief that Congress should not dawdle any longer when the volume of 
degrading, violent, and antisocial entertainment our children are 
exposed to continues to grow.
  Here is what America's parents deal with now. A recent study found 
that the average child in America has seen 8,000 murders depicted on 
television by the time they graduate from elementary school. Kids see 
about 10,000 television rapes, assaults, and murders each year. And in 
2004, Americans filed more than 1 million complaints with the Federal 
Communications Commission about indecent programming.
  Yesterday the National Cable and Telecommunications Association 
launched a new public service campaign to alert subscribers to parental 
control features that are already available and to introduce new larger 
TV rating icons. I haven't studied their proposal, but it certainly 
sounds constructive and I look forward to hearing more about their 
efforts.
  The legislation I am introducing today is a truly new approach that 
has teeth. It is going to give parents more

[[Page 8221]]

kid-friendly entertainment choices that are easy to understand. The 
legislation would require that all cable and satellite operators within 
1 year of enactment offer a kid-friendly tier of programming. It would 
require monthly billing statements to include information about how 
customers can use blocking technology to stop offensive programming. 
And it would impose big-league fines of $500,000 a day on any cable or 
satellite operator who doesn't comply with the requirement that they 
give parents the chance to purchase kid-friendly programming. In this 
tier parents will know that there will be no content and no 
advertisements of a violent or sexual nature. Parents and adults who 
are not concerned about the current level of violence and sex on 
television would, of course, have access to those options with respect 
to current law.
  This proposal is the first to tell cable and satellite operators they 
must offer a kid-friendly television tier so parents have more choices. 
The legislation does not dictate how it must be accomplished. It only 
says this tier of kid-friendly programming must carry a number of 
channels.
  The legislation leaves it up to the operator whether to offer the 
kids tier as part of a basic or expanded basic package or as a 
completely separate package.
  Certainly there is going to be some opposition. But I believe good 
quality programming and an option for families could translate to 
pretty good profits for those cable and satellite providers. Parents 
are going to find this option very attractive. If children are watching 
TV 4 hours a day, you can bet mom and dad are not able to stand there 
the whole time. A kids tier is going to take the guesswork out of TV 
time for America's parents.
  Now there is an awful lot of guesswork. Time magazine found last 
month 53 percent of respondents said they thought the Federal 
Communications Commission ought to place stricter controls on broadcast 
channel shows depicting sex and violence. Sixty-eight percent of those 
surveyed said the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' 
moral standards. Sixty-six percent said there is too much violence on 
open air TV. Fifty-eight percent said there is too much cursing. Fifty 
percent said there is too much sexual content.
  I have worked to make sure that this legislation strikes an 
appropriate balance, offering choices to parents, not taking them away. 
A recent Pew Research survey found although 60 percent of Americans are 
very concerned about what kids see and hear on television, about half 
of those surveyed were more worried about the Government imposing undue 
restrictions and thought this was essentially the responsibility of the 
audience.
  So what we are doing here shows a balanced kind of approach in line 
with the kinds of values Americans are expressing. Don't make choices 
for parents, but help parents make good choices for their children. 
With 8 out of 10 American households getting their television through 
cable or satellite programmers, it is time that parents be given the 
chance to sign up for programming that works for their family.
  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. 946

       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 ``Kid Friendly TV Programming 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) More than a decade ago, the American Psychological 
     Society concluded that ``There is absolutely no doubt that 
     higher levels of viewing violence on television are 
     correlated with increased acceptance of aggressive attitudes 
     and increased aggressive behavior.''
       (2) A study in 2003 found that adults who were ``high TV-
     violence viewers'' as children are more than three-to-four 
     times as likely as other adults to be convicted of a crime 
     and to use violence against their spouses and other adults.
       (3) Adults who watched more violent programming as children 
     were more likely to be arrested and convicted for spousal and 
     child abuse, murder and aggravated assault.
       (4) Ten percent of violent acts committed by youths are 
     attributable to their exposure to violence on television.
       (5) Forty percent of parents surveyed in l999 in Rhode 
     Island reported that at least one symptom of post-traumatic 
     stress disorder occurred after their child viewed a scary 
     event on television, and that this symptom lasted at least 1 
     month.
       (6) The average child who watches 2 hours of cartoons a day 
     will view almost 10,000 violent acts a year.
       (7) Teenagers who watched television with the greatest 
     amount of sexual content were twice as likely to initiate 
     sexual intercourse the following year as those who watched 
     television with the least amount of sexual content.
       (8) The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2002 that 72 
     percent of teenagers think sex on television influences 
     ``somewhat'' or ``a lot'' the sexual behavior of their peers.
       (9) The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2003 that 64 
     percent of all television shows have some sexual content, and 
     that in prime time, 71 percent of the top 4 broadcast network 
     shows have some sexual content.
       (10) The continued exposure of children to obscene, 
     indecent, sexual, or gratuitous or excessively violent 
     content on television is harmful to the public health and 
     welfare of communities across the country.
       (11) Efforts to limit the exposure of children to 
     television programming that contains material with obscene, 
     indecent, violent, or sexual content, or to impose fines and 
     penalties for the broadcast of such content, have not been 
     successful in protecting children from harmful content.
       (12) The number of homes in the United States that receive 
     television programming via cable or satellite providers is 
     estimated to have grown to 85 percent of American households, 
     and of that percentage, an estimated 95 percent of the 
     households subscribe to basic or expanded basic programs.
       (13) The efforts to limit the exposure of children to 
     harmful television content have not been successful because 
     Federal regulatory agencies have not had the authority to 
     require cable and satellite providers to offer a child-
     friendly tier of programming.
       (14) Parents need more effective ways to limit the exposure 
     of children to television with harmful content through 
     alternative, child-friendly tiers of programs.

     SEC. 3. BASIC TIER CONTENT RESTRICTIONS.

       Part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 641. KID-FRIENDLY PROGRAMMING TIER.

       ``(a) In General.--Within 1 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Kid Friendly TV Programming Act of 2005, 
     each multichannel video programming distributor shall offer a 
     child-friendly tier of programming consisting of no fewer 
     than 15 channels.
       ``(b) Blocking Instructions.--Beginning 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Kid Friendly TV Programming Act of 
     2005, each multichannel video programming distributor shall 
     provide, as part of the monthly statement of charges, 
     instructions for how to block any channel whose content a 
     subscriber may wish to block.
       ``(c) Penalties.--In addition to any other penalty imposed 
     under this Act or title 18, United States Code, failure to 
     comply with the requirements of this section is punishable by 
     a civil penalty of up to $500,000 per day. Each day of such 
     failure shall be considered a separate offense.
       ``(d) Child-friendly Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `child-friendly tier' means a group of channels that do not 
     carry programming, advertisements, or public service 
     announcements that would be considered inappropriate for 
     children due to obscene, indecent, profane, sexual, or 
     gratuitous and excessively violent content.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Durbin):
  S. 947. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to modify the provisions relating to citations and penalties; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today on Workers Memorial Day to 
reintroduce the ``Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act,'' 
legislation that would, among other things, increase the maximum 
criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws 
and cause the death of an employee.
  Unbelievably, under existing law, that crime is a misdemeanor, and 
carries a maximum prison sentence of just 6 months. This legislation 
would increase the penalty for this most egregious workplace crime to 
10 years--making it a felony. The bill also would increase the penalty 
associated with lying to an OSHA inspector from 6 months to 1 year, and 
would increase the penalty for illegally giving advance

[[Page 8222]]

warning of an upcoming inspection from 6 months to 2 years.
  In recent years, the Senators from both sides of the aisle have 
joined together to focus on a shocking succession of corporate 
scandals: Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, to name a few. These revelations of 
corporate abuse raised the ire and indignation of the American people. 
But corporate abuses can sometimes go further than squandering employee 
pension funds and costing shareholder value. Sometimes, corporate 
abuses can cost lives.
  My legislation is based on the simple premise that going to work 
should not carry a death sentence. Annually, more than 6,000 Americans 
are killed on the job, and some 50,000 more die from work-related 
illnesses. Many of those deaths--deaths that leave wives without 
husbands, brothers without sisters, and children without parents--are 
completely preventable.
  In 2003, the New York Times published an eye-opening, multi-part 
series that documented the failure of the Federal government to 
prosecute violators of workplace safety laws. The articles were deeply 
disturbing to anyone concerned about the health and well being of 
workers in America, detailing one company's pattern of recklessly 
disregarding basic safety rules. The authors linked at least nine 
employee deaths in five States--New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, 
and Texas--over a 7-year period with the failure of a single company, 
McWane Foundry, to follow established workplace safety regulations. 
Three of those deaths were judged to have been caused by deliberate and 
willful violations of Federal safety rules.
  As a result of that article and a subsequent criminal investigation, 
McWane has begun to clean up its act.
  But no one should be deluded. McWane is not the only company with a 
record of putting employees at risk. Others--although still the clear 
minority--continue to flout workplace safety rules and jeopardize the 
health and well being of workers.
  During the last Congress, the Bush administration recognized that 
there was a problem and announced its ``enhanced enforcement policy,'' 
a small step in the right direction. But this new enforcement policy 
does not do enough, and my legislation would ensure that employers are 
deterred from placing their employees at risk by willfully violating 
safety law. And if they do willfully violate the law, they will pay a 
price.
  While many factors contribute to the unsafe working environment that 
exists at certain jobsites, one easily remedied factor is an 
ineffective regime of criminal penalties. The criminal statutes 
associated with OSHA have been on the books since the 1970s, but--over 
time--the deterrence value of these important workplace safety laws has 
eroded substantially. With the maximum jail sentence a paltry 6 months, 
Federal prosecutors have only a minimal incentive to spend time and 
resources prosecuting renegade employers. According to a recent 
analysis, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted, 
only 11 employers who caused the death of a worker on the job were 
incarcerated.
  The logic behind this legislation is simple. The bill will increase 
the incentive for prosecutors to hold renegade employers accountable 
for endangering the lives of their workers and, thereby, help ensure 
that OSHA criminal penalties cannot be safely ignored. This will 
provide the OSHA criminal statute with sufficient teeth to deter the 
small percentage of bad actors who knowingly and willfully place their 
employees at risk.
  I am proud to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Durbin 
in reintroducing the Workplace Wrongful Death Accountability Act and I 
urge my colleagues to support this important piece of 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. 947

       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 ``Workplace Wrongful Death 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. OSHA CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' and 
     inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
     United States Code,'';
       (B) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``10 years'';
       (C) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' and 
     inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
     United States Code,'';
       (D) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``20 years''; 
     and
       (E) by inserting ``under this subsection or subsection 
     (i)'' after ``first conviction of such person'';
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``fine of not more than 
     $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' and 
     inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
     United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 
     years,''; and
       (3) in subsection (g), by striking ``fine of not more than 
     $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months,'' 
     and inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 
     18, United States Code, or by imprisonment for not more than 
     1 year,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 948. A bill to amend the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
1986 to expand the National Practitioner Data Bank; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a very 
important piece of legislation, the Safe Healthcare Reporting (SHARE) 
Act, which Senator Lautenberg and I introduced last Congress to add 
nurses and other licensed health care professionals to the National 
Practitioner Databank.
  In 1986, Congress passed legislation that established a national 
databank, the National Practitioner Databank (NPDB), to track 
licensing, disciplinary, and medical malpractice actions taken against 
U.S. physicians. While the NPDB has served as an important source of 
information on physicians, it fails to incorporate critical information 
on millions of non-physician licensed health care professionals, 
including nurses.
  In late 2003, it came to light that Charles Cullen, a nurse who had 
practiced for more than a decade in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, had 
murdered as many as 40 of the patients he cared for during this time. 
As of today, Mr. Cullen has pleaded guilty to intentionally giving 
lethal doses of drugs to 24 patients.
  This case has highlighted the need for a national reporting system on 
nurses and other licensed health professionals. As the health care 
workforce becomes increasingly mobile, such a system would be an 
invaluable resource to health care employers seeking information on 
potential employees.
  The SHARE Act will help break the chain of silence currently plaguing 
our health care system. This chain of silence prevented critical 
employment history on Cullen--including five firings and at least one 
suspension--from ever reaching his future employers. While Charles 
Cullen kept killing people, hospitals kept hiring him. They didn't know 
his history. They didn't understand the risk he posed to patients. This 
is because hospitals and other employers are reluctant to share 
employee information because they are afraid of being sued.
  The goal of our legislation is to make sure that hospitals know--to 
make sure that employers have access to critical information on health 
care practitioners. It will ensure that adverse employment actions, 
licensing and disciplinary actions, and criminal background information 
are available to all health care employers. The SHARE Act mandates that 
hospitals and other health care entities report adverse employment 
actions taken against employees who violate professional standards of 
conduct. This would include things like drug diversion and 
falsification of documents.
  Importantly, the legislation protects health care employers from suit 
when they, in good faith, report information that they believe is 
truthful. Any employer who reports false information in

[[Page 8223]]

an effort to smear a nurse's record would receive no protection under 
our bill. In fact, anyone who abused the information reported to the 
databank would be fined by the Federal Government.
  Health care employers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, would be 
required to report to the National Practitioner Databank, which 
currently provides such information on physicians. They would also be 
required to report to the appropriate state licensing board. In turn 
the state licensing board would report the results of its 
investigations and licensing or disciplinary actions to the databank. 
The legislation also encourages nurses and other health care 
professionals to report suspected activities to state boards by 
providing whistleblower protections to those individuals.
  The SHARE Act also ensures that a practitioner who is subject to 
reporting is informed of the report, offered a hearing on the issue, 
and allowed to comment on the report.
  I believe that this legislation is a critical first step toward 
improving access to important information on our health care workforce. 
Since 1986, the Federal Government has required hospitals to report 
employment information on physicians. It's time we include nurses and 
other health care professionals that provide direct patient care. In 
fact, the average nurse spends more time at a patient's bedside than 
the patient's physician. We simply must ensure that the person at the 
bedside is competent and professional.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to move this bill through Congress and get it to the President's 
desk. We must and we can improve patient safety and the integrity of 
our health care system. This bill takes an important step toward that 
goal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 948

       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 ``Safe Health Care Reporting 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. REPORTING OF SANCTIONS.

       Section 422 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11132) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``Boards of medical 
     examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing boards'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``physician's'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``physician's or other health care 
     practitioner's''; and
       (B) by striking ``physician'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``physician or other health care practitioner''; 
     and
       (3) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``Board of 
     Medical Examiners'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``State licensing board''.

     SEC. 3. REPORTING OF CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW ACTIONS.

       Section 423 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11133) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Board of Medical Examiners'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``State licensing board'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Mandatory reporting on other licensed health care 
     practitioners.--A health care entity shall report to the 
     appropriate State licensing boards and to the agency 
     designated under section 424(b), the information described in 
     paragraph (3) in the case of a licensed health care 
     practitioner who is not a physician, if the entity would be 
     required to report such information under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the practitioner if the practitioner were a 
     physician.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3)(C) as paragraph (3)(D); 
     and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3)(B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) a description of any adverse action, including 
     dismissal and review action, taken by a hospital or other 
     health care entity against a health care practitioner who is 
     employed by, has privileges at, is under contract with, or 
     otherwise works at the health care entity for conduct that 
     may be construed to violate any Federal or State law, 
     including laws governing licensed health care professional 
     practice standards,
       ``(C) information on a health care practitioner who 
     voluntarily resigns during, or as a result of, a pending 
     dismissal or review action, and'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (4) by inserting after subsection (a), the following:
       ``(b) Standard for Reporting of Adverse Actions.--Adverse 
     actions reported under subsection (a)(2) shall be made in 
     accordance with the rights and procedures afforded to 
     physicians under section 412.'';
       (5) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), in the 
     subsection heading, by striking ``Board of Medical 
     Examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing board'';
       (6) in subsection (d)(1) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (a)(1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of subsection (a) and subsection (b)'';
       (7) in subsection (d)(2) (as so redesignated), in the 
     paragraph heading, by striking ``Board of Medical Examiners'' 
     and inserting ``State licensing board'';
       (8) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), in the 
     subsection heading, by striking ``Board of Medical 
     Examiners'' and inserting ``State licensing board''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     imposition of no more than $50,000 per violation for health 
     care entities that fail to comply with this section.
       ``(2) Repeated violations.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     civil penalties in addition to the amount listed in paragraph 
     (1) for health care entities that establish patterns of 
     repeated violations of this section.''.

     SEC. 4. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       Section 425 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11135) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), and 
     subsections (b) and (c), by striking ``hospital'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``health care entity or agency 
     employing a physician or other licensed health care 
     practitioner'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``each hospital'' and inserting ``each 
     health care entity and agency employing a physician or other 
     licensed health care practitioner''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and from the appropriate State 
     licensing board,'' after ``(or the agency designated under 
     section 424(b)),'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or employment'' after 
     ``clinical privileges''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or employed'' after 
     ``clinical privileges'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``hospital's'' and 
     inserting ``the health care entity's or agency's'' and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for the 
     imposition of no more than $50,000 per violation for a health 
     care entity or agency employing a physician or other licensed 
     health care practitioner that fails to comply with this 
     section.
       ``(2) Repeated violations.--The Secretary shall provide for 
     civil penalties in addition to the amount listed in paragraph 
     (1) for a health care entity or agency employing a physician 
     or other licensed health care practitioner that establishes 
     patterns of repeated violations of this section.''.

     SEC. 5. PROFESSIONAL REVIEW.

       Section 411 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11111) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Civil Liability Immunity for Health Care Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--A health care entity that discloses 
     information about a former or current employee pursuant to 
     section 423 is immune from civil liability for such 
     disclosure and its consequences unless it is demonstrated 
     that the employer--
       ``(A) knowingly disclosed false information; or
       ``(B) violated any right of the former or current employee 
     that is protected under Federal or State laws.
       ``(2) Application.--This subsection applies to any 
     employee, agent, or other representative of the current or 
     former employer who is authorized to provide and who provides 
     information in accordance with section 423.
       ``(e) Protection of Health Care Practitioners.--A health 
     care entity shall not penalize, discriminate, or retaliate in 
     any manner with respect to employment, including discharge, 
     promotion, compensation, or terms, conditions, or privileges 
     of employment, against an employee who, in good faith, 
     reports conduct that may be construed to violate a Federal or 
     State law, including laws governing licensed health care 
     professional practice standards, to a State authority, 
     licensing authority, peer review organization, or 
     employer.''.

     SEC. 6. HEALTH CARE ENTITY; SKILLED NURSING FACILITY.

       Section 431 of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986 (42 U.S.C. 11151) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(i), by inserting ``or skilled nursing 
     facility'' after ``hospital'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (13) and (14) as paragraphs 
     (14) and (15), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:

[[Page 8224]]

       ``(13) The term `skilled nursing facility' means an entity 
     described in section 1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i-3(a)).''.

     SEC. 7. SANCTIONS AGAINST AND BACKGROUND CHECKS OF HEALTH 
                   CARE PRACTITIONERS AND PROVIDERS.

       Section 1921 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-2) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``and Criminal 
     Background Checks of'' after ``Against''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Information concerning criminal background of 
     licensed health care practitioners.--The State shall have in 
     effect a system of reporting criminal background information 
     on licensed health care practitioners to the agency 
     designated under section 424(b) of the Health Care Quality 
     Improvement Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11134(b)).''.

     SEC. 8. DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, through 
     the promulgation of appropriate regulations, implement the 
     provisions of this Act within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 950. A bill to provide assistance to combat tuberculosis, malaria, 
and other infectious diseases, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill with my 
colleagues, the senior Senators from Louisiana and Oklahoma, called the 
Eliminate Neglected Disease Act of 2005. Neglected diseases are 
diseases that don't get much attention but nonetheless account for the 
vast majority of all deaths in the world: malaria, tuberculosis, acute 
respiratory infections, infectious diarrhea. For most of these 
diseases, our bilateral foreign assistance agency, USAID, is not 
funding direct interventions in communities using known, life-saving 
tools. The need for our bill could not be more urgent.
  Given the following, conditions have never been better for the U.S. 
to apply inexpensive, relatively simple interventions to save lives: 1. 
We know how to cure and/or prevent these diseases.
  2. Interventions, prevention and/or treatment are relatively cheap. 
Cure for malaria = $2. For TB = $11-15. One year of non-curative 
treatment for AIDS: $500-1,000.
  3. These diseases are responsible for the vast majority of deaths in 
the developing world, particularly among children and pregnant women. 
Malaria is the number one killer of kids and pregnant women in Africa, 
kills between 1-2 million people each year but makes about 500 million 
sick! Tuberculosis kills about 2 million people each year. Unlike with 
other diseases, people can not avoid infection with these killers by 
behavior change.
  4. Low-hanging fruit--these diseases are so cheap to control, even 
the modest budgets we have now could make a huge difference if they 
were spent wisely.
  Our bill focuses on the following programmatic reform: 1. Direct 
interventions: requires funding of activities that have a direct impact 
on sick people or people at risk of becoming sick. For some programs, 
this will require a shift of priority in budgets from indirect support 
and advice-giving consultants to actually funding medical treatment, 
commodity procurement, and disease control activities.
  2. Accountability: programs must measure performance and prove that 
they are saving lives. The bill establishes mechanisms to revise or 
terminate contracts that fail to save lives.
  3. Transparency: Every dollar that the agency awards to combat 
infectious diseases must be accounted for on a public web site, similar 
to the Global Fund's web site. All signed agreements are posted online, 
as well as progress reports documenting performance on required 
deliverables and indicators.
  4. Scientific and Clinical Integrity: The bill provides that 
clinical/medical and public health programs are overseen by the 
agencies of the Federal Government where the core competencies in 
clinical medicine and public health reside. For programs where the lack 
of clinical and scientific expertise has been particularly acute, a 
group of Federal and non-government medical and academic experts will 
provide scientific and medical oversight.
  5. Coordination and Priority-setting: Up to five Federal agencies are 
currently involved in international malaria and tuberculosis programs. 
The bill would provide for clearer lines of authority and coordination 
for these programs, and require a strategic planning process to ensure 
that programs operate according to a outcome-focused 5-year plan.
  The world community conquered smallpox. We have nearly conquered 
polio and guinea worm. When we acted in concert, we stopped SARS in its 
tracks a few years ago. If these diseases were killing our own citizens 
at the rates they are killing people in poorer countries, we would put 
an end to it using the inexpensive, known methods, in short order. 
African children are just as precious as American and European 
children. To those who have been given much, much is expected. We will 
be held responsible for how we responded to this crisis. I hope my 
colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
  S. 955. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
including in the National Park System certain sites in Williamson 
County, Tennessee, relating to the Battle of Franklin; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. FRIST. 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. 955

       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 ``Franklin National 
     Battlefield Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the cities 
     of Brentwood, Franklin, Triune, Thompson's Station, and 
     Spring Hill, Tennessee.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a special 
     resource study of sites in the study area relating to the 
     Battle of Franklin to determine--
       (1) the national significance of the sites; and
       (2) the suitability and feasibility of including the sites 
     in the National Park System.
       (b) Requirements.--The study conducted under subsection (a) 
     shall include the analysis and recommendations of the 
     Secretary on--
       (1) the effect on the study area of including the sites in 
     the National Park System; and
       (2) whether the sites could be included in an existing unit 
     of the National Park System or other federally designated 
     unit in the State of Tennessee.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) appropriate Federal agencies and State and local 
     government entities; and
       (2) interested groups and organizations.
       (d) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection 
     (a) shall be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91-383 
     (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 et seq.).

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, 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 findings of the study; and
       (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 956. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 
assured punishment for violent crimes against children, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Jetseta 
Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes

[[Page 8225]]

Against Children Act of 2005''. This is a very important bill that will 
protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and murder.
  The urgency of passing legislation of this nature has been growing 
for the past few months. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, 
and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been 
thoroughly covered in the news in recent weeks. Each of these murders 
was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our 
eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will give sex offenders 
tougher penalties for the crimes they commit.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about the murder of the Iowa 
girl this bill is named for, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24 of this 
year, Jetseta, a beautiful 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went 
missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even 
before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger 
Bentley into custody, a man who had been previously convicted for 
committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only 
served a little over one year in prison for his previous sex crime 
conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding 
to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an 
abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated 
with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still 
be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first 
offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it's 
even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented 
with adequate sentencing.
  My bill will help change this by protecting children in three ways. 
It will establish stiff mandatory minimum sentences, increase penalties 
for certain crimes against children, and reform the habeas corpus 
system for child murderers. Let me now discuss these provisions in 
detail.
  The first section on mandatory minimums will guarantee punishment for 
criminals who commit violent crimes against children. I know that some 
of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in 
the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in-light 
of the recent Supreme Court's decision in the Booker/FanFan case, 
something must be done to insure that sexual predators receive the 
types of sentences fitting for their crimes. In the Booker/FanFan case, 
the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer 
mandatory, thus federal judges have unfettered discretion in 
sentencing. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for 
violent crimes against children: One, where the crime of violence 
results in death of a child under 15 years, the offender will receive 
the death penalty or life in prison; two, where the crime of violence 
is kidnapping, sexual assault, or maiming or results in serious bodily 
injury the offender will receive a prison term from 30 years to life; 
three, where the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child 
under 12 years, the offender will serve a prison term from 15 years to 
life; four, where a criminal uses a dangerous weapon in the commission 
of a crime against a child, the offender will receive a sentence of 10 
years to life; and lastly, five, in any other case of a crime against a 
child, the offender will receive from 2 years to life.
  The second section of the bill increases the penalties for sexual 
offenses against children. The penalties for these crimes need to be 
adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the 
damage they do to children. The bill increases penalties for the 
following nine federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, 
abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children 
resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities 
relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, 
activities relating to material constituting or containing child 
pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to 
material harmful to minors on the internet, production of sexually 
explicit depictions of children, and conduct relating to child 
prostitution.
  The third section of the bill will ensure fair and expeditious 
Federal collateral review of convictions for killing a child. It would 
do this by reforming the habeas corpus system for this crime. For 
example, in district court parties will be required to move for an 
evidentiary hearing within 90 days of the completion of briefing, the 
court must act on the motion within 30 days, and the hearing must begin 
60 days later with completion within 150 days. In addition, this 
section will require that district-court review be completed within 15 
months of the completion of briefing and that appellate review must be 
completed within 120 days of the completion of briefing. Finally, this 
provision limits Federal review on cases to those claims that present 
meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime.
  The provisions of this bill are strictly designed to protect our 
children. I doubt that the members of this body, many of whom have 
young children of their own, will have any objections to ensuring that 
perpetrators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for 
their acts. It is unfortunate that it took the recent tragic murders of 
those 3 beautiful young girls for a law of this nature to be proposed, 
but I strongly believe that a vote for this bill could save the lives 
of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to 
protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our 
youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this 
bill.
  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. 956

       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 ``Jetseta Gage Prevention and 
     Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. ASSURED PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Special Sentencing Rule.--Subsection (d) of section 
     3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Mandatory Minimum Terms of Imprisonment for Violent 
     Crimes Against Children.--A person who is convicted of a 
     Federal crime of violence against the person of an individual 
     who has not attained the age of 15 years shall, unless a 
     greater mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment is 
     otherwise provided by law and regardless of any maximum term 
     of imprisonment otherwise provided for the offense--
       ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of a 
     person who has not attained the age of 15 years, be sentenced 
     to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the crime of violence is a kidnaping, sexual 
     assault, or maiming, (or an attempt or conspiracy to commit 
     one of those) or results in serious bodily injury (as defined 
     in section 1365) be imprisoned for life or for any term of 
     years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the crime of violence results in bodily injury (as 
     defined in section 1365) to a person who has not attained the 
     age of 12 years, be imprisoned for life or for any term of 
     years not less than 15;
       ``(4) if a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation 
     to the crime of violence, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10; and
       ``(5) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 2.''.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Sexual Abuse.--
       (1) Aggravated sexual abuse of children.--Section 2241(c) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, 
     imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.'' and 
     inserting ``and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for 
     life.''.
       (2) Abusive sexual contact with children.--Section 2244 of 
     chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(a) or (b)'' after 
     ``section 2241'';
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the 
     sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this 
     title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years and not more 
     than 25 years;''; and

[[Page 8226]]

       (B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(other than 
     subsection (a)(2))'' after ``violates this section''.
       (3) Sexual abuse of children resulting in death.--Section 
     2245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Offenses Involving Young Children.--A person who, in 
     the course of an offense under this chapter, engages in 
     conduct that results in the death of a person who has not 
     attained the age of 12 years, shall be punished by death or 
     imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life.''.
       (b) Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children.--
       (1) Sexual exploitation of children.--Section 2251(e) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``15 years nor more than 30 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years or for life'';
       (B) by striking ``not less than 25 years nor more than 50 
     years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions 
     under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, 
     or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State 
     relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person 
     shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 
     35 years nor more than life.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
       (C) by striking ``any term of years or for life'' and 
     inserting ``not less than 30 years or for life.''.
       (2) Activities relating to material involving the sexual 
     exploitation of children.--Section 2252(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
       (ii) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40 
     years.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``or imprisoned for not more than'' and 
     inserting ``and imprisoned for'';
       (ii) by striking ``, or both''; and
       (iii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years.'' and 
     inserting ``30 years or for life.''.
       (3) Activities relating to material constituting or 
     containing child pornography.--Section 2252A(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
       (ii) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40 
     years'' and inserting ``life''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 10 years''; and
       (ii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years or for life''.
       (4) Using misleading domain names to direct children to 
     harmful material on the internet.--Section 2252B(b) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both'' and inserting 
     ``imprisoned for 10 years''.
       (5) Production of sexually explicit depictions of 
     children.--Section 2260(c) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for 25 
     years; and
       ``(2) if the person has a prior conviction under this 
     chapter or chapter 109A, shall be fined under this title and 
     imprisoned for life.''.
       (c) Conduct Relating to Child Prostitution.--Section 2423 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``5 years and not more 
     than 30 years'' and inserting ``30 years or for life'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``or imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``, imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     30 years''.

     SEC. 4. ENSURING FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS FEDERAL COLLATERAL 
                   REVIEW OF CONVICTIONS FOR KILLING A CHILD.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Christy Ann Fornoff Act''.
       (b) Limits on Cases.--Section 2254 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) A court, justice, or judge shall not have 
     jurisdiction to consider any claim relating to the judgment 
     or sentence in an application described under paragraph (2), 
     unless the applicant shows that the claim qualifies for 
     consideration on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2). 
     Any such application that is presented to a court, justice, 
     or judge other than a district court shall be transferred to 
     the appropriate district court for consideration or dismissal 
     in conformity with this subsection, except that a court of 
     appeals panel must authorize any second or successive 
     application in conformity with section 2244 before any 
     consideration by the district court.
       ``(2) This subsection applies to an application for a writ 
     of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 
     the judgment of a State court for a crime that involved the 
     killing of a individual who has not attained the age of 18 
     years.
       ``(3) For an application described in paragraph (2), the 
     following requirements shall apply in the district court:
       ``(A) Any motion by either party for an evidentiary hearing 
     shall be filed and served not later than 90 days after the 
     State files its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the 
     date on which such answer is due.
       ``(B) Any motion for an evidentiary hearing shall be 
     granted or denied not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the party opposing such motion files a pleading in 
     opposition to such motion or, if no timely pleading in 
     opposition is filed, the date on which such pleading in 
     opposition is due.
       ``(C) Any evidentiary hearing shall be--
       ``(i) convened not less than 60 days after the order 
     granting such hearing; and
       ``(ii) completed not more than 150 days after the order 
     granting such hearing.
       ``(D) A district court shall enter a final order, granting 
     or denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus, not 
     later than 15 months after the date on which the State files 
     its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the date on 
     which such answer is due, or not later than 60 days after the 
     case is submitted for decision, whichever is earlier.
       ``(E) If the district court fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the 
     court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to enforce the 
     requirements. The court of appeals shall grant or deny the 
     petition for a writ of mandamus not later than 30 days after 
     such petition is filed with the court.
       ``(4) For an application described in paragraph (2), the 
     following requirements shall apply in the court of appeals:
       ``(A) A timely filed notice of appeal from an order issuing 
     a writ of habeas corpus shall operate as a stay of that order 
     pending final disposition of the appeal.
       ``(B) The court of appeals shall decide the appeal from an 
     order granting or denying a writ of habeas corpus--
       ``(i) not later than 120 days after the date on which the 
     brief of the appellee is filed or, if no timely brief is 
     filed, the date on which such brief is due; or
       ``(ii) if a cross-appeal is filed, not later than 120 days 
     after the date on which the appellant files a brief in 
     response to the issues presented by the cross-appeal or, if 
     no timely brief is filed, the date on which such brief is 
     due.
       ``(C)(i) Following a decision by a panel of the court of 
     appeals under subparagraph (B), a petition for panel 
     rehearing is not allowed, but rehearing by the court of 
     appeals en banc may be requested. The court of appeals shall 
     decide whether to grant a petition for rehearing en banc not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the petition is 
     filed, unless a response is required, in which case the court 
     shall decide whether to grant the petition not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the response is filed or, if no 
     timely response is filed, the date on which the response is 
     due.
       ``(ii) If rehearing en banc is granted, the court of 
     appeals shall make a final determination of the appeal not 
     later than 120 days after the date on which the order 
     granting rehearing en banc is entered.
       ``(D) If the court of appeals fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the 
     Supreme Court or a justice thereof for a writ of mandamus to 
     enforce the requirements.
       ``(5)(A) The time limitations under paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     shall apply to an initial application described in paragraph 
     (2), any second or successive application described in 
     paragraph (2), and any redetermination of an application 
     described in paragraph (2) or related appeal following a 
     remand by the court of appeals or the Supreme Court for 
     further proceedings.
       ``(B) In proceedings following remand in the district 
     court, time limits running from the time the State files its 
     answer under paragraph (3) shall run from the date the remand 
     is ordered if further briefing is not required in the 
     district court. If there is further briefing following remand 
     in the district court, such time limits shall run from the 
     date on which a responsive brief is filed or, if no timely 
     responsive brief is filed, the date on which such brief is 
     due.
       ``(C) In proceedings following remand in the court of 
     appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph (4)(B) shall 
     run from the date the remand is ordered if further briefing 
     is not required in the court of appeals. If there is further 
     briefing in the court of appeals, the time limit specified in 
     paragraph (4)(B) shall run from the date on which a 
     responsive brief is filed or, if no timely responsive brief 
     is filed, from the date on which such brief is due.
       ``(6) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a time 
     limitation under this subsection shall not be a ground for 
     granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence, 
     nor shall the time limitations under

[[Page 8227]]

     this subsection be construed to entitle a capital applicant 
     to a stay of execution, to which the applicant would 
     otherwise not be entitled, for the purpose of litigating any 
     application or appeal.''.
       (c) Rights Associated With Habeas Corpus Proceedings.--
     Section 3771(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``The rights established 
     for crime victims by this section shall also be extended in a 
     Federal habeas corpus proceeding arising out of a State 
     conviction to victims of the State offense at issue.''
       (d) Application to Pending Cases.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to cases pending on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Time limits.--In a case pending on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, if the amendments made by this section 
     provide that a time limit runs from an event or time that has 
     occurred prior to such date of enactment, the time limit 
     shall run instead from such date of enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 957. A bill to establish a clean coal power initiative, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am introducing the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Landrieu is joining 
me in introducing this legislation.
  The United States needs to have a diverse array of energy sources. It 
is crucial to our economy and our national security.
  Coal is an important resource that is a solution to keeping our 
economy moving forward and reducing our reliance on foreign energy.
  Today, coal fuels 52 percent of the electricity used to heat our 
homes and schools and run our factories. Coal can play an even greater 
role in meeting future demand because it constitutes 90 percent of U.S. 
energy reserves resources, enough to last more than 200 years at 
current consumption rates.
  The Energy Information Administration recently stated that coal is 
expected to remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the 
next 2 decades.
  Generations of Kentuckians have made a living and raised families by 
working in the coal fields. They are proud to do such vital work for 
our country's energy future.
  I believe that coal must be part of our energy plans. It is plentiful 
and we do not have to go far to get it.
  It can help meet our energy needs as the cost of natural gas 
continues to rise dramatically, and is forecasted to remain at 
historical highs and as electricity demands continue to increase.
  In order for us to take full advantage of coal's benefits, I believe 
we must balance conservation with the need for increased production.
  That is where clean coal comes in.
  The bill I am introducing today will help create new clean coal 
technologies by authorizing the Department of Energy to establish a 
research and development clean coal program. This will result in a 
significant reduction of emissions and a sharp increase in efficiency 
of turning coal into electricity.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 958. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia 
and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 959. A bill to establish the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 
Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing two measures to 
commemorate America's second war of independence--the War of 1812--and 
aid in the efforts to preserve sites related to this important period 
in our Nation's history.
  Pursuant to legislation that I authored in the 106th Congress, the 
National Park Service recently completed a study of the feasibility and 
desirability of designating a Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 
Trail commemorating the routes used by the British and Americans during 
the 1814 Chesapeake Campaign of the War of 1812.
  The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Feasibility Study 
and Environmental Impact Statement, completed in March 2004, determined 
that five of eight trail segments studied fully met the criteria for 
National Historic Trails and recommended this designation.
  The legislation I am introducing today implements the recommendations 
of the National Park Service's study. The Star-Spangled Banner National 
Historic Trail Act amends the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia 
and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail. I am pleased 
that my colleague Senator Mikulski is joining with me as a cosponsor of 
this bill. A similar companion bill has also been introduced in the 
House by my colleagues Congressmen Cardin and Gilchrest.
  The sites along the proposed Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 
Trail would mark some of the most important events of the War of 1812. 
The trail, commemorating the only combined naval and land attack on the 
United States, begins with the June 1814 battles between the British 
Navy and the American Chesapeake Flotilla in St. Leonard's Creek in 
Calvert County, and ends at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, site of the 
composition of our national anthem, and the ultimate defeat of the 
British.
  In my view, the designation of this route as a National Historic 
Trail will serve as a reminder of the importance of the concept of 
liberty to all who experience it. The Star-Spangled Banner National 
Historic Trail will also give long overdue recognition to those 
patriots whose determination to stand firm against enemy invasion and 
bombardment preserved this liberty for future generations of Americans.
  The second measure I am introducing today seeks to ensure that the 
upcoming bicentennial of the War of 1812 and the poem which became our 
national anthem will be appropriately observed. I am pleased to be 
joined by Senators Mikulski, Landrieu and Levin in offering this 
legislation.
  The Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act 
implements another recommendation included in the aforementioned 
National Park Service study by creating a commission, made up in part 
by citizens from nine states and the District of Columbia, to ensure a 
suitable national observance of the War of 1812. The commission is 
tasked with planning, encouraging, developing, executing and 
coordinating programs commemorating the historic events that preceded 
and are associated with the War of 1812. Among other things, the 
commission is charged with facilitating this commemoration throughout 
the United States and internationally.
  As the bicentennial of the War of 1812 rapidly approaches, a plan to 
mark the lasting contributions that our forebears made during this 
critical period in our Nation's history is needed. In my view, both of 
these measures will work to ensure that these patriots' commitment to 
the principles of liberty and sovereignty will not be forgotten.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. 
        Thomas):
  S. 960. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to 
prohibit the use of certain anti-competitive forward contracts; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, whenever there is a crisis the media has 
always served to focus the nation's attention on the problem and who 
has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to 
review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we 
could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's 
property and their livelihood.

[[Page 8228]]

  Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a 
magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and 
powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what 
we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to 
normalcy.
  We have all seen the pictures of the devastating tornadoes or other 
natural disasters that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched. 
Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing 
property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy 
and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe 
weather. Tornadoes don't last a long time, but they leave a path of 
devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever 
changed.
  Even as we consider the devastation of tornadoes, earthquakes, or 
other natural disasters, there are those in my state who have seen 
their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and federal 
regulation, but they haven't been so visible to us because we haven't 
seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the 
national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their 
livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same 
kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the 
ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy 
livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more 
difficult to track.
  Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am 
referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods--
thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several 
years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken 
advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed 
for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.
  Right now as I speak to you on the floor of the Senate, if you are a 
rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability 
to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the 
continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend 
their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.
  The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock 
producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts. 
It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which 
brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains 
and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be 
traded in open, public markets.
  So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our 
family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business 
practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a 
practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.
  If you haven't heard about the problem, I must point out that our 
ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we haven't fully 
focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a Town 
Meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from my 
constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in Wyoming, 
and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception, they are 
all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work 
that so many in their family have done for so many years.
  I could bring a stack of letters to the Floor that come from people 
all across my State about the problems they face. But, in the interests 
of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an 
idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try 
to deal with captive supply.
  A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of 
captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was 
``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He 
then added, ``until the existing laws are enforced in this area of 
illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very little 
consequence.''
  So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's 
ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the 
ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to 
purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have 
a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.
  The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All 
businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a 
constant stream of production and control costs.
  But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and 
business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the 
problem lies.
  The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control 
approximately 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive 
supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully 
drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This 
deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers 
that haven't aligned with specific packers.
  We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the 
Senate floor during the Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban 
packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did 
not survive the conference committee on the Farm Bill. However, the 
problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming 
producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and 
emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and 
have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning 
packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply 
problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to 
control cattle and other livestock.
  Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means 
including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing 
agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take 
a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to 
livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to 
the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price 
determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, 
meaning the base price is set.
  As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the 
delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the 
price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is 
commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula 
pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, 
such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant 
during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I 
find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to 
manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in 
the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula 
pricing are much more common than forward contracts.
  I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the 
situation if you aren't familiar with the cattle market. Most of us 
haven't signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us 
have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's 
explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a 
market structured like the current livestock market.
  It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September. 
As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that 
time. It turns out that other people don't really buy homes from each 
other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent 
of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal 
with one of these companies.
  One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000 
over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in 
your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you 
have just been practically forced to sign a contract

[[Page 8229]]

that doesn't specify how much you will receive for your house.
  That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged 
panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real 
estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away 
from the market. All the homes selling in September that aren't 
contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in 
your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your 
home for $2,000 below average.
  As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want 
to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you. 
Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the 
market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives 
packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those 
producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers 
use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and 
premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. 
These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.
  Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and 
(b):
  ``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . 
to: (a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive practice or device; or (b) Make or give any undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or 
locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality 
to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect''
  Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and 
provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation 
of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left 
with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent 
producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced 
and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts 
is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take 
action.
  Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a 
country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is 
sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it like a 
police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a 
sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because 
the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing 
today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It 
doesn't just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult 
for them to speed.
  My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that 
livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also 
puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.
  Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must 
contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This 
prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of 
sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven 
production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after 
slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. 
It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that 
they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are 
also exempted from the bill's requirements.
  In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to 
bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are 
made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is 
their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.
  My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of 
a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit 
the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key 
portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those 
found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands 
of livestock per contract.
  Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends 
the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue 
preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also 
preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide 
to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for 
the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even 
better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for 
the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have 
confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the 
next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to 
receive for his livestock.
  This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public 
market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading 
is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how 
electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone 
involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market 
is automatic.
  Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the 
pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. 
Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue 
on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is 
built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All 
livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a 
fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the 
best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to 
keep our small producers in business.
  My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock 
producers from competing formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues 
to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to 
perform on a level playing field.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Johnson, and 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 962. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit to holders of qualified bonds issued to finance certain energy 
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the capital cost to install new 
renewable generation capacity is three to ten times more expensive than 
the cost to install conventional gas generation. Given these costs, 
Federal production tax credits have been available over the past decade 
to investor-owned utilities and private developers for renewable 
generation from wind, closed loop biomass and poultry waste. I worked 
in the JOBs bill last year to extend these tax incentives and expand 
them to additional resources, such as open loop biomass, animal waste 
nutrients, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, solar, geothermal and 
small hydro irrigation systems. I also fought to extend these 
incentives to electric cooperatives and public power systems, and today 
am releasing a new proposal, ``Clean Energy Bonds,'' that provides them 
with an important financing tool.
  Tax incentives for renewable and clean coal generation will be an 
important part of a balanced energy bill that the Senate will soon 
assemble. Such incentives enhance energy security by providing for 
diverse fuel choices, provide options in the face of high prices of oil 
and gas, and are a key component of ensuring that utilities can meet 
clean air requirements and climate change goals. The Administration has 
asserted that incentives for renewable generation are necessary for a 
balanced energy bill. And, all electricity generators recently agreed 
in a MOU with the Department of Energy on voluntary goals that address 
climate change and support President Bush in his efforts to reduce the 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of the U.S. economy. As part of 
the MOU, the Department of Energy and all signatories agreed to promote 
policies that ``provide investment stimulus on an equitable basis to

[[Page 8230]]

all segments of the power sector in order to accelerate use of existing 
GHG-reducing technologies. . . .''
  As the MOU recognizes, electric cooperatives and public power systems 
need access to incentives in order to provide the latest clean 
technologies and renewable generation to their communities, just as the 
private sector does. Many of these utilities are ideally located to 
take advantage of opportunities to generate from these primarily rural 
resources. These utilities cannot, however, offset the high cost of 
these resources through the conventional tax incentives Congress has 
provided to the private sector. Without these incentives, such 
generation is simply unaffordable for the consumers they serve.
  Electric cooperatives and public power systems are not-for-profit, 
and therefore do not pay federal income tax. Not-for-profit utilities 
do not pay shareholders. Cooperatives return revenues above cost of 
service to their members, and public power systems use their revenue to 
reduce rates or reinvest in utility infrastructure. Traditional tax 
incentives do not work for not-for-profit utilities as they have no 
federally taxable income to offset. In order for Congress to fully 
realize the benefits of tax incentives that are designed to make 
renewable energy economic, an incentive tailored to the unique 
characteristics of not-for-profit utilities is required. All three 
utility sectors must be able to participate in incentives in order for 
emerging technologies to fully realize their potential and become 
economic.
  Clean energy bonds can provide electric cooperatives and public power 
systems with an incentive comparable to the production tax credits that 
are available for the private sector. The bill would make technologies 
that are eligible for the production tax credit under section 45 
eligible for the bond.
  Under the bill, the electric cooperative, cooperative lender or 
municipal utility (``issuer'') would issue the clean energy bond. With 
a conventional bond, the issuer must pay interest to the bondholder. 
But with a clean energy bond, the Federal Government pays a tax credit 
to the bondholder in lieu of the issuer paying interest to the 
bondholder. Treasury sets the rate of the credit in an amount that 
permits the issuance of the tax credit bond without discount and 
without interest cost to the issuer. The bondholder can deduct the 
amount of the tax credit from their total income tax liability. The 
bonds are taxable, so if the credit is worth $100 and the bondholder is 
in the 35 percent bracket, the bondholder would deduct $65 from their 
tax liability.
  Public power systems have long used bonds to finance projects for 
infrastructure improvements and upgrades. By creating familiar 
financial instruments for public power systems and electric 
cooperatives to use, the bond market will have the faith and 
understanding to purchase these financial products because of the 
longstanding success of municipal bonds.
  The Clean Energy Bonds Act of 2005 will become an important part of a 
balanced energy bill. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill that 
is needed to push renewable generation options further than production 
tax credits alone.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 964. A bill to provide a conservation royalty from Outer 
Continental Shelf revenues to establish the Coastal Impact Assistance 
Program, to provide assistance to States under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, to ensure adequate funding for 
conserving and restoring wildlife, to assist local governments in 
improving local park and recreation systems, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. 964

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Americans 
     Outdoors Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

        TITLE I--DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

Sec. 101. Disposition.

                  TITLE II--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 201. Coastal Impact Assistance Program.

              TITLE III--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Sec. 301. Apportionment of amounts available for State purposes.
Sec. 302. State planning.
Sec. 303. Assistance to States for other projects.
Sec. 304. Conversion of property to other use.
Sec. 305. Water rights.

           TITLE IV--CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE

Sec. 401. Purposes.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Sec. 403. Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.
Sec. 404. Apportionment to Indian tribes.
Sec. 405. No effect on prior appropriations.

          TITLE V--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

Sec. 501. Expansion of purpose of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
              Act of 1978 to include development of new areas and 
              facilities.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Eligibility.
Sec. 504. Grants.
Sec. 505. Recovery action programs.
Sec. 506. State action incentives.
Sec. 507. Conversion of recreation property.
Sec. 508. Treatment of transferred amounts.
Sec. 509. Repeal.

        TITLE I--DISPOSITION OF OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES

     SEC. 101. DISPOSITION.

       Section 9 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1338) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 9. DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.

       ``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the 
     Treasury of the United States all qualified outer continental 
     shelf revenues (as defined in section 31(a)).
       ``(b) Transfer for Conservation Royalty Expenditures.--For 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011, from amounts 
     deposited for the preceding fiscal year under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer--
       ``(1) to the Secretary to make payments under section 31, 
     $450,000,000;
       ``(2) to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to provide 
     financial assistance to States under section 6 of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8), 
     $450,000,000;
       ``(3) to the Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund 
     established under section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) for deposit in the Wildlife 
     Conservation and Restoration Account, $350,000,000; and
       ``(4) to the Secretary to carry out the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), 
     $125,000,000.''.

                  TITLE II--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1356a) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 31. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coastal political subdivision.--The term `coastal 
     political subdivision' means a political subdivision of a 
     coastal State any part of which political subdivision is--
       ``(A) within the coastal zone (as defined in section 304 of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) of 
     the coastal State; and
       ``(B) not more than 200 miles from the geographic center of 
     any leased tract.
       ``(2) Coastal population.--The term `coastal population' 
     means the population, as determined by the most recent 
     official data of the Census Bureau, of each political 
     subdivision any part of which lies within the designated 
     coastal boundary of a State (as defined in a State's coastal 
     zone management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act 
     of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)).
       ``(3) Coastal state.--The term `coastal State' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 304 of the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453).
       ``(4) Coastline.--The term `coastline' has the meaning 
     given the term `coast line' in section 2 of the Submerged 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301).
       ``(5) Distance.--The term `distance' means the minimum 
     great circle distance, measured in statute miles.
       ``(6) Leased tract.--The term `leased tract' means a tract 
     that is subject to a lease under section 6 or 8 for the 
     purpose of drilling for, developing, and producing oil or 
     natural gas resources.

[[Page 8231]]

       ``(7) Leasing moratoria.--The term `leasing moratoria' 
     means the prohibitions on preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities on any geographic area of the outer Continental 
     Shelf as contained in--
       ``(A) the moratorium statement of the President on June 12, 
     1998; or
       ``(B) section 110 of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-63; 
     115 Stat. 438).
       ``(8) Political subdivision.--The term `political 
     subdivision' means the local political jurisdiction 
     immediately below the level of State government, including 
     counties, parishes, and boroughs.
       ``(9) Producing state.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `producing State' means a 
     coastal State that has a coastal seaward boundary within 200 
     miles of the geographic center of a leased tract within any 
     area of the outer Continental Shelf.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `producing State' does not 
     include a producing State, a majority of the coastline of 
     which is subject to leasing moratoria.
       ``(10) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified Outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' means all amounts received by the United 
     States from each leased tract or portion of a leased tract--
       ``(i) lying--

       ``(I) seaward of the zone covered by section 8(g); or
       ``(II) within that zone, but to which section 8(g) does not 
     apply; and

       ``(ii) the geographic center of which lies within a 
     distance of 200 miles from any part of the coastline of any 
     coastal State.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `qualified Outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' includes bonus bids, rents, royalties 
     (including payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net 
     profit share payments, and related late-payment interest from 
     natural gas and oil leases issued under this Act.
       ``(C) Exclusion.--The term `qualified Outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' does not include any revenues from a leased 
     tract or portion of a leased tract that is located in a 
     geographic area subject to a leasing moratorium on January 1, 
     2005, unless the lease was in production on that date.
       ``(11) Transferred amount.--The term `transferred amount' 
     means the amount transferred to the Secretary under section 9 
     to make payments to producing States and coastal political 
     subdivisions under this section for a fiscal year.
       ``(b) Payments to Producing States and Coastal Political 
     Subdivisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011, the transferred amount shall be allocated by the 
     Secretary among producing States and coastal political 
     subdivisions in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Disbursement.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall, without further appropriation, disburse to each 
     producing State for which the Secretary has approved a plan 
     under subsection (c), and to coastal political subdivisions 
     under paragraph (4), such funds as are allocated to the 
     producing State or coastal political subdivision, 
     respectively, under this section for the fiscal year.
       ``(3) Allocation among producing states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C) 
     and subject to subparagraph (D), the transferred amount shall 
     be allocated to each producing State based on the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated off the coastline of the producing State; 
     bears to
       ``(ii) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues generated off the coastline of all producing States.
       ``(B) Amount of outer continental shelf revenues.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008 shall be 
     determined using qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues 
     received for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(ii) the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011 shall be 
     determined using qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues 
     received for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(C) Multiple producing states.--In a case in which more 
     than 1 producing State is located within 200 miles of any 
     portion of a leased tract, the amount allocated to each 
     producing State for the leased tract shall be inversely 
     proportional to the distance between--
       ``(i) the nearest point on the coastline of the producing 
     State; and
       ``(ii) the geographic center of the leased tract.
       ``(D) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a 
     producing State under subparagraph (A) shall be at least 1 
     percent of the transferred amount.
       ``(4) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 35 percent of 
     the amount allocated under paragraph (3) to the coastal 
     political subdivisions in the producing State.
       ``(B) Formula.--Of the amount paid by the Secretary to 
     coastal political subdivisions under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) 25 percent shall be allocated to each coastal 
     political subdivision in the proportion that--

       ``(I) the coastal population of the coastal political 
     subdivision; bears to
       ``(II) the coastal population of all coastal political 
     subdivisions in the producing State;

       ``(ii) 25 percent shall be allocated to each coastal 
     political subdivision in the proportion that--

       ``(I) the number of miles of coastline of the coastal 
     political subdivision; bears to
       ``(II) the number of miles of coastline of all coastal 
     political subdivisions in the producing State; and

       ``(iii) 50 percent shall be allocated in amounts that are 
     inversely proportional to the respective distances between 
     the points in each coastal political subdivision that are 
     closest to the geographic center of each leased tract, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Exception for the state of louisiana.--For the 
     purposes of subparagraph (B)(ii), the coastline for coastal 
     political subdivisions in the State of Louisiana without a 
     coastline shall be the average length of the coastline of all 
     other coastal political subdivisions in the State of 
     Louisiana.
       ``(D) Exception for the state of alaska.--For the purposes 
     of carrying out subparagraph (B)(iii) in the State of Alaska, 
     the amounts allocated shall be divided equally among the 2 
     coastal political subdivisions that are closest to the 
     geographic center of a leased tract.
       ``(E) Exclusion of certain leased tracts.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B)(iii), a leased tract or portion of a leased 
     tract shall be excluded if the tract or portion of a leased 
     tract is located in a geographic area subject to a leasing 
     moratorium on January 1, 2005, unless the lease was in 
     production on that date.
       ``(5) No approved plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and except 
     as provided in subparagraph (C), in a case in which any 
     amount allocated to a producing State or coastal political 
     subdivision under paragraph (3) or (4) is not disbursed 
     because the producing State does not have in effect a plan 
     that has been approved by the Secretary under subsection (c), 
     the Secretary shall allocate the undisbursed amount equally 
     among all other producing States.
       ``(B) Retention of allocation.--The Secretary shall hold in 
     escrow an undisbursed amount described in subparagraph (A) 
     until such date as the final appeal regarding the disapproval 
     of a plan submitted under subsection (c) is decided.
       ``(C) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subparagraph (A) 
     with respect to an allocated share of a producing State and 
     hold the allocable share in escrow if the Secretary 
     determines that the producing State is making a good faith 
     effort to develop and submit, or update, a plan in accordance 
     with subsection (c).
       ``(c) Coastal Impact Assistance Plan.--
       ``(1) Submission of state plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the 
     Governor of a producing State shall submit to the Secretary a 
     coastal impact assistance plan.
       ``(B) Public participation.--In carrying out subparagraph 
     (A), the Governor shall solicit local input and provide for 
     public participation in the development of the plan.
       ``(2) Approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall approve a plan of a 
     producing State submitted under paragraph (1) before 
     disbursing any amount to the producing State, or to a coastal 
     political subdivision located in the producing State, under 
     this section.
       ``(B) Components.--The Secretary shall approve a plan 
     submitted under paragraph (1) if--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that the plan is consistent 
     with the uses described in subsection (d); and
       ``(ii) the plan contains--

       ``(I) the name of the State agency that will have the 
     authority to represent and act on behalf of the producing 
     State in dealing with the Secretary for purposes of this 
     section;
       ``(II) a program for the implementation of the plan that 
     describes how the amounts provided under this section to the 
     producing State will be used;
       ``(III) for each coastal political subdivision that 
     receives an amount under this section--

       ``(aa) the name of a contact person; and
       ``(bb) a description of how the coastal political 
     subdivision will use amounts provided under this section;

       ``(IV) a certification by the Governor that ample 
     opportunity has been provided for public participation in the 
     development and revision of the plan; and
       ``(V) a description of measures that will be taken to 
     determine the availability of assistance from other relevant 
     Federal resources and programs.

       ``(3) Amendment.--Any amendment to a plan submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) developed in accordance with this subsection; and
       ``(B) submitted to the Secretary for approval or 
     disapproval under paragraph (4).
       ``(4) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     not later than 90 days

[[Page 8232]]

     after the date on which a plan or amendment to a plan is 
     submitted under paragraph (1) or (3), the Secretary shall 
     approve or disapprove the plan or amendment.
       ``(B) Exception.--For fiscal year 2006, the Secretary shall 
     approve or disapprove a plan submitted under paragraph (1) 
     not later than December 31, 2006.
       ``(d) Authorized Uses.--
       ``(1) In general.--A producing State or coastal political 
     subdivision shall use all amounts received under this 
     section, including any amount deposited in a trust fund that 
     is administered by the State or coastal political subdivision 
     and dedicated to uses consistent with this section, in 
     accordance with all applicable Federal and State law, only 
     for 1 or more of the following purposes:
       ``(A) Projects and activities for the conservation, 
     protection, or restoration of coastal areas, including 
     wetland.
       ``(B) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural 
     resources.
       ``(C) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of 
     complying with this section.
       ``(D) Implementation of a federally-approved marine, 
     coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan.
       ``(E) Mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf 
     activities through funding of onshore infrastructure projects 
     and public service needs.
       ``(2) Compliance with authorized uses.--If the Secretary 
     determines that any expenditure made by a producing State or 
     coastal political subdivision is not consistent with this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall not disburse any additional 
     amount under this section to the producing State or the 
     coastal political subdivision until such time as all amounts 
     obligated for unauthorized uses have been repaid or 
     reobligated for authorized uses.''.

              TITLE III--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

     SEC. 301. APPORTIONMENT OF AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR STATE 
                   PURPOSES.

       Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``(including facility rehabilitation, but excluding facility 
     maintenance)'' after ``(3) development''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Apportionment Among the States.--
       ``(1) Definition of state.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     in this subsection, the term `State' means--
       ``(i) each of the States of the United States;
       ``(ii) the District of Columbia;
       ``(iii) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       ``(iv) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
       ``(v) the United States Virgin Islands;
       ``(vi) Guam; and
       ``(vii) American Samoa.
       ``(B) Limitation.--For the purposes of paragraph (3), the 
     States referred to in clauses (iii) through (vii) of 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be treated collectively as 1 State; and
       ``(ii) shall each receive an apportionment under that 
     paragraph based on the ratio that--

       ``(I) the population of the State; bears to
       ``(II) the population of all the States referred to in 
     clauses (iii) through (vii) of subparagraph (A).

       ``(2) Deduction for administrative expenses.--For each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of 
     administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying 
     out this section, not more than 1 percent of the amounts made 
     available for financial assistance to States for the fiscal 
     year under this Act.
       ``(3) Apportionment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion among the 
     States the amounts remaining after making the deduction under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Formula.--Subject to paragraph (5), of the amounts 
     described in subparagraph (A) for each fiscal year--
       ``(i) 60 percent shall be apportioned equally among the 
     States; and
       ``(ii) 40 percent shall be apportioned among the States 
     based on the ratio that--

       ``(I) the population of each State (as reported in the most 
     recent decennial census); bears to
       ``(II) the population of all of the States (as reported in 
     the most recent decennial census).

       ``(4) Limitation.--For any fiscal year, the total 
     apportionment to any 1 State under paragraph (3) shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the total amount apportioned to all 
     States for the fiscal year.
       ``(5) State notification.--The Secretary shall notify each 
     State of the amount apportioned to the State under paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(6) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts apportioned to a State under 
     paragraph (3) may be used for planning, acquisition, or 
     development projects in accordance with this Act.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Amounts apportioned to a State under 
     paragraph (3) shall not be used for condemnation of land.
       ``(7) Reapportionment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any portion of an apportionment to a 
     State under this subsection that has not been paid or 
     obligated by the Secretary by the end of the second fiscal 
     year that begins after the date on which notification is 
     provided to the State under paragraph (5) shall be 
     reapportioned by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(B) Limitation.--A reapportionment under this paragraph 
     shall be made without regard to the limitation described in 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(8) Apportionment to indian tribes.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `Indian 
     tribe'--
       ``(i) in the case of the State of Alaska, means a Native 
     corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)); and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other State, has the meaning 
     given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(B) Apportionment.--For the purposes of paragraph (3), 
     each Indian tribe shall be eligible to receive a share of the 
     amount available under paragraph (3) in accordance with a 
     competitive grant program established by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Total apportionment.--The total apportionment 
     available to Indian tribes under subparagraph (B) shall be 
     equal to the amount available to a single State under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(D) Amount of grant.--For any fiscal year, the grant to 
     any 1 Indian tribe under this paragraph shall not exceed 10 
     percent of the total amount made available to Indian tribes 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(E) Use of funds.--Funds received by an Indian tribe 
     under this paragraph may be used for the purposes specified 
     in paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a).
       ``(9) Local allocation.--Unless the State demonstrates on 
     an annual basis to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
     there is a compelling reason not to provide grants under this 
     paragraph, each State (other than the District of Columbia) 
     shall make available, as grants to political subdivisions of 
     the State, not less than 25 percent of the annual State 
     apportionment under this subsection, or an equivalent amount 
     made available from other sources.''.

     SEC. 302. STATE PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) is amended 
     by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Selection Criteria; State Action Agenda.--
       ``(1) Selection criteria.--Each State may develop 
     priorities and criteria for selection of outdoor conservation 
     and recreation acquisition and development projects eligible 
     for grants under this Act, if--
       ``(A) the priorities and criteria developed by the State 
     are consistent with this Act;
       ``(B) the State provides for public participation in the 
     development of the priorities and criteria; and
       ``(C) the State develops a State action agenda (referred to 
     in this section as a `State action agenda') that includes the 
     priorities and criteria established under this paragraph.
       ``(2) State action agenda.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph, the State, in partnership 
     with political subdivisions of the State and Federal agencies 
     and in consultation with the public, shall develop a State 
     action agenda.
       ``(B) Required elements.--A State action agenda shall--
       ``(i) include strategies to address broad-based and long-
     term needs while focusing on actions that can be funded 
     during the 5-year period covered by the State action agenda;
       ``(ii) take into account all providers of conservation and 
     recreation land in each State, including Federal, regional, 
     and local government resources;
       ``(iii) include the name of the State agency that will have 
     authority to represent and act for the State in dealing with 
     the Secretary for the purposes of this Act;
       ``(iv) describe the priorities and criteria for selection 
     of outdoor recreation and conservation acquisition and 
     development projects; and
       ``(v) include a certification by the Governor of the State 
     that ample opportunity for public participation has been 
     provided in the development of the State action agenda.
       ``(C) Update.--Each State action agenda shall be updated at 
     least once every 5 years.
       ``(D) Certification.--The Governor shall certify that the 
     public has participated in the development of the State 
     action agenda.
       ``(E) Coordination with other plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--The State action agenda shall be 
     coordinated, to the maximum extent practicable, with other 
     State, regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, open 
     space, fish and wildlife, and wetland and other habitat 
     conservation.
       ``(ii) Recovery action programs.--

       ``(I) In general.--The State shall use recovery action 
     programs developed by urban local governments under section 
     1007 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 
     (16 U.S.C. 2506) as a guide to the conclusions, priorities, 
     and action schedules contained in the State action agenda.
       ``(II) Requirements for local planning.--To minimize the 
     redundancy of local outdoor

[[Page 8233]]

     conservation and recreation efforts, each State shall provide 
     that, to the maximum extent practicable, the findings, 
     priorities, and implementation schedules of recovery action 
     programs may be used to meet requirements for local outdoor 
     conservation and recreation planning that are conditions for 
     grants under the State action agenda.

       ``(F) Comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan.--A 
     comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan developed by 
     a State before the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph shall remain in effect in the 
     State until a State action agenda is adopted under this 
     paragraph, but not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of that Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6(e) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``or State action agenda'' after ``State comprehensive 
     plan''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or State action 
     agenda'' after ``comprehensive plan''.
       (2) Section 32(e) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1011(e)) is amended in the last proviso of the first 
     paragraph by striking ``existing comprehensive statewide 
     outdoor recreation plan found adequate for purposes of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897)'' 
     and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation 
     plan or State action agenda required by section 6 of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (3) Section 102(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 470b(a)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan prepared 
     pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide 
     outdoor recreation plan or State action agenda required by 
     section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (4) Section 6(a) of the Federal Water Project Recreation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-17(a)) is amended by striking ``State 
     comprehensive plan developed pursuant to subsection 5(d) of 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 
     897)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plan or State action agenda required by section 6 
     of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (5) Section 8(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1247(a)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``or State action agendas'' after 
     ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans''; and
       (B) by inserting ``of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)'' 
     after ``Fund Act''.
       (6) Section 11(a)(2) of the National Trails System Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1250(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``(relating to the 
     development of Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 
     Plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (7) Section 11 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1282) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``or State action agendas'' after 
     ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``(16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``(relating to the 
     development of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation 
     plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (8) Section 206(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plan required by the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et 
     seq.)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plan or State action agenda required by section 6 
     of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-8)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(D)(ii), by striking ``statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plan that is required by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     4 et seq.)'' and inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plan or State action agenda that is required by 
     section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (9) Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) is amended by 
     striking ``statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under 
     the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended'' and 
     inserting ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans 
     or State action agendas required by section 6 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.

     SEC. 303. ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

       Section 6(e) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, but not including 
     incidental costs relating to acquisition''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the colon the 
     following: ``or to enhance public safety in a designated park 
     or recreation area''.

     SEC. 304. CONVERSION OF PROPERTY TO OTHER USE.

       Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3) No property'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Conversion of property to other use.--
       ``(A) In general.--No property''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Requirements for approval.--The Secretary shall 
     approve a conversion under subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the State demonstrates that there is no other prudent 
     or feasible alternative;
       ``(ii) the property no longer meets the criteria in the 
     comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan or State 
     action agenda for an outdoor conservation and recreation 
     facility because of changes in demographics; or
       ``(iii) the property must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination that endangers public health or 
     safety.
       ``(C) Conditions.--A conversion under subparagraph (A) 
     shall satisfy any conditions that the Secretary determines to 
     be necessary to ensure the substitution of other conservation 
     or recreation property that is--
       ``(i) of at least equal fair market value;
       ``(ii) of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location; 
     and
       ``(iii) consistent with the comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plan or State action agenda.''.

     SEC. 305. WATER RIGHTS.

       Title I of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 14. WATER RIGHTS.

       ``Nothing in this title--
       ``(1) invalidates, preempts, or modifies any Federal or 
     State water law or an interstate compact relating to water, 
     including water quality and disposal;
       ``(2) alters the rights of any State to an appropriated 
     share of the water of any body of surface water or 
     groundwater, as established by interstate compacts entered 
     into, legislation enacted, or final judicial allocations 
     adjudicated before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; or
       ``(3) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.''.

           TITLE IV--CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION OF WILDLIFE

     SEC. 401. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to ensure adequate funding of the program established 
     under the amendments to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) enacted by title IX 
     of H.R. 5548 of the 106th Congress, as enacted by section 
     1(a)(2) of Public Law 106-553 (114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-118); 
     and
       (2) to ensure the conservation and sustainability of fish 
     and wildlife to provide and promote greater hunting, angling, 
     and wildlife viewing opportunities.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), 
     (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs (2), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), 
     (9), and (10), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(1) Account.--The term `Account' means the Wildlife 
     Conservation and Restoration Account established by section 
     3(a)(2).'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe'--
       ``(A) in the case of the State of Alaska, means a Native 
     corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)); and
       ``(B) in the case of any other State, has the meaning given 
     the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).'';
       (4) in paragraph (6) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by 
     striking ``including fish'' and inserting ``(including, for 
     purposes of section 4(d), fish)''; and
       (5) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``includes the wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program and''.

     SEC. 403. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION ACCOUNT.

       Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``SEC. 3. (a)(1) An'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 3. FEDERAL AID TO WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Federal aid to wildlife restoration fund.--An''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Federal aid to wildlife 
     restoration fund'' and inserting ``Federal Aid to Wildlife 
     Restoration Fund''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Wildlife conservation and restoration account.--

[[Page 8234]]

       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the fund a 
     subaccount to be known as the `Wildlife Conservation and 
     Restoration Account'.
       ``(B) Funding.--Amounts transferred to the fund for a 
     fiscal year under section 9(b)(3) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act--
       ``(i) shall be deposited in the Account; and
       ``(ii) shall be available, without further appropriation, 
     to carry out State wildlife conservation and restoration 
     programs under section 4(d).''.

     SEC. 404. APPORTIONMENT TO INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson 
     Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first subsection (c) as subsection 
     (e); and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Apportionment to district of columbia, puerto rico, 
     territories, and indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall apportion from amounts 
     available in the Account for the fiscal year--
       ``(i) to each of the District of Columbia and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, an amount equal to not more than 
     \1/2\ of 1 percent of amounts available in the Account;
       ``(ii) to each of Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin 
     Islands, a sum equal to not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent of 
     amounts available in the Account; and
       ``(iii) to Indian tribes, an amount equal to not more than 
     2\1/4\ percent of amounts available in the Account, of 
     which--

       ``(I) \1/3\ shall be apportioned based on the ratio that 
     the trust land area of each Indian tribe bears to the total 
     trust land area of all Indian tribes; and
       ``(II) \2/3\ shall be apportioned based on the ratio that 
     the population of each Indian tribe bears to the total 
     population of all Indian tribes.

       ``(B) Maximum apportionment to indian tribes.--For each 
     fiscal year, the amounts apportioned under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) shall be adjusted proportionately so that no Indian 
     tribe is apportioned a sum that is more than 5 percent of the 
     amount available for apportionment under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) for the fiscal year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3(c)(2) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(c)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``sections 4(d) and (e) of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c) and (d) of section 4''.
       (2) Section 4(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)''.
       (3) Section 4(d) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c(d)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by redesignating clauses (i), 
     (ii), and (iii) as subclauses (I), (II), and (III), 
     respectively, and indenting the subclauses appropriately;
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and indenting the 
     clauses appropriately; and
       (iii) by striking ``(1) Any State'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any State'';
       (iv) by striking ``To apply'' and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Plan.--To apply'';
       (v) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by clause (iii))--

       (I) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``may apply''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``develop a program'' and inserting the 
     following: ``develop a program for the conservation and 
     restoration of species of wildlife identified by the State'';

       (vi) in subparagraph (B) (as designated by clause (iv))--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as redesignated by 
     clause (ii)), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``shall 
     submit''; and
       (II) in clause (i) (as redesignated by clause (ii)), by 
     inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State'';

       (vii) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph 
     (C); and
       (viii) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by clause 
     (vii))--

       (I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a 
     State or Indian tribe shall'' before ``develop and begin'';
       (II) in clause (i), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before 
     ``deems appropriate'';
       (III) in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vii), by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)'';
       (IV) in clause (vi)--

       (aa) by striking ``State wildlife conservation strategy'' 
     and inserting ``wildlife conservation strategy of the State 
     or Indian tribe''; and
       (bb) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and

       (V) in clause (vii), by inserting ``by'' after 
     ``feasible'';

       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``State'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (D) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``State's wildlife 
     conservation and restoration program'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``wildlife conservation and restoration program 
     of a State or Indian tribe''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``each State''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``State's wildlife conservation and 
     restoration program'' and inserting ``wildlife conservation 
     and restoration program of a State or Indian tribe''.

       (4) Section 8(b) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 4(c)'' and inserting ``section 4(e)''.
       (5) Section 10 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or obligated'' 
     after ``used''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or obligated'' 
     after ``used''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 4(c)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 4(e)''.

     SEC. 405. NO EFFECT ON PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS.

       Nothing in this title or any amendment made by this title 
     applies to or otherwise affects the availability or use of 
     any amounts appropriated before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

          TITLE V--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF PURPOSE OF URBAN PARK AND RECREATION 
                   RECOVERY ACT OF 1978 TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF 
                   NEW AREAS AND FACILITIES.

       Section 1003 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2502) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``recreation areas, facilities,'' and inserting 
     ``recreation areas and facilities, the development of new 
     recreation areas and facilities (including acquisition of 
     land for that development),''.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 1004 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2503) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``When used in this title the term--'' and 
     inserting ``In this title:'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of 
     subsection (d) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), 
     respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (3) by redesignating subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 
     (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) as paragraphs (9), (10), 
     (4), (1), (8), (6), (3), (12), (7), (13), and (5), 
     respectively, and moving the paragraphs to appear in 
     numerical order;
       (4) in each of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), 
     (8), (9), (10), (12), and (13) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (3))--
       (A)(i) by inserting ``_____.--The term'' before the first 
     quotation mark; and
       (ii) by inserting in the blank the term that is in 
     quotations in each paragraph, respectively; and
       (B) by capitalizing the first letter of the term as 
     inserted in the blank under subparagraph (A)(ii);
       (5) in each of paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), 
     (9), (10), and (12) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by 
     striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a period;
       (6) in paragraph (13) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), 
     by striking ``; and'' at the end and inserting a period;
       (7) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3)) the following:
       ``(2) Development grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `development grant' means a 
     matching capital grant made to a unit of local government to 
     cover costs of development, land acquisition, and 
     construction at 1 or more existing or new neighborhood 
     recreation sites (including indoor and outdoor recreational 
     areas and facilities, support facilities, and landscaping).
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `development grant' does not 
     include a grant made to pay the costs of routine maintenance 
     or upkeep activities.'';
       (8) in paragraph (5) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)), by 
     inserting ``the Commonwealth of'' before ``Northern Mariana 
     Islands''; and
       (9) by inserting after paragraph (10) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3)) the following:
       ``(11) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.''.

     SEC. 503. ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 1005 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2504) is amended by striking subsection 
     (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Eligibility for Assistance.--
       ``(1) Definition of general purpose local government.--For 
     the purpose of determining eligibility for assistance under 
     this title, the term `general purpose local government' 
     includes--
       ``(A) any political subdivision of a metropolitan, primary, 
     or consolidated statistical

[[Page 8235]]

     area, as determined by the most recent decennial census;
       ``(B) any other city, town, or group of 1 or more cities or 
     towns within a metropolitan statistical area described in 
     subparagraph (A) that has a total population of at least 
     50,000, as determined by the most recent decennial census; 
     and
       ``(C) any other county, parish, or township with a total 
     population of at least 250,000, as determined by the most 
     recent decennial census.
       ``(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall award assistance to 
     general purpose local governments under this title on the 
     basis of need, as determined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 504. GRANTS.

       Section 1006(a) of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2505(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``rehabilitation and 
     innovative'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``rehabilitation and 
     innovation''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``rehabilitation or 
     innovative''.

     SEC. 505. RECOVERY ACTION PROGRAMS.

       Section 1007(a) of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2506(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``development,'' 
     after ``commitments to ongoing planning,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``development and'' 
     after ``adequate planning for''.

     SEC. 506. STATE ACTION INCENTIVES.

       Section 1008 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2507) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(a) IN GENERAL.--
     '' before ``The Secretary is authorized''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) (as 
     designated by paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Coordination With Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary and general purpose local 
     governments are encouraged to coordinate the preparation of 
     recovery action programs required by this title with 
     comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans or State 
     action agendas required by section 6 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) (including 
     by allowing flexibility in preparation of recovery action 
     programs so that those programs may be used to meet State and 
     local qualifications for local receipt of grants under that 
     Act or State grants for similar purposes or for other 
     conservation or recreation purposes).
       ``(2) Considerations.--The Secretary shall encourage States 
     to consider the findings, priorities, strategies, and 
     schedules included in the recovery action programs of the 
     urban localities of the States in preparation and updating of 
     comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plans or State 
     action agendas in accordance with the public participation 
     and citizen consultation requirements of section 6(d) of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     8(d)).''.

     SEC. 507. CONVERSION OF RECREATION PROPERTY.

       Section 1010 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2509) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1010. CONVERSION OF RECREATION PROPERTY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     property developed, acquired, improved, or rehabilitated 
     using funds from a grant under this title shall, without the 
     approval of the Secretary, be converted to any purpose other 
     than a public recreation purpose.
       ``(b) Approval.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve the 
     conversion of property under subsection (a) to a purpose 
     other than a public recreation purpose only if the grant 
     recipient demonstrates that no prudent or feasible 
     alternative exists.
       ``(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) applies to property 
     that--
       ``(A) is no longer viable for use as a recreation facility 
     because of changes in demographics; or
       ``(B) must be abandoned because of environmental 
     contamination or any other condition that endangers public 
     health or safety.
       ``(c) Conditions.--Any conversion of property under this 
     section shall satisfy such conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to ensure the substitution for the 
     property of other recreation property that is--
       ``(1) at a minimum, equivalent in fair market value, 
     usefulness, and location; and
       ``(2) subject to the recreation recovery action program of 
     the grant recipient that is in effect as of the date of the 
     conversion of the property.''.

     SEC. 508. TREATMENT OF TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS.

       Section 1013 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2512) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1013. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Treatment of Amounts Transferred From Get Outdoors 
     Act Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts transferred to the Secretary 
     under section 9(b)(4) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1338(b)(4)) for a fiscal year shall be 
     available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to 
     carry out this title.
       ``(2) Unpaid and unobligated amounts.--Any amount described 
     in paragraph (1) that is not paid or obligated by the 
     Secretary before the end of the second fiscal year beginning 
     after the first fiscal year in which the amount is made 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be reapportioned by the 
     Secretary among grant recipients under this title.
       ``(b) Deduction for Administrative Expenses.--For each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary may deduct, for payment of 
     administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying 
     out this section, not more than 4 percent of the amounts made 
     available to the Secretary for the fiscal year under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Limitations on Annual Grants.--After making the 
     deduction under subsection (b), of the amounts made available 
     for a fiscal year under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) not more than 10 percent may be used for innovation 
     grants under section 1006;
       ``(2) not more than 3 percent may be used for grants for 
     the development of local park and recreation recovery action 
     programs under subsections (a) and (c) of section 1007; and
       ``(3) not more than 15 percent, in the aggregate, may be 
     provided in the form of grants for projects in any 1 State.
       ``(d) Limitation on Use for Grant Administration.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a limit on the percentage, not to 
     exceed 25 percent, of any grant under this title that may be 
     used for grant and program administration.''.

     SEC. 509. REPEAL.

       Sections 1014 and 1015 of the Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2513, 2514) are repealed.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise with the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, and 
the senior Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce 
legislation which we believe is a new and enhanced version of one of 
the most significant conservation efforts ever considered by Congress.
  The Americans Outdoors Act is a landmark multi-year commitment to 
conservation programs directly benefitting all 50 States and hundreds 
of local communities. It creates a conservation royalty earned from the 
production of oil and gas found on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, 
and directs it towards the restoration of coastal wetlands, 
preservation of wildlife habitat, and to help build and maintain local 
and state parks for our children and grandchildren.
  By enacting this legislation, we will be making the most significant 
commitment of resources to conservation ever. It will ensure a positive 
legacy of protecting, preserving and enhancing critical wildlife 
habitat, open green spaces and the opportunity for Americans to enjoy 
their outdoors today and for generations to come. Our legislation 
builds on an effort made during the 106th Congress that was supported 
by governors, mayors and a coalition of more than 5,000 organizations 
from throughout the country.
  Unfortunately, despite widespread support, our efforts were cut short 
before a bill could be signed into law. Instead a commitment was made 
by those who opposed the legislation to guarantee funding for these 
programs each year through the appropriation process.
  However, as we have painfully witnessed since then, that commitment 
has not been met. What has happened is exactly what those of us who 
initiated the effort always anticipated. Each of these significant 
programs continues to be shortchanged and a number of them have been 
left out altogether or forced to compete with each other for Federal 
resources.
  The legislation we are introducing today provides reliable, 
significant and steady funding for the urgent and worthy conservation 
and outdoor recreation needs of our states and rapidly expanding urban 
and suburban areas. What makes more sense than to take a portion of 
revenues from a great but depleting capital asset of the Nation--
offshore Federal oil and gas resources--and reinvest them into 
sustaining our Nation's natural resources: wetlands; parks and 
recreation areas and wildlife?
  The Americans Outdoors Act dedicates assured funding for four 
distinct

[[Page 8236]]

programs and honors promises made long ago to the American people. They 
include:
  Coastal Impact Assistance--$450 million to oil and gas producing 
coastal States to mitigate the various impacts of states that serve as 
the ``platform'' for the crucial development of Federal offshore energy 
resources from the OCS as well as provide for wetland restoration. This 
program merely acknowledges the impacts to and contribution of States 
that are providing the energy to run our country's economy.
  Since the 1.76 billion acre energy frontier of the OCS was officially 
opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region 
has contributed as much to our Nation's energy production. In fact, the 
OCS supplies more oil to our Nation than any other country including 
Saudi Arabia. Today, the OCS represents more than 25 percent of our 
Nation's natural gas production and more than 30 percent of our 
domestic oil production--with the promise of reaching 40 percent by 
2008. It is estimated that 60 percent of the oil and natural gas still 
to be discovered in the U.S. will come from the OCS.
  An average of more than $5 billion in revenues from oil and gas 
production are returned to the Federal treasury each year from the 
OCS--$145 billion since Production began. That is the second biggest 
contributor of revenue to the Federal treasury after income taxes.
  Our legislation seeks to address a historical inequity. The Mineral 
Lands Leasing Act of 1920 shares automatically with States 50 percent 
of revenues from mineral production on Federal lands within that 
State's boundaries. These funds are distributed to States 
automatically, outside the budget process and not subject to 
appropriations. In fiscal year 2004, the State of Wyoming received $564 
million as a result of this law and the State of New Mexico received 
$365 million. But, there is no similar provision in law for coastal 
producing States to share Federal oil and gas revenues generated on the 
OCS.
  For both onshore and offshore production, the justification for 
sharing with the State is the same: The State serves as the platform 
which enables the Federal Government to support a basic element of our 
daily lives--turning on our lights, heating our homes and running our 
commuter trains.
  In light of the OCS's vital contribution to our Nation's energy 
needs, economy and national security, it see only fair and logical that 
we should return a share of these revenues to the few States that are 
providing this crucial supply of energy. The revenues should be 
distributed automatically based on what is produced off a State's 
coastline and a portion of each State's allocation should be shared 
with coastal counties and parishes. They battle every day with the 
forces of nature that are steadily undermining our energy security by 
washing away the barrier islands and marshes that protect critical 
infrastructure necessary to deliver it.
  When Hurricane Ivan struck back in September, it should have been a 
wake up call to us all. Although the storm did not hit Louisiana 
directly, its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this 
country could still be felt 4 months later. One can only imagine what 
the impact would have been had Ivan cut a more Western path in the 
Gulf. How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing 
Russian roulette with our oil and gas supply? Returning a portion of 
OCS revenues to Louisiana and other coastal producing States is crucial 
to restoring and preserving these vital wetlands and the billions in 
energy investments they protect.
  This bill will provide $450 million for the State side of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, to provide stable funding to States 
for the planning and development of State and local parks and 
recreation facilities. The allocation to States would be 60 percent 
equally among all 50 States and 40 percent based on relative 
population. This program provides greater revenue certainty for State 
and local governments to help them meet their recreational needs 
through recreational facility development and resource protection--all 
under the discretion of State and local authorities while protecting 
the rights of private property owners.
  This bill would provide for Wildlife Conservation, Education and 
Restoration. A total of $350 million is allocated to all 50 States 
through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson for the 
conservation of non-game and game species, with the principal goal of 
preventing species from becoming endangered or listed under the 
Endangered Species Act. By taking steps now to prevent species from 
becoming endangered we are able to not only conserve the significant 
cultural heritage of wildlife enjoyment for the people of this country, 
but also avoid the substantial costs associated with recovery for 
endangered species.
  Allocations to States would be based on a formula of two-thirds 
relative population and one-third relative land area and the Urban 
Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, UPARR--$125 million in the form 
of matching grants, 70 percent, to provide direct assistance to our 
cities and towns so that they can focus on the needs of their 
populations within the more densely inhabited areas around the country 
where there are fewer green-spaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for 
our youth.
  I would also like to acknowledge our interest in several programs 
that are not part of this initial package but will be considered as the 
bill moves through the process. For example, the Federal side of the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, which focuses primarily on Federal 
land acquisition. The goal of the Federal side of the LWCF was to share 
a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with States 
to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. It 
is our intention to discuss this program with our colleagues on the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with the goal of 
developing a compromise that will garner broad support. In addition, 
other worthy programs that are not part of the legislation we are 
introducing today but ideally would be part of a larger more 
comprehensive effort include Historic Preservation, Payment in Lieu of 
Taxes, PILT, and the Forest Legacy program.
  While we confront a time of war, budget deficits and a struggling 
economy, setting aside a portion of oil and gas royalties to our States 
and localities for initiatives such as outdoor spaces or recreation 
facilities for our children to play could not be more crucial. Programs 
such as the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are in 
fact the economic stimulus that our States and cities need in these 
times. It is time we take some of the proceeds we extract from our 
earth and reinvest them into conserving our great outdoors for 
generations to come. To continue to do otherwise, as we have done for 
the last 50 years, is not only environmentally and fiscally 
irresponsible. It ignores our American duty of stewardship to our 
Nation, our planet and our children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 965. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
the recognition period for built-in gains for subchapter S 
corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Small 
Business Growth and Opportunity Act of 2004 along with my Finance 
Committee colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln.
  This legislation will allow S corporations to liquidate unproductive 
assets freeing up capital to be used to grow the business and create 
new jobs.
  There are about 2.9 million of these small and family-owned 
businesses in all 50 States. Over the past few years, many of these 
small businesses have been forced to lay off workers and delay capital 
investment. At the same time, the tax code forces them to hold on to 
unproductive and inefficient assets or face the double tax period of 
the corporate ``built-in gains'' tax.
  Under current law, businesses that convert from a C corporation to S 
corporation status are penalized by a double tax burden for a period of 
10 years

[[Page 8237]]

if they sell assets they owned as a C corporation. This tax penalty is 
imposed at the corporate level on top of normal shareholder-level 
taxes, making the sale and reinvestment of these assets prohibitively 
expensive. In some States, this double-tax burden can exceed 70 percent 
of the built-in gain.
  Clearly this tax penalty is neither justifiable nor sustainable as a 
reasonable business matter. The built-in gains tax 1. limits cash flow 
and availability, 2. encourages excess borrowing because the S 
corporation cannot access the locked-in value of its own assets, and 3. 
prevents these small businesses from growing and creating jobs.
  While I would like to see even more generous relaxation of these 
rules, for revenue considerations this legislation will reduce the 
built-in gains recognition period (the holding period) from 10 years to 
7 years. And, this three-year reduction would be a significant start in 
easing this unproductive tax burden on these small and family-owned 
businesses.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance 
Committee and hope the Committee will consider this proposal 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. 965

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCED RECOGNITION PERIOD FOR BUILT-IN GAINS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 1374(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and 
     special rules) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Recognition period.--The term `recognition period' 
     means the 7-year period beginning with the 1st day of the 1st 
     taxable year for which the corporation was an S corporation. 
     For purposes of applying this section to any amount 
     includible in income by reason of distributions to 
     shareholders pursuant to section 593(e), the preceding 
     sentence shall be applied without regard to the duration of 
     the recognition period in effect on the date such 
     distribution.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) General rule.--The amendment made by this section shall 
     apply to any recognition period in effect on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Special application to existing periods exceeding 7 
     years.--Any recognition period in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the length of which is greater than 7 
     years, shall end on such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 966. A bill to designate a United States courthouse located in 
Fresno, California, as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States 
Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
name the Federal courthouse building now being completed at Tulare and 
``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United 
States Courthouse.''
  It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for 
Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected 
and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and 
persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. 
Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse 
in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervises this 
project. He is often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his 
chambers to the new building to meet project staff.
  Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called 
``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand 
the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program 
was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a 
nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.
  In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, 
the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown 
revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the 
community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the 
groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.
  Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the 
bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President 
Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the 
Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge 
Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings 
College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a 
Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 
with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained 
until his appointment by President Reagan.
  Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many 
judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and 
Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District 
Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District 
Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar 
of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.
  My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern 
District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the 
community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge 
Robert E. Coyle.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 969. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
preparation for an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza 
pandemic, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Attacking Viral 
Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, or the AVIAN Act.
  The Nation is becoming increasingly aware of the very serious threat 
we face from avian flu. This virus is found primarily in chickens, 
ducks, and other birds. Despite major efforts to eradicate this virus, 
the virus has become endemic in poultry and birds in some countries and 
is spreading rapidly in others. Humans can contract the virus when they 
come into contact with infected birds, and when this happens, the 
consequences are often deadly. Of the 88 humans infected with avian 
influenza in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, only 37 have survived.
  Right now, avian flu is thought to only pass from birds to humans. 
However, doctors and scientists have expressed the very real concern 
that this virus will mutate into a form that can spread easily from 
human to human. If this happens, the world could face its next 
pandemic, which could cause more illness and death than virtually any 
other natural health threat.
  The Nation experienced 3 pandemics in the 20th Century--the Spanish 
flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, and the Hong Kong 
flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu pandemic was the most severe, 
causing over 500,000 deaths in the United States and more than 20 
million deaths worldwide.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated 
that up to 207,000 Americans could die, and up to 734,000 could be 
hospitalized during the next pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, 
including the medical costs and the costs associated with infected 
Americans being unable to work and dying early, are estimated at 
between $71 billion and $166.5 billion. These costs do not include the 
impact of a pandemic on commerce and society. On February 21, 2005, Dr. 
Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, discussed the possibility of a 
pandemic and stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the 
globe . . . the most important threat that we are facing right now.''
  We are in a race against time. The Nation's health officials have 
made some progress in preparing for pandemic influenza. Yet, we have 
much work to do. The Department of Health and Human Services has not 
released its final pandemic preparedness plan nor have about half of 
the states. A survey by the Association of State and Public Health 
Laboratory Directors found that 20 percent of States had no

[[Page 8238]]

State public health laboratory capacity to isolate viruses, and 25 
percent reported no ability to subtype influenza isolates.
  We know antivirals can prevent flu infection and treat those already 
infected, but we have not stockpiled enough doses to cover even the 
high-risk populations. We need more research to improve the 
effectiveness and the safety of vaccines against avian flu and other 
strains. Many of our hospital emergency rooms and clinics are already 
bursting at the seams, and it is unclear how they would care for a 
dramatically increased influx of patients during a pandemic.
  The AVIAN Act is a comprehensive measure to deal with an influenza 
pandemic by emphasizing domestic and international cooperation and 
collaboration. It creates a high-level inter-agency policy coordinating 
committee tasked with creating an integrated plan for the nation, with 
attention to health, agriculture, commerce, transportation, and 
international relations. Similarly, states are required to finalize 
pandemic preparedness plans that address surveillance, medical care, 
workforce, communication, and maintenance of core public functions. 
Private health providers and hospitals will play a critical role in 
diagnosing and treating their patients for flu, and this bill provides 
grants to make sure their efforts and information networks are 
coordinated with those by the state. Health and veterinary officials 
are encouraged to work with our international partners on all of these 
initiatives.
  This bill provides for a public education and awareness campaign and 
health professional training for a pandemic. The CDC is tasked with 
researching communication strategies, and developing and implementing a 
public, non-commercial, and non-competitive broadcast system. The NIH 
is required to expand and intensify its research on vaccines, 
antivirals, and other protective measures. An economics advisory 
committee is established to assess and make recommendations on how to 
finance pandemic preparedness, while minimizing its economic impact.
  Finally, the AVIAN Act provides for an Institute of Medicine study to 
study the legal, ethical, and social implications of pandemic 
influenza. Americans may be asked to isolate themselves, to stay home 
from work, to share their medical diagnoses, and to take certain 
medications. All of these actions may be critical in preventing 
millions of Americans from getting sick, spreading disease, and dying. 
Yet, we must make sure that we are fully cognizant of how these 
decisions will affect the rights of every American.
  We face a terrible threat from pandemic avian influenza, and we must 
not squander the opportunity before us to plan and prepare. In 
endorsing the AVIAN Act, the Trust for America's Health states: ``The 
avian flu is a real and dangerous threat to the health to our nation 
and the world. If the virus mutates slightly, we could have a million 
Americans hit by the first wave of a pandemic.''
  The time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues to join me and pass 
the AVIAN Act of 2005.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 969

       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 ``Attacking Viral Influenza 
     Across Nations Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Health and Human Services reports 
     that an influenza pandemic has a greater potential to cause 
     rapid increases in death and illness than virtually any other 
     natural health threat.
       (2) Three pandemics occurred during the 20th century: the 
     Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, the Asian flu pandemic in 1957, 
     and the Hong Kong flu pandemic in 1968. The Spanish flu 
     pandemic was the most severe, causing over 500,000 deaths in 
     the United States and more than 20,000,000 deaths worldwide.
       (3) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 
     estimated conservatively that up to 207,000 Americans would 
     die, and up to 734,000 would be hospitalized, during the next 
     pandemic. The costs of the pandemic, including the total 
     direct costs associated with medical care and indirect costs 
     of lost productivity and death, are estimated at between 
     $71,000,000,000 and $166,500,000,000. These costs do not 
     include the economic effects of pandemic on commerce and 
     society.
       (4) Recent studies suggest that avian influenza strains, 
     which are endemic in wild birds and poultry populations in 
     some countries, are becoming increasingly capable of causing 
     severe disease in humans and are likely to cause the next 
     pandemic flu.
       (5) In 2004, 8 nations--Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, 
     Japan, Laos, China, Cambodia, and the Republic of Korea--
     experienced outbreaks of avian flu (H5N1) among poultry 
     flocks. Cases of human infections were confirmed in Thailand 
     and Vietnam (including a possible human-to-human infection in 
     Thailand).
       (6) As of April 15, 2005, 88 confirmed human cases of avian 
     influenza (H5N1) have been reported, 51 of which resulted in 
     death. Of these cases, 68 were in Vietnam, 17 in Thailand, 
     and 3 in Cambodia.
       (7) On February 21, 2005, Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stated that 
     ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe...the most 
     important threat we are facing right now.''.
       (8) On February 23, 2005, Dr. Shigeru Omi, Asia regional 
     director of the World Health Organization (WHO), stated with 
     respect to the avian flu, ``We at WHO believe that the world 
     is now in the gravest possible danger of a pandemic.''.
       (9) The best defense against influenza pandemics is a 
     heightened global surveillance system. In many of the nations 
     where avian flu (H5N1) has become endemic the early detection 
     capabilities are severely lacking, as is the transparency in 
     the health systems.
       (10) In addition to surveillance, pandemic preparedness 
     requires domestic and international coordination and 
     cooperation to ensure an adequate medical response, including 
     communication and information networks, public health 
     measures to prevent spread, use of vaccination and 
     antivirals, provision of health outpatient and inpatient 
     services, and maintenance of core public functions.

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

       Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

             ``Subtitle 3--Pandemic Influenza Preparedness

     ``SEC. 2141. DEFINITION.

       ``For purposes of this subtitle, the term `State' shall 
     have the meaning given such term in section 2(f) and shall 
     include Indian tribes and tribal organizations (as defined in 
     section 4(b) and 4(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act).

     ``SEC. 2142. PROPOSAL FOR INTERNATIONAL FUND TO SUPPORT 
                   PANDEMIC INFLUENZA CONTROL.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary should submit to the 
     Director of the World Health Organization a proposal to study 
     the feasibility of establishing a fund, (referred to in this 
     section as the `Pandemic Fund') to support pandemic influenza 
     control and relief activities conducted in countries affected 
     by pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza.
       ``(b) Content of Proposal.--The proposal submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall describe, with respect to the Pandemic 
     Fund--
       ``(1) funding sources;
       ``(2) administration;
       ``(3) application process by which a country may apply to 
     receive assistance from such Fund;
       ``(4) factors used to make a determination regarding a 
     submitted application, which may include--
       ``(A) the gross domestic product of the applicant country;
       ``(B) the burden of need, as determined by human morbidity 
     and mortality and economic impact related to pandemic 
     influenza and the existing capacity and resources of the 
     applicant country to control the spread of the disease; and
       ``(C) the willingness of the country to cooperate with 
     other countries with respect to preventing and controlling 
     the spread of the pandemic influenza; and
       ``(5) any other information the Secretary determines 
     necessary.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds from any Pandemic Fund 
     established as provided for in this section shall be used to 
     complement and augment ongoing bilateral programs and 
     activities from the United States and other donor nations.

     ``SEC. 2143. POLICY COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON PANDEMIC 
                   INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established the Pandemic 
     Influenza Preparedness Policy Coordinating Committee 
     (referred to in this section as the `Committee').
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Committee shall be composed of--
       ``(A) the Secretary;
       ``(B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       ``(C) the Secretary of State;

[[Page 8239]]

       ``(D) the Secretary of Defense;
       ``(E) the Secretary of Commerce;
       ``(F) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       ``(G) the Secretary of Transportation;
       ``(H) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
       ``(I) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
       ``(J) other representatives as determined appropriate by 
     the Co-Chairs of the Committee.
       ``(2) Co-chairs.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall serve as the Co-Chairs of the Committee.
       ``(3) Term.--The members of the Committee shall serve for 
     the life of the Committee.
       ``(c) Meetings.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Committee shall meet not less often 
     than 2 times per year at the call of the Co-Chairs or as 
     determined necessary by the President.
       ``(2) Representation.--A member of the Committee under 
     subsection (b) may designate a representative to participate 
     in Committee meetings, but such representative shall hold the 
     position of at least an assistant secretary or equivalent 
     position.
       ``(d) Duties of the Committee.--
       ``(1) Preparedness plans.--Each member of the Committee 
     shall submit to the Committee a pandemic influenza 
     preparedness plan for the agency involved that describes--
       ``(A) initiatives and proposals by such member to address 
     pandemic influenza (including avian influenza) preparedness; 
     and
       ``(B) any activities and coordination with international 
     entities related to such initiatives and proposals.
       ``(2) Interagency plan and recommendations.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Preparedness plan.--Based on the preparedness plans 
     described under paragraph (1), and not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Pandemic Influenza 
     Preparedness Act of 2005, the Committee shall develop an 
     Interagency Preparedness Plan that integrates and coordinates 
     such preparedness plans.
       ``(ii) Content of plan.--The Interagency Preparedness Plan 
     under clause (i) shall include a description of--

       ``(I) departmental or agency responsibility and 
     accountability for each component of such plan;
       ``(II) funding requirements and sources;
       ``(III) international collaboration and coordination 
     efforts; and
       ``(IV) recommendations and a timeline for implementation of 
     such plan.

       ``(B) Report.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Committee shall submit to the 
     President and Congress, and make available to the public, a 
     report that includes the Interagency Preparedness Plan.
       ``(ii) Updated report.--The Committee shall submit to the 
     President and Congress, and make available to the public, on 
     a biannual basis, an update of the report that includes a 
     description of--

       ``(I) progress made toward plan implementation, as 
     described under clause (i); and
       ``(II) progress of the domestic preparedness programs under 
     section 2144 and of the international assistance programs 
     under section 2145.

       ``(C) Consultation with international entities.--In 
     developing the preparedness plans described under 
     subparagraph (A) and the report under subparagraph (B), the 
     Committee may consult with representatives from the World 
     Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal 
     Health, and other international bodies, as appropriate.

     ``SEC. 2144. DOMESTIC PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Pandemic Preparedness Activities.--The Secretary 
     shall strengthen, expand, and coordinate domestic pandemic 
     influenza preparedness activities.
       ``(b) State Preparedness Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--As a condition of receiving funds from 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration related to 
     bioterrorism, a State shall--
       ``(A) designate an official or office as responsible for 
     pandemic influenza preparedness;
       ``(B) submit to the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention a Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan 
     described under paragraph (2); and
       ``(C) have such Preparedness Plan approved in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(2) Preparedness plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan 
     required under paragraph (1) shall address--
       ``(i) human and animal surveillance activities, including 
     capacity for epidemiological analysis, isolation and 
     subtyping of influenza viruses year-round, including for 
     avian influenza among domestic poultry, and reporting of 
     information across human and veterinary sectors;
       ``(ii) methods to ensure surge capacity in hospitals, 
     laboratories, outpatient healthcare provider offices, medical 
     suppliers, and communication networks;
       ``(iii) assisting the recruitment and coordination of 
     national and State volunteer banks of healthcare 
     professionals;
       ``(iv) distribution of vaccines, antivirals, and other 
     treatments to priority groups, and monitor effectiveness and 
     adverse events;
       ``(v) networks that provide alerts and other information 
     for healthcare providers and organizations at the National, 
     State, and regional level;
       ``(vi) communication with the public with respect to 
     prevention and obtaining care during pandemic influenza;
       ``(vii) maintenance of core public functions, including 
     public utilities, refuse disposal, mortuary services, 
     transportation, police and firefighter services, and other 
     critical services;
       ``(viii) provision of security for--

       ``(I) first responders and other medical personnel and 
     volunteers;
       ``(II) hospitals, treatment centers, and isolation and 
     quarantine areas;
       ``(III) transport and delivery of resources, including 
     vaccines, medications and other supplies; and
       ``(IV) other persons or functions as determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary;

       ``(ix) the acquisition of necessary legal authority for 
     pandemic activities;
       ``(x) integration with existing national, State, and 
     regional bioterrorism preparedness activities or 
     infrastructure;
       ``(xi) coordination among public and private health sectors 
     with respect to healthcare delivery, including mass 
     vaccination and treatment systems, during pandemic influenza; 
     and
       ``(xii) coordination with Federal pandemic influenza 
     preparedness activities.
       ``(B) Underserved populations.--The Pandemic Influenza 
     Preparedness Plan required under paragraph (1) shall include 
     a specific focus on surveillance, prevention, and medical 
     care for traditionally underserved populations, including 
     low-income, racial and ethnic minority, immigrant, and 
     uninsured populations.
       ``(3) Approval of state plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, in collaboration with the Secretary 
     of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Health Resources 
     and Services Administration, shall develop criteria to rate 
     State Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plans required under 
     paragraph (1) and determine the minimum rating needed for 
     approval.
       ``(B) Timing of approval.--Not later than 180 days after a 
     State submits a State Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan as 
     required under paragraph (1), the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention shall make a determination 
     regarding approval of such Plan.
       ``(4) Reporting of state plan.--All Pandemic Influenza 
     Preparedness Plans submitted and approved under this section 
     shall be made available to the public.
       ``(5) Assistance to states.--The Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration may provide assistance to States in carrying 
     out this subsection, or implementing an approved State 
     Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plan, which may include the 
     detail of an officer to approved domestic pandemic sites or 
     the purchase of equipment and supplies.
       ``(6) Waiver.--The Secretary may grant a temporary waiver 
     of 1 or more of the requirements under this subsection.
       ``(c) Domestic Surveillance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish minimum thresholds 
     for States with respect to adequate surveillance for pandemic 
     influenza, including possible pandemic avian influenza.
       ``(2) Assistance to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall provide assistance to States 
     and regions to meet the minimum thresholds established under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance provided to States 
     under subparagraph (A) may include--
       ``(i) the establishment or expansion of State surveillance 
     and alert systems, including the Sentinel Physician 
     Surveillance System and 122 Cities Mortalities Report System;
       ``(ii) the provision of equipment and supplies;
       ``(iii) support for epidemiological analysis and 
     investigation of novel strains;
       ``(iv) the sharing of biological specimens and 
     epidemiological and clinical data within and across States; 
     and
       ``(v) other activities determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Detail of officers.--The Secretary may detail 
     officers to States for technical assistance as needed to 
     carry out this subsection.
       ``(d) Private Sector Involvement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, and in coordination with private sector 
     entities, shall integrate and coordinate public and private 
     influenza surveillance activities, as appropriate.
       ``(2) Grant program.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the activities under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish a grant program to 
     provide grants to eligible entities to coordinate pandemic 
     preparedness surveillance activities between States and 
     private health sector entities, including health plans and 
     other health systems.

[[Page 8240]]

       ``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subparagraph (A), an entity shall--
       ``(i) submit an application at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require; 
     and
       ``(ii) be a State with a collaborative relationship with a 
     private health system organization or institution.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--Funds under a grant under subparagraph 
     (A) may be used to--
       ``(i) develop and implement surveillance protocols for 
     patients in outpatient and hospital settings;
       ``(ii) establish a communication alert plan for patients 
     for reportable signs and symptoms that may suggest influenza;
       ``(iii) purchase necessary equipment and supplies;
       ``(iv) increase laboratory testing and networking capacity;
       ``(v) conduct epidemiological and other analyses; or
       ``(vi) report and disseminate data.
       ``(D) Detail of officers.--The Secretary may detail 
     officers to grantees under subparagraph (A) for technical 
     assistance.
       ``(E) Requirement.--As a condition of receiving a grant 
     under subparagraph (A), a State shall have a plan to meet 
     minimum thresholds for State influenza surveillance 
     established by the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Temporary Facility.--The Secretary may establish a 
     temporary Federal facility or body to coordinate Federal 
     support and assistance to States and localities, activities 
     across Federal agencies or departments, or direct 
     implementation of Federal authorities and responsibilities 
     when appropriate under Federal law or when State and local 
     actions to address the pandemic or threat of pandemic are 
     deemed insufficient by the Secretary or Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(f) Procurement of Antivirals for the Strategic National 
     Stockpile.--The Secretary shall determine the minimum number 
     of doses of antivirals needed to prevent infection or treat 
     infection during pandemic influenza, including possible 
     pandemic avian influenza, for health professionals (including 
     doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, pharmacists, 
     veterinarians, laboratory personnel, epidemiologists, 
     virologists and public health practitioners), core public 
     utility employees, and those persons expected to be at high 
     risk for serious morbidity and mortality from pandemic 
     influenza, and take immediate steps to procure this minimum 
     number of doses for the Strategic National Stockpile 
     described under section 319F-2.
       ``(g) Procurement of Vaccines for the Strategic National 
     Stockpile.--Subject to development and testing of potential 
     vaccines for pandemic influenza, including possible pandemic 
     avian influenza, the Secretary shall determine the minimum 
     number of doses of vaccines needed to prevent infection 
     during at least the first wave of pandemic influenza for 
     health professionals (including doctors, nurses, mental 
     health professionals, pharmacists, veterinarians, laboratory 
     personnel, epidemiologists, virologists and public health 
     practitioners), core public utility employees, and those 
     persons expected to be at high risk for serious morbidity and 
     mortality from pandemic influenza, and take immediate steps 
     to procure this minimum number of doses for the Strategic 
     National Stockpile described under section 319F-2.

     ``SEC. 2145. INTERNATIONAL PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall assist other 
     countries in preparation for, and response to, pandemic 
     influenza, including possible pandemic avian influenza.
       ``(b) International Surveillance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     and in collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the World Health Organization and the World 
     Organization for Animal Health, shall establish minimum 
     standards for surveillance capacity for all countries with 
     respect to pandemic influenza, including possible pandemic 
     avian influenza.
       ``(2) Assistance.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall assist other countries to meet the 
     standards established in paragraph (1) through--
       ``(A) the detail of officers to foreign countries for the 
     provision of technical assistance or training;
       ``(B) laboratory testing, including testing of specimens 
     for viral isolation or subtype analysis;
       ``(C) epidemiological analysis and investigation of novel 
     strains;
       ``(D) provision of equipment or supplies;
       ``(E) coordination of surveillance activities within and 
     among countries;
       ``(F) the establishment and maintenance of an Internet 
     database that is accessible to health officials domestically 
     and internationally, for the purpose of reporting new cases 
     or clusters of influenza and under information that may help 
     avert the pandemic spread of influenza; and
       ``(G) other activities as determined necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(c) Increased International Medical Capacity During 
     Pandemic Influenza.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, may provide vaccines, antiviral 
     medications, and supplies to foreign countries from the 
     Strategic National Stockpile described under section 319F-2.
       ``(d) Assistance to Foreign Countries.--The Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration may provide assistance to foreign 
     countries in carrying out this section, which may include the 
     detail of an officer to approved international pandemic sites 
     or the purchase of equipment and supplies.

     ``SEC. 2146. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS CAMPAIGN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, in consultation with the United 
     States Agency for International Development, the World Health 
     Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and 
     foreign countries, shall develop an outreach campaign with 
     respect to public education and awareness of influenza and 
     influenza preparedness.
       ``(b) Details of Campaign.--The campaign established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be culturally and linguistically appropriate for 
     domestic populations;
       ``(2) be adaptable for use in foreign countries;
       ``(3) target high-risk populations (those most likely to 
     contract, transmit, and die from influenza);
       ``(4) promote personal influenza precautionary measures and 
     knowledge, and the need for general vaccination, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(5) describe precautions at the State and local level 
     that could be implemented during pandemic influenza, 
     including quarantine and other measures.

     ``SEC. 2147. HEALTH PROFESSIONAL TRAINING.

       ``The Secretary, directly or through contract, and in 
     consultation with professional health and medical societies, 
     shall develop and disseminate pandemic influenza training 
     curricula--
       ``(1) to educate and train health professionals, including 
     physicians, nurses, public health practitioners, virologists 
     and epidemiologists, veterinarians, mental health providers, 
     allied health professionals, and paramedics and other first 
     responders;
       ``(2) to educate and train volunteer, non-medical personnel 
     whose assistance may be required during a pandemic influenza 
     outbreak; and
       ``(3) that address prevention, including use of quarantine 
     and other isolation precautions, pandemic influenza 
     diagnosis, medical guidelines for use of antivirals and 
     vaccines, and professional requirements and responsibilities, 
     as appropriate.

     ``SEC. 2148. RESEARCH AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

       ``The Director of the National Institutes of Health 
     (referred to in this section as the `Director of NIH'), in 
     collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, and other relevant agencies, shall 
     expand and intensify--
       ``(1) human and animal research, with respect to influenza, 
     on--
       ``(A) vaccine development and manufacture, including 
     strategies to increase immunological response;
       ``(B) effectiveness of inducing heterosubtypic immunity;
       ``(C) antivirals, including minimal dose or course of 
     treatment and timing to achieve prophylactic or therapeutic 
     effect;
       ``(D) side effects and drug safety of vaccines and 
     antivirals in subpopulations;
       ``(E) alternative routes of delivery;
       ``(F) more efficient methods for testing and determining 
     virus subtype;
       ``(G) protective measures; and
       ``(H) other areas determined appropriate by the Director of 
     NIH; and
       ``(2) historical research on prior pandemics to better 
     understand pandemic epidemiology, transmission, protective 
     measures, high-risk groups, and other lessons that may be 
     applicable to future pandemics.

     ``SEC. 2149. RESEARCH AT THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
                   PREVENTION.

       ``The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, in collaboration with other relevant agencies, 
     shall expand and intensify research, with respect to 
     influenza, on--
       ``(1) communication strategies for the public during 
     pandemic influenza, taking into consideration age, racial and 
     ethnic background, health literacy, and risk status;
       ``(2) changing and influencing human behavior as it relates 
     to vaccination; and
       ``(3) development and implementation of a public, non-
     commercial and non-competitive broadcast system and person-
     to-person networks.

     ``SEC. 2150. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY ON THE LEGAL, 
                   ETHICAL, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PANDEMIC 
                   INFLUENZA.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall contract with the 
     Institute of Medicine to--
       ``(1) study the legal, ethical, and social implications of, 
     with respect to pandemic influenza--
       ``(A) animal/human interchange;
       ``(B) global surveillance;
       ``(C) case contact investigations;
       ``(D) vaccination and medical treatment;
       ``(E) community hygiene;

[[Page 8241]]

       ``(F) travel and border controls;
       ``(G) decreased social mixing and increased social 
     distance;
       ``(H) civil confinement; and
       ``(I) other topics as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, 
     submit to the Secretary a report that describes 
     recommendations based on the study conducted under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(b) Implementation of Recommendations.--Not later than 
     180 days after the submission of the report of under 
     subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall address the 
     recommendations of the Institute of Medicine regarding the 
     domestic and international allocation and distribution of 
     pandemic influenza vaccine and antivirals.

     ``SEC. 2151. NATIONAL PANDEMIC INFLUENZA ECONOMICS ADVISORY 
                   COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established the National 
     Pandemic Influenza Economics Advisory Committee (referred to 
     in this section as the `Committee').
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The members of the Committee shall be 
     appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and 
     shall include domestic and international experts on pandemic 
     influenza, public health, veterinary science, commerce, 
     economics, finance, and international diplomacy.
       ``(2) Chair.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall select a Chair from among the members of the Committee.
       ``(c) Duties.--The Committee shall study and make 
     recommendations to Congress and the Secretary on the 
     financial and economic impact of pandemic influenza and 
     possible financial structures for domestic and international 
     pandemic response, relating to--
       ``(1) the development, storage and distribution of 
     vaccines;
       ``(2) the storage and distribution of antiviral and other 
     medications and supplies;
       ``(3) increased surveillance activities;
       ``(4) provision of preventive and medical care during 
     pandemic;
       ``(5) reimbursement for health providers and other core 
     public function employees;
       ``(6) reasonable compensation for farmers and other workers 
     that bear direct or disproportionate loss of revenue; and
       ``(7) other issues determined appropriate by the Chair.
       ``(d) Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each member of the Committee who is not 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall be 
     compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Committee. All members who are officers or employees 
     of the United States shall serve without compensation in 
     addition to that received for their services as officers or 
     employees of the United States.
       ``(2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Committee shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the 
     Committee.
       ``(e) Staff.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Chair of the Committee shall provide 
     the Committee with such professional and clerical staff, such 
     information, and the services of such consultants as may be 
     necessary to assist the Committee in carrying out the 
     functions under this section.
       ``(2) Detail of federal government employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government 
     may be detailed to the Committee without reimbursement.
       ``(B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege.
       ``(3) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The Chair of the Committee may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do 
     not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 
     pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of that title.''.

     SEC. 4. PANDEMIC INFLUENZA AND ANIMAL HEALTH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall expand 
     and intensify efforts to prevent pandemic influenza, 
     including possible pandemic avian influenza.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit 
     to Congress a report that describes the anticipated impact of 
     pandemic influenza on the United States.
       (c) Assistance.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for 
     Animal Health, shall provide domestic and international 
     assistance with respect to pandemic influenza preparedness 
     to--
       (1) support the eradication of infectious animal diseases 
     and zoonosis;
       (2) increase transparency in animal disease states;
       (3) collect, analyze, and disseminate veterinary data;
       (4) strengthen international coordination and cooperation 
     in the control of animal diseases; and
       (5) promote the safety of world trade in animals and animal 
     products.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act (and the amendments made by 
     this Act) for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
        Chafee, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, 
        and Mr. Smith):
  S. 971. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage and accelerate the nationwide production, retail sale, and 
consumer use of new motor vehicles that are powered by fuel cell 
technology, hybrid technology, battery electric technology, alternative 
fuels, or other advanced motor vehicle technologies, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT, 
the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car 
Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the 
omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted.
  Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely 
Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, 
Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will 
add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate 
their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote 
the CLEAR ACT in this Congress.
  The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance: 
our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two-
thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and 
transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If 
we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our 
transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way.
  I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the 
need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of 
hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful 
market incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of 
advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative 
fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market 
reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove 
infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies 
promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy 
security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal 
mandates.
  Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use 
of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are 
the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate 
infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental 
cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these 
obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest 
social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent.
  We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer 
acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work 
to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies.
  In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and 
energy independence to our citizens sooner.
  I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to 
purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today. 
It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas. 
However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives 
in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in

[[Page 8242]]

place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can 
indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of 
alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that 
breakthrough on a national scale.
  In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight 
vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to 
make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start.
  Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of 
Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, 
it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles 
driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air 
pollution in Utah.
  It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the 
use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions.
  The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that.
  I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan 
legislation.
  It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and 
effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense 
Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor 
Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane 
Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive 
Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the 
untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for 
this we owe them our gratitude.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking 
approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join the 
Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and several of our colleagues in 
sponsoring the CLEAR ACT, a package of initiatives intended 
simultaneously to lessen this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and to 
promote a cleaner environment.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, and indeed going back to my time as 
Governor of West Virginia, I have believed that the United States 
needed to have a comprehensive and responsible national energy policy, 
and that a vital part of that policy should be promoting technologies 
and domestic resources to loosen the grip foreign suppliers of energy 
have on our economy. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles 
(AFVs) that use them must be part of our energy policy. As a Senator, I 
have been very interested in expanding the availability of alternative 
fuels and have worked with a number of my colleagues and experts in 
industry, academia, and in the environmental movement on several 
initiatives to accelerate their use and availability.
  The current high price of gasoline drives home the point that we must 
diversity our fuel supply. This issue is particularly important in West 
Virginia. Like many rural States, West Virginia has little public 
transportation, and most people must drive, often considerable 
distances, to work, to school, and to seek medical care. With every 
trip to the gas station and nearly every evening news report, West 
Virginians are reminded that our country is in the midst of an energy 
crisis. According to the American Automobile Association, the average 
price of gasoline has risen 23 percent in the past year. These 
increases have a serious impact on family budgets and on the economy in 
general.
  Today, more than 60 percent of the petroleum we consume is imported. 
This adds to our economic problems and raises additional concerns about 
national security. We must work to reduce the consumption, or at least 
the growth in consumption, of petroleum-based fuels in the United 
States. Emissions from gasoline-powered automobiles are a major source 
of air pollution and of carbon dioxide, which is the major contributor 
to global climate change. While I believe our energy policy should work 
in concert with a transportation policy that encourages the use of mass 
transit, it is unlikely in the short-term that many West Virginians, or 
a significant number of other Americans, will be able to greatly reduce 
the amount they drive. The CLEAR ACT will help our Nation lessen its 
dependence on foreign oil and, because the amount Americans drive is 
likely to increase, contribute to an overall cleaner environment by 
substituting cleaner-burning alternatives to gasoline and diesel.
  In the development of alternative fuels and AFVs, our Nation has been 
caught in what I've always thought of as the classic ``chicken and 
egg'' problem. Both alternative fuels and AFVs must be commercially 
available if the potential impact is to be achieved. Without the 
fueling infrastructure, wide commercial appeal of non-gasoline vehicles 
will top out before the market has reached its potential. The 
popularity of gasoline-electric hybrids demonstrates the public's 
hunger for alternatives to the rapidly rising price of gasoline and 
increasingly hazardous automobile emission. Appropriate tax incentives 
can address the equally important challenges of vehicle availability 
and infrastructure deployment. If consumers routinely see alternative 
fuels at reasonable prices at their local service stations, while also 
seeing reasonably-priced vehicles at dealerships, we know they will 
respond.
  The CLEAR ACT provides the tax incentives that we need, and which I 
believe must be included in the comprehensive energy policy the Senate 
will soon consider. In closing, let me thank my friends Senator Hatch 
and Senator Jeffords, with whom I've worked on this for many years. I 
am pleased as well to see that a growing number of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle are joining us in this effort to improve our 
Nation's energy, transportation, and environmental policy. I commend 
this bill to the remainder of the Senate, and look forward to its 
inclusion in the Energy bill we will take up later in the year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 972. A bill to designate the Albuquerque Indian Health Center as a 
critical access facility and to provide funds for that Center; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation 
to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque 
Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent, 
and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living 
in the Albuquerque area.
  The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population 
with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care 
funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About 
50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit 
goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services. 
However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant 
underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less 
than it did just a few years ago.
  As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health 
Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction 
in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of 
clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees 
an estimated 120 patients a day.
  After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available 
to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize 
AIHC as their primary care provider.
  To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is 
called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would 
designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with 
additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow 
AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban 
Indians in the region.
  Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually 
and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made 
appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and 
Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to 
transfer funding

[[Page 8243]]

to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem. Congressman Udall and I 
also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson on ways that we can work 
together with the State to improve the situation at AIHC.
  I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 15, 2004.
     Dr. Charles Grim,
     Director, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of Health 
         and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Grim: I recently had the opportunity to meet with 
     the CEO of the Albuquerque Indian clinic and other IHS staff. 
     It was alarming to hear that the roughly 23,000-25,000 urban 
     Native Americans that currently access their health care at 
     the Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) are at risk of 
     losing this access because the AIHC is experiencing 
     significant budget shortfalls. Since 1998, the AIHC has had 
     to significantly reduce services from a 24 hour-7 day a week 
     operation down to Monday through Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm. 
     Access to services that concentrated on diabetic care, 
     behavior health and eye care has been severely restricted.
       The AIHC is projecting a $5 million deficit for fiscal year 
     2005. The current FY 2005 operations budget (hospital and 
     clinic funds) is about $5.4 million, yet current FY 2005 
     expenses are estimated at $10 million. Moreover, 
     approximately $4 million of the $5.4 million is still subject 
     to tribal transfer through Public Law 93-638. Indian Self-
     Determination Act. In an attempt to avoid a large deficit and 
     prepare for future transfers of funds from IHS to tribes, 
     AIHC officials have been forced to make a decision to 
     immediately reduce current services and downsize clinical 
     personnel.
       It is my understanding that beginning on January 1, 2005 
     the AIHC will be closing its urgent care services unit. It is 
     estimated that 100-120 Native American patients are seen on a 
     daily basis through urgent care. With nearly 70% of the 
     25,000 Native American users of the AIHC uninsured, IHS 
     estimates that this closure will put 17,000 urban Native 
     Americans at risk of losing access to healthcare services. 
     Furthermore, I have been informed that a second phase has 
     been proposed which will be to downsize the number of 
     physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other allied personnel. 
     The annual 90,000 visits will be cut to 30,000, thus 
     decreasing third party billing by more than two thirds. The 
     AIHC anticipates that once the downsizing is complete, at 
     best, there will be two physicians onsite, Monday through 
     Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, who absolutely will not have the 
     capacity to provide services to 25,000 urban Native 
     Americans.
       I am asking that you consider reprogramming FY 2005 funding 
     increases in the amount of $13 million to the AIHC. $5 
     million will be needed to first stabilize services and the 
     remaining $8 million will then be used to increase services. 
     The $13 million is based on ``Level of Need Funding'' 
     criteria established by the IHS in 2002 to address 60% of the 
     needs of Native American population.
       I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. 
     Should you have any questions or require further information 
     please feel free to contact Bruce Lesley in my Washington DC 
     office at 202-224-5527 or Danny Milo in my Albuquerque office 
     at 505-346- 6601. I look forward to working on a positive 
     solution to this with you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, December 22, 2004.
     Dr. Charles W. Grim, D.D.S., M.H.S.A.,
     Director, Indian Health Service, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Dr. Grim: We are writing in support of the request by 
     the Albuquerque Service Unit to shift funding within IHS to 
     the Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) and to seek 
     funding from other sources within HHS.
       The AIHC provides health care services to about 25,000 of 
     the 47,000 urban Indians living in Albuquerque, including 
     primary, urgent, and dental care. Because of a projected 
     deficit of $5 million in Fiscal Year 2005 and substantial 
     deficits in years thereafter, the urgent care center is set 
     to close on February 1, 2005. Without additional funding, 
     urban Indians in the Albuquerque metro area will lose access 
     to the AIHC for urgent care forcing them to visit non-IHS 
     facilities in the community or not seek urgent care when 
     needed. It is estimated that at least 17,000 urban Indians in 
     Albuquerque utilize urgent care services at the AIHC each 
     year.
       The current FY 2005 AIHC operations budget is about $5.4 
     million, yet FY 2005 expenses are estimated at $10 million 
     with the current level of services. About $4 million of the 
     $5.4 million budget is still subject to tribal share transfer 
     through Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination Act. 
     In an attempt to avoid a large deficit and to prepare for 
     future transfers of funds from IHS to tribes, AIHC officials 
     made the decision to close the urgent care center and 
     downsize clinical personnel beginning February 1.
       Since 1998, the AIHC has had to significantly reduce 
     services from a 24-7 operation down to Monday through Friday 
     8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Access to services that concentrated on 
     diabetic care, behavioral health, and eye care has been 
     severely restricted. With the recent announcement of the 
     impending closure of the urgent care unit, walk in/same day 
     appointments wil1 no longer be accepted and patients will be 
     required to have an appointment to access outpatient 
     services. Since the positions of 40 physicians, nurses, 
     pharmacists, and staff will be eliminated, the availability 
     of appointments will be restricted due to the limited number 
     of physicians remaining. This will cause delays in treatment 
     and compromise the health of individuals. While we are asking 
     for a short-term influx of available dollars to keep the 
     urgent care center open, the gradual dwindling of services 
     provided at the AIHC is a systemic problem that must be 
     addressed.
       The 2000 census showed that about 60% of all Indians live 
     off of tribal land. Urban Indian health, however, only 
     comprises about 1% of the IHS budget. The deficit of the AIHC 
     is indicative of a much larger problem, a general deficiency 
     in funding for urban Indian health. We look forward to 
     working with you to address this larger problem. Our long-
     term goal is to secure a stable, reliable, and adequate 
     funding stream to the AIHC to fully meet the health care 
     needs of the urban Indian population in Albuquerque. Any 
     suggestions you have to help us meet this goal would be 
     appreciated.
       The financial stability of the Albuquerque Indian Health 
     Center and affiliated health clinics are vitally important to 
     providing access to health care for Indians, particularly 
     urban Indians in Albuquerque, and for the broader health care 
     system in our community. We look forward to your response in 
     this urgent matter.
           Sincerely,
     Pete V. Domenici,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     Jeff Bingaman,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     Heather Wilson,
                                               Member of Congress.
     Tom Udall,
                                               Member of Congress.
     Steven Pearce,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                          Department of Health and


                                               Human Services,

                                  Rockville, MD, January 21, 2005.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I am responding to your December 15. 
     2004, letter regarding the Albuquerque Indian Health Center. 
     The Albuquerque Service Unit is in a unique situation. It 
     serves a large urban population with a minimal funding base 
     and provides contract health care funds for approximately 30 
     percent of the urban population, including eligible Navajo 
     patients. This is compounded by the transfer of approximately 
     50 percent of the base appropriation to Tribes in the service 
     unit who are administering their own health care delivery 
     programs. To meet these fiscal constraints, the service unit 
     and the Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service (IHS) must 
     deliver care based on the funds available; unfortunately, 
     this requires the downsizing of the health services program 
     and a reduction-in-force.
       Reprogramming IHS funds is not viable for two reasons. 
     First, there arc no contingent funds available in our Agency. 
     Second, reprogramming appropriations for Tribal health to a 
     largely urban population requires a mechanism to transfer 
     these funds to Title V of Public Law 94-437 for urban 
     Indians. This would necessitate extensive Tribal 
     consultation, which would be very time-consuming and not meet 
     the immediate need.
       I have directed the Albuquerque Area Office and Service 
     Unit to: (1) downsize and implement the reduction-in-force; 
     (2) maximize their efforts to increase third-party revenue at 
     the service unit, including developing alternate billable 
     services; (3) work with the State of New Mexico and other 
     agencies and Tribes to develop alternatives to care for the 
     large metropolitan population in Albuquerque; and (4) discuss 
     fiscal support from the Navajo Area IHS. I am confident that 
     the Area Office and the service unit will explore all 
     opportunities to provide the highest quality health care to 
     this population.
       Thank you for your concern and your continued support of 
     our efforts to provide quality health care to our Indian 
     people.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Charles W. Grimm,
                                                           D.D.S.,
     Assistant Surgeon General, Director.
                                  ____

                                          Department of Health and


                                               Human Services,

                                  Rockville, MD, January 21, 2005.
     Hon. Heather Wilson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Wilson: I am responding to your December 22, 2004; 
     letter supporting the need for funds to continue services at 
     the Albuquerque Service Unit. I agree that short-term support 
     is needed, but more importantly, a long-term solution to meet 
     the health needs of a rapidly growing ``urban''

[[Page 8244]]

     population in the Albuquerque metropolitan area is a more 
     complex issue.
       The Albuquerque Indian Hospital has undergone several 
     changes in the scope of services. The number of inpatient 
     beds was reduced. Inpatient services were suspended and 
     evening and weekend clinics were eliminated. We are also 
     planning to limit services to appointments only with a 
     minimal number of hours for non-appointed services (``walk 
     ins'') and to initiate a substantial reduction-in-force 
     (RlF). These changes have been the result of the transfer of 
     over 60 percent of the hospital's Federal funds to Tribal 
     programs under Public Law (P.L.) 93-638 and an increase in 
     the number of uninsured patients residing in the Albuquerque 
     metropolitan community.
       The hospital needs a minimum of $5 million to maintain 
     services through this fiscal year. Permanently reprogramming 
     the IHS appropriation is not a viable option because of 
     limited funds throughout our system to deliver health care 
     services. The transfer of funds that may be available for 
     Tribal shares under P.L. 93-638 to support services to a 
     largely urban population would require extensive, time-
     consuming Tribal consultation. The Albuquerque Area Office 
     has presented to the members of the University of New Mexico 
     (NM) Clinical Operations Board, the possibility of a 
     partnership among the University of NM Health Sciences 
     Center, the State of NM, the Tribes, and the IHS Area. This 
     concept is currently being discussed with Tribal and State 
     officials and leaders in the Albuquerque metropolitan Indian 
     community.
       Mr. James L. Toya, Director, Albuquerque Area IRS, will 
     continue to explore all opportunities for resource 
     development, plan downsizing services at the Albuquerque 
     Hospital, and implement the RIF. In addition, local 
     partnership agreements are currently being developed.
       Thank you for your concern and continued support to our 
     efforts to provide quality health care to our Indian people.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Charles W. Grimm,
     D.D.S., Assistant Surgeon General, Director.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 2005.
     Mr. Michael O. Leavitt,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Leavitt: During our recent meeting in 
     December, I had the opportunity to talk to you about the 
     crisis that the Albuquerque Indian Heath Center (AIHC) is 
     currently facing. The AIHC provides healthcare services to 
     roughly 23,000-25,000 urban Native Americans. Unfortunately, 
     there is a projected $5 million deficit for FY05. I have 
     recently been informed by Dr. Charles Grim that he has 
     directed the Albuquerque Area office and service unit to 
     downsize and implement a reduction in force. (RIF).
       Since 1998, the AIHC has had to significantly reduce 
     services from a 24 hour 7-day a week operation to Monday 
     through Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm. Because of the 
     administration's under funding of IHS, once again, the AIHC 
     is being forced to ``downsize'' its operations which will 
     have significant effect on the urban Indian population. This 
     downsizing will force the AIHC to close its urgent care unit, 
     which sees an estimated 100-120 Native American patients a 
     day. With nearly 70% of the 25,000 Native American users of 
     the AIHC uninsured, this closure will cause 17,000 urban 
     Indians to lose access to their healthcare services. 
     Furthermore, last week the Indian Health Service took its 
     first steps toward their reduction in force which will result 
     in the elimination of 40 position at the AIHC. There are 
     currently 140 employees at the center of whom only 14 are 
     physicians. It is my understanding that 5 of these 14 
     physicians will be ``RIFed'' which will leave the AIHC with 
     only 9 physicians (4 family practice, 2 pediatricians, and 4 
     specialists) to treat an estimated population of 23,000-
     25,000 patients.
       On December 15, 2004 I sent a letter to Dr. Grim asking him 
     to consider reprogramming FY05 funding in the amount of $13 
     million. Of this $5 million would be used to stabilize 
     services and the remaining $8 million would be used to 
     increase services. Dr. Grim responded to my letter saying 
     that ``reprogramming IHS funding is not viable'' due to the 
     fact that ``there are no contingent funds available to our 
     Agency.'' I am now requesting that you consider reprogramming 
     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funds to Indian 
     Health Service in the same amount for the specific purpose of 
     treating the urban Indian population through the Albuquerque 
     Indian Health Center.
       It is important for Department of Health and Human Services 
     to understand and acknowledge that urban Indians throughout 
     the country are falling through the cracks and that urban 
     Indian clinics are being grossly underfunded. For many years 
     there has been a quiet migration of Indians from reservations 
     to cities. In fact more Native Americans live in cities now, 
     making it important that IHS programs cater to Indian Country 
     which extends beyond borders of the reservations and into 
     urban settings. According to a study done by the Kaiser 
     Family Foundation ``about 46% of IHS resources are allocated 
     to IHS facilities, 53% to tribally operated facilities, and 
     only 1% to urban Indian programs''. These numbers clearly 
     indicate that urban IHS facilities lack the financial 
     resources necessary to carry out their services.
       Nationwide there are an estimated 1.6 million federally-
     recognized Native Americans through IHS, as well as Tribal 
     and urban Indian health programs. Of this number, the 2000 
     census data reveals that a little over half this population 
     identify the themselves as living in metropolitan/urban 
     areas, in which Albuquerque has the 7th highest urban Indian 
     population. A recent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) 
     report estimates that the Department of Health and Human 
     Services (HHS) per capita health spending for all Americans 
     is at $4,065, while IHS spent about $1,914 per person and 
     average spending on Navajo patients is $1,187. The United 
     States Government has historical and legal responsibility to 
     provide adequate healthcare for the Native American 
     population and ensure that access to these services are not 
     lost; with these cuts and drastic under funding the 
     government is shirking its responsibility.
       Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. 
     Should you have any questions or require further information 
     please feel free to contact Bruce Lesley in my Washington, DC 
     office at 202-224-5527 or Danny Milo in my Albuquerque office 
     at 505-346-6601. I look forward to working with you on 
     finding a solution to this matter. Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                               Secretary of Health


                                           and Human Services,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2005.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I enjoyed our discussion a few 
     months ago, and am pleased to respond to your letter 
     regarding the reduction in available funding for the 
     Albuquerque Indian Health Center (AIHC) in Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico.
       I share your concerns regarding the impact of reducing 
     staff and services at the AIHC. The AIHC has experienced 
     funding decreases in recent years due to Tribes exercising 
     their rights under the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) to operate their own health 
     programs. Under the ISDEAA, the IHS is required to transfer 
     dollars from services it provides directly to eligible 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) to Tribes which 
     apply, and are approved, to compact or contract for services 
     they provide to their members. The Department of Health and 
     Human Services does not have authority to reprogram funds 
     from other appropriation accounts to the Indian Health 
     Services account where the AIHC is funded.
       I assure you the IHS continues to partner with other 
     community providers in the Albuquerque area to maximize all 
     resource opportunities for AI/ANs who may still use the 
     center's services. Options being explored include: continued 
     provision of same day appointments, increased collaboration 
     with the University of New Mexico and the Salud managed care 
     organization to enroll more patients in the ``University of 
     New Mexico Cares'' program, maximizing third party 
     collections by increasing access to individuals who may be 
     eligible for Medicaid or Medicare, and improving 
     transportation options to other IHS funded facilities. 
     Additional options for the Albuquerque Indian community 
     include applying for other HHS grant programs including the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Sec. 
     330 Community Health Center Program grants, and exploring the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration's (SAMHSA) 
     grant opportunities. I want to assure you that HHS staff will 
     provide technical assistance in the grant application process 
     to potential grantees.
       I am hopeful that these options will result in significant 
     assistance to AI/ANs in the Albuquerque area. Thank you for 
     your concern and continued support of HHS efforts to provide 
     quality care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please 
     call me if you have any further thoughts or questions.
           Sincerely,
     Michael O. Leavitt.
                                  ____

                                                   March 15, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Richardson,
     Governor of New Mexico,
     State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM.
       Dear Governor Richardson: As you are aware, the Albuquerque 
     Indian Health Center (AIHC) is facing a crisis that threatens 
     the health and well-being of 23,000 urban Indians in 
     Bernalillo County and surrounding areas. Although there have 
     been a number of efforts that we have supported to increase 
     the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget, those efforts have 
     been defeated in the Congress during the past few years. 
     Consequently, funding for the AIHC has dropped from $13 
     million to just $5 million in recent years.

[[Page 8245]]

       Although New Mexico's congressional delegation is working 
     together to secure a solution at the federal level, we wanted 
     to encourage you to have your Administration help AIHC in the 
     interim to improve third-party collections.
       For example, as an IHS facility, care delivered to Medicaid 
     beneficiaries at AIHC is reimbursed with 100% federal 
     financing. Thus, we would ask that the Human Services 
     Department (HSD) work closely with Maria Rickert, Chief 
     Executive Officer of AIHC, to determine if: (1) Medicaid 
     reimbursement for services delivered by AIHC could be 
     improved; (2) the State Medicaid program can do more with 
     respect to providing for eligibility workers at AIHC; and, 
     (3) there are other options to help AIHC address its funding 
     problem and protect critical health services for the urban 
     Indians in the Albuquerque area.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Bingaman,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                                        Tom Udall,
     U.S. Representative.
                                  ____

                                              State of New Mexico,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                   April 25, 2005.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Heather Wilson,
     Member of Congress, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Steve Pearce,
     Member of Congress, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Udall,
     Member of Congress, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Domenici and Bingaman and Representatives 
     Wilson, Udall and Pearce: Thank you for your recent letters 
     expressing your concerns regarding the Albuquerque Indian 
     Healthcare Center (AIHC). Clearly, we all share the same 
     commitment to improve the delivery of health care services to 
     our Native American constituencies. Therefore, I hope that 
     you will strongly advocate for increased funding for the 
     Indian Health Service (IHS) during the appropriations 
     process.
       Providing adequate healthcare services to our Native 
     American citizens is a federal responsibility yet the Indian 
     Health Service (IHS) has only received minimal increases in 
     funding, such as a mere 2 percent increase this year. 
     Properly funding the IHS ensures that the Native American 
     population in New Mexico as well as across the country 
     receives the vital healthcare services to which they are duly 
     entitled.
       On the State level, my administration has committed 
     resources to address the healthcare needs of Native 
     Americans. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Legislature did not 
     pass House Bill 521 this past session, letting it sit idle 
     after passage in its first committee. However, I signed into 
     law nearly $2 million in funding for Native American 
     healthcare projects in New Mexico, including the construction 
     of healthcare facilities in Indian Country, the provision of 
     ambulatory services in Albuquerque, and healthcare services 
     at UNM Hospital for Native American patients.
       In addition my administration has provided the following 
     support, which includes but is not limited to:
       The New Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD) through 
     the Medical Assistance Division is providing outreach to 
     eligible Native American children to get them enrolled with 
     Medicaid.
       NMHSD is providing valuable technical assistance to the 
     AIHC through training and billing resources in order to 
     maximize Medicaid reimbursement. After working with AIHC and 
     reviewing the Medicaid claims, it was determined that there 
     are no outstanding claims and AIHC is receiving reimbursement 
     at the maximum level possible as an outpatient facility.
       The State Coverage Initiative has been funded in New Mexico 
     and will be implemented effective July 1, 2006. It may be 
     possible for AIHC to receive payments for services provided 
     to this population.
       During the State fiscal year 2004, there were 4,549 
     American Indian Medicaid recipients in the fee-for-service 
     program who received outpatient services at AHIC for a total 
     reimbursement of about $2 million dollars. Sixty-five percent 
     of those recipients were under 21 years of age.
       The Presumptive Eligibility/Medicaid On-Site Application 
     Assistance (PE/MOSAA) program has worked well for Indian 
     communities. PE/MOSAA certified workers are located at IHS 
     and tribal health care facilities, tribal schools, and other 
     tribal health and social services departments and with 
     NMHSD's Income Support Division offices.
       As a pilot project, NMHSD recently stationed an eligibility 
     worker at the Gallup Indian Medical Center. As a regional 
     referral center, the Gallup Service Unit (including Tohatchi 
     Health Center, and Ft. Wingate Health Center) provides 
     services to about 800 patients per day.
       New Mexico cannot nor should not bear sole responsibility 
     for funding healthcare services that fall within the ambit of 
     the federal trust relationship with Indian tribes and 
     pueblos. To this end, I appreciate your collective efforts to 
     garner support on the federal level to keep AIHC afloat.
       I also appreciate Senator Bingaman's efforts to address 
     these issues in his legislation that would fulfill the 
     funding needs for AIHC as well as clarify the 100 percent 
     match in Medicaid for urban Indians. I suggest that you 
     direct your staff to review the Bingaman legislation and 
     strongly consider supporting his efforts to assist the AIHC 
     and urban Indians.
       If I can assist the Congressional Delegation in its efforts 
     to advocate for increased federal funding for IHS and 
     specific assistance for AIHC please do not hesitate to call 
     upon me. Again, thank you for your letters and I look forward 
     to working with all of you to improve and expand health care 
     services to our Native American residents in New Mexico.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Bill Richardson,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Included in that is a statement by Governor Richardson 
expressing his strong support for the legislation I am introducing 
today.
  Unfortunately, the options that Secretary Leavitt outlined in his 
response will only provide limited help in alleviating this crisis. It 
is for that reason that I introduce this emergency funding legislation 
today.
  Fundamentally, while AIHC does face a unique situation because the 
Albuquerque metro area has experienced a significant increase in its 
urban Indian population from surrounding tribes and individuals from 
tribes across the Nation, the most significant underlying problem is 
that the entire Indian Health Service is horribly underfunded.
  In fact, funding for Native American health care is a national 
travesty. Over the years, funding for IHS has not kept pace with 
medical inflation and population growth As a result, IHS services are 
seriously underfunded, and patients are routinely denied care. For many 
critical services, patients are subjected to a literal ``life or limb'' 
test; their care is denied unless their life is threatened or they risk 
immediate loss of a limb. Care is denied or delayed until their 
condition worsens and treatment is costlier or, all too often, comes 
too late to be effective. Federal per capita funding for Indian health 
is only $1,914, about half the allotment of Federal per capita funding 
for health care for Federal prisoners.
  Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson traveled to the Navajo 
Reservation last year and saw this problem first-hand and vowed to 
fight for increased funding for tribal health care. Unfortunately, the 
administration has proposed a rather modest increase of less than 2 
percent for IHS in fiscal year 2006. Yet again, IHS funding will not 
come close to keeping pace with medical inflation which is growing at 
double-digit levels in the private sector.
  On a per capita basis, it is even worse because HHS's own budget 
documents indicate that IHS will have to serve over 29,000 new people. 
Furthermore, although urban Indians represent around half of all Native 
Americans in the country, urban Indian health programs receive less 
than 1 percent of all IHS funding and those funds are literally frozen 
at $33 million nationwide.
  This is both unacceptable and unsustainable.
  In addition to supporting budget and appropriations amendments time-
and-time again over the years that unfortunately have failed in Senate 
votes, including an amendment by Senator Conrad to the budget 
resolution this year, I successfully offered amendments last session of 
Congress to the Medicare prescription drug bill to provide Indian 
Health Service units to get better prices through the contract health 
services program and to allow IHS to bill for the full array of 
services in the Medicare program.
  In the coming weeks, I will also be introducing two pieces of 
legislation to both improve health services generally for urban Indians 
and to also improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans in 
the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.
  In the short-term, however, we need passage of this critical and 
urgent legislation to save the health services provided by the 
Albuquerque Indian

[[Page 8246]]

Health Center that are being threatened. I urge its immediate passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 972

       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 ``Albuquerque Indian Health 
     Center Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. CRITICAL ACCESS FACILITY FUNDING.

       (a) Definition of Critical Access Facility.--In this 
     section, the term ``critical access facility'' means a 
     comprehensive ambulatory care center that provides services 
     on a regional basis to Native Americans in Albuquerque, New 
     Mexico, and surrounding areas.
       (b) Designation.--The Albuquerque Indian Health Center 
     (also known as the ``Albuquerque Indian Hospital'') is 
     designated as a critical access facility.
       (c) Operations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Indian Health Service, shall 
     provide funds made available under subsection (d) to the 
     Albuquerque Indian Health Center to carry out the operations 
     of that Health Center.
       (2) Self-determination contracts.--The funds transferred 
     under paragraph (1) shall not be distributed to any Indian 
     tribe under section 102 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450f).
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--On October 1, 2005, out of any funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to carry out this section $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (2) Receipt and acceptance.--The Secretary shall be 
     entitled to receive, shall accept, and shall use to carry out 
     this section the funds transferred under paragraph (1), 
     without further appropriation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 973. A bill to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage 
Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit legislation along 
with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, to establish the Abraham 
Lincoln National Heritage Area in Illinois.
  Illinois has long been known as the ``Land of Lincoln.'' Reminders of 
the 16th President's legacy can be found throughout the State.
  Last week, Senator Obama and I attended the dedication of the Abraham 
Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, IL. This 
wonderful new facility brings together the entire story of President 
Lincoln's life in a rich, unified experience.
  In the same spirit, our legislation would establish an Abraham 
Lincoln National Heritage Area, formally tying together the many 
Illinois natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources that 
have been touched by the life and influence of the Nation's greatest 
President. Establishing a Lincoln National Heritage Area will connect-
these scattered elements to provide a more cohesive experience of 
Lincoln's legacy for Illinoisans and visitors alike.
  The impact of the life and works of Illinois's favorite son extends 
far beyond the prairies of the Midwest.
  Not long ago, I sat in the United States House of Representatives and 
listened as the new president of Ukraine, the leader of his nation's 
peaceful Orange Revolution, spoke of his countrymen and women's dreams 
to live under a ``government of the people, for the people.''
  Just weeks before that, I was in the Green Zone in Baghdad and heard 
an official of the new Iraqi Government quote President Lincoln on the 
need for national unity.
  In a sense, the Land of Lincoln is anywhere that people dream of 
freedom and equality and opportunity for all.
  So the whole world would benefit, as the people of Illinois work to 
preserve Lincoln's history. And we invite the world to come to Illinois 
and learn not just about the history of this great man, but also about 
what he can teach us today.
  The Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area will help spread that 
message for generations to come, to Americans, and to students of 
Abraham Lincoln everywhere on Earth.
  This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced by 
Representative Ray LaHood and endorsed by every member of the Illinois 
congressional delegation in the House of Representatives, as well as 
representatives from every part of the country.
  Senator Obama and I ask our colleagues to join with us in recognizing 
the richness of the Lincoln legacy by supporting the passage of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Brown-
        back):
  S. 975. A bill to provide incentives to increase research by private 
sector entities to develop medical countermeasures to prevent, detect, 
identify, contain, and treat illnesses, including those associated with 
biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological weapons attack or an 
infectious disease outbreak, and for other purposes; read the first 
time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback and I 
are pleased to introduce today the Project BioShield II Act of 2005.
  This is the fourth bill I have introduced on this subject, and the 
third with Senator Hatch as my lead cosponsor. We are delighted today 
to be joined by Senator Brownback, a leading advocate for research to 
cure deadly tropical diseases.
  None of us on the Hill--especially those of us with offices in the 
Hart Building--will forget October 15, the date of the anthrax attack 
on Senator Daschle's office. This date is the bioterrorism equivalent 
of September 11. We also need to remember October 5, the third 
anniversary of the 2001 anthrax death of Bob Stevens, a photo editor at 
American Media in Boca Raton, Florida, and November 17, the third 
anniversary of the discovery of a similar anthrax laced letter mailed 
to Senator Leahy. Similar anthrax attacks during these weeks were 
directed at NBC, ABC, CBS and other news organizations. All told five 
people died and thousands who might have been exposed were put on 
Cipro, including many of us and many of our staff.
  This attack on civilians with weapons grade anthrax was unprovoked. 
And unlike the case with the 9/11 attacks, we still don't know who 
mailed the anthrax letters. As with the 9/11 attacks, we were totally 
unprepared for the anthrax-laced letters. We are responding forcefully 
to the 9/11 attacks--the commission that Senator McCain and I proposed 
has issued a superb report and the Government Affairs Committee, where 
I serve as the Ranking Democrat, is hard at work translating its 
recommendations into legislation. Unfortunately our response to the 10/
15 anthrax attack has not been as forceful.
  Unlike our response to 9/11, we have not seemed to consider the 10/15 
attack to be the equivalent of a declaration of war. While we have 
taken a few constructive steps to strengthen our Bioterror defenses, we 
remain painfully vulnerable to another Bioterror attack, or a chemical 
or radiological attack.
  Many of us believe that enactment of BioShield I, last July, is a 
step in the right direction, but we don't believe that BioShield is 
sufficient. If we listen carefully, we will hear that the biopharma 
industry--which is hiding on this issue--is saying that BioShield is 
not enough. So we already have strong warning signs that more needs to 
be done.
  There is no terror threat greater than that of Bioterror. With an 
attack with a plane, a chemical attack or a radiological dispersion 
device, dirty bomb, the loss of life can be catastrophic, but the 
perimeter of the attack is fixed. With an infectious disease, the 
perimeter of an attack might grow exponentially as the infection 
spreads. It is possible to kill thousands with a bomb, chemical or 
radiation, but it is possible to kill millions with a bioterror 
pathogen.
  In the 2001 anthrax attack, the terrorist wrote a note in the letter 
to Senator Daschle that said, ``09-11-01. You

[[Page 8247]]

can not stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? 
Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great.'' If this note had 
not been included in the letter, and if the intern who opened the 
letter hadn't been suspicious, it is possible that some Senators and 
many Capitol Hill staff from our offices--perhaps hundreds--might have 
died. We would only have discovered the attack in hospital emergency 
rooms, where Cipro might have proven to be ineffective. Cipro works as 
a prophylaxis only when it catches anthrax early, before the toxins are 
released into the bloodstream, which can happen within 24 hours of an 
infection. Our current anthrax vaccine is administered in six shots 
over 18 montns.
  The 9/11 Commission report states that al-Qaida ``was making advances 
in its ability to produce anthrax prior to Sept. 11'' and cited former 
CIA Director George Tenet as warning that an anthrax attack is ``one of 
the most immediate threats the U.S. is likely to face.'' Russia 
developed dozens of strains of anthrax and the security at these former 
bioweapons laboratories is suspect. It is estimated that a mason jar of 
anthrax spores sprayed over an urban area could infect 400,000 
residents, and if undetected until they started showing up in emergency 
rooms, kill half of them. It is also estimated that one hundred anthrax 
laced letters could cross contaminate thirty million letters and infect 
10,000 people with anthrax. Imagine what would happen if our mail 
system--which processed over 200 billion pieces of mail last year--were 
closed for a few months. What we need, and don't yet have, is a 
therapeutic that disarms the anthrax toxins at a late stage of the 
disease--which is the aim of a pending RFP at the Department of Health 
and Human Services.
  We saw the potential for morbidity and mortality, and massive 
economic disruption, with SARS. When SARS was rampant, Beijing, Hong 
Kong and Shanghai closed down. Quarantines were imposed and China 
authorized the death penalty on anyone who willfully spread the 
disease. During the epidemic, there were reports that the SARS virus 
was mutating to become more virulent. In China's countryside, fear of 
SARS has led to some villages setting up roadblocks to keep away people 
from Beijing and at least four riots against quarantine centers have 
been reported in recent days. Thousands were quarantined in China. In 
the end SARS spread to thirty countries on five continents, sickening 
nearly 9,000 and killing 850. SARS is a zoonotic disease that 
apparently can jump back and forth between animals and man, which makes 
it much more difficult to eradicate it. We may not have seen the last 
of it.
  We can also remember the devastating impact of the 1918 Spanish flu 
pandemic that killed more than died in the first World War, about 30-40 
million people equivalent to 100 million today. In the month of 
October, 1918, 200,000 Americans died of the disease, 43,000 soldiers 
died, and 28 percent of our population was infected. The flu's 
lethality rate was only 2.5 percent the lethality rate of the most 
common form of smallpox, variola major, is 30 percent and for 
hemorrhagic smallpox it approaches 100 percent. The lethality rate for 
SARS was about 15 percent. If the 1918 flu pandemic killed the 
equivalent of 100 million people, think of how many smallpox or SARS--
both of which could be weaponized by terrorists--could kill.
  Public health authorities are concerned about the incidence of avian 
influenza in humans. There is now concrete evidence that this virus can 
be transmitted human-to-human. When humans contract the pathogen from 
birds, the death rates are very high; a majority die. Since January 
2004, a total of 23 confirmed human cases of avian influenza virus 
infections have been reported in Vietnam with 19 deaths and 12 cases in 
Thailand with 9 deaths. These cases were associated with widespread 
H5Nl poultry outbreaks that occurred at commercial and small backyard 
poultry farms. Since December 2003, nine countries have reported H5Nl 
outbreaks among poultry. More than 100 million chickens have been 
culled in an effort to stop the outbreak. The virus now appears to be 
able to infect mammalian hosts, including pigs and cats, an unusual 
prowess for an avian virus. This raises concern as pigs are also hosts 
of human flu viruses and this could yield a hybrid avian flu strain 
that can be passed human-to-human. The avian flu virus apparently is 
now carried by migratory birds so it may be very difficult to eradicate 
the virus. We have no vaccine for the disease and the one therapeutic 
Tamiflu--is only effective if given very early after the onset of 
symptoms. It is feared that the virus might evolve resistance to 
Tamiflu. Public health officials believe that in theory the avian flu 
could cause a ``pandemic killing millions of people worldwide, and 
possibly hundreds of millions.'' Whether H5N1 could be used as a 
Bioterror weapon against agriculture or humans is not known.
  In 1947 there was an outbreak of smallpox in New York City. 
Eventually two of the twelve who were infected died. But the smallpox 
vaccination campaign was massive 500,000 New Yorkers received smallpox 
vaccinations the first day and eventually 6.35 million were vaccinated 
in less than a month, 85 percent of the city's population. President 
Truman was vaccinated prior to a trip to New York City.
  If we suffered another smallpox outbreak, it is not likely that a 
vaccination campaign would go so smoothly. It is now estimated that if 
the current smallpox vaccine were deployed in the United States 350 to 
500 individuals might die from complications. The current vaccine is 
not recommended for patients who have eczema or are immunosuppressed, 
HIV-positive or are pregnant. Even worse, based on a 1971 accidental 
release of smallpox from a Soviet bioweapons laboratory, some speculate 
that the Soviets successfully weaponized a rare and especially lethal 
form of smallpox, hemorrhagic smallpox, with near 100 percent 
lethality.
  Mother Nature's pathogens are dangerous--smallpox, anthrax, plague, 
tularemia, glanders, typhus, Q fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, 
brucellosis, botulinum toxin, dengue fever, Lassa fever, Russian 
spring-summer encephalitis, Marburg, Ebola, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, 
Argentinean hemorrhagic fever and fifty other pathogens could kill 
thousands or even millions. But on the horizon are more exotic and 
deadly pathogens.
  We have reports that the Soviet Union developed genetically modified 
pathogens such as a hybrid plague producing diphtheria toxin. This 
manipulation increased virulence and made the plague microbe more 
resistant to vaccine. Other possibilities include a Venezuelan equine 
encephalomyelitis-plague hybrid is a combination of the virus and 
bacteria; we have no idea what symptoms such a pathogen would manifest 
or how we might diagnose or treat it. Other hybrid pathogens might be 
developed, including a Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis-Ebola 
hybrid.
  We have reports that the Soviet Union developed a powdered Marburg, a 
hemorrhagic fever where every cell and organ of the victim bleeds. 
Symptom of Marburg include kidney failure, recurrent hepatitis, 
inflammation of the spinal cord, bone marrow, eyes, testes, and parotid 
gland, hemorrhaging into the skin, mucous membranes, internal organs, 
stomach, and intestines, swelling of the spleen, lymph nodes, kidneys, 
pancreas, and brain, convulsions, coma and amnesia.
  Genetically modified pathogens are another possibility. In 2001 the 
Journal of Virology reported that Australian scientists seeking to 
create a contraceptive for mice used recombinant DNA technology to 
introduce Inter-
leukin 4 into mousepox and found that it created an especially virulent 
virus. In the words of the scientists, ``These data therefore suggest 
that virus-encoded IL-4 not only suppresses primary antiviral cell-
mediated immune responses but also can inhibit the expression of immune 
memory responses.'' This public research suggests that introducing IL-4 
can create an Andromeda stain of a virus, information of potential use 
to terrorist sociopaths. In addition, published studies describe

[[Page 8248]]

how to create a recombinant vaccina virus to induce allergic 
encephalomyelitis in rabbits, and potentially--highly lethal smallpox 
virus capable of causing paralyses in humans and how to synthesize the 
polio virus in a biochemical laboratory .
  Other possible pathogens--some of which the Soviet worked on--include 
antibiotic resistant pathogens. The Soviets apparently developed a 
strain of plague resistant to ten different antibiotics, and a strain 
of anthrax resistant to seven different antibiotics. Some claim the 
Soviets developed a strain of anthrax resistant to the current U.S. 
anthrax vaccine. A part of this research in a hamster model was 
published in ``Vaccine'' so this information is available to 
terrorists.
  Other exotic pathogens might include autoimmune peptides, antibiotic 
induced toxins, and bioregulators and biomodulators. An autoimmune 
peptide might stimulate an autoimmune attack against the myelin that 
sheaths the target's nerve cells. Antibiotic induced toxins are hybrid 
bacteria-viruses where antibiotics administered to treat the bacterial 
infection stimulate the virus to release a deadly toxin; the greater 
the doses of antibiotics, the more toxins are released. Bioregulators 
and biomodulators are synthetic chemical that bond to and disrupt 
receptors that govern critical functions of the target, including 
nerve, retinal, liver, kidney, heart, or muscle cells to cause 
paralysis, blindness, schizophrenia, coma, or memory loss.
  Some of these might be available now from the 60 bioterror research 
laboratories maintained by the Soviet Union. Eventually, terrorists 
might be able to set up full-blown biotechnology laboratories. Rogue 
states could do so and they might then transfer bioweapons to 
terrorists or lose control of them. Over the long term, as the power of 
modern biotechnology grows, the bioterror threat will grow and 
increasingly virulent and exotic weapons might become threats.
  In November 2003 the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues published 
``Our Darker Bioweapons Future,'' which stated that the effect of 
bioengineered weapons ``could be worse than any disease known to man.'' 
The rapid evolution of biotechnology makes monitoring development 
ofbioweapons extremely difficult. Some ofthese weapons might enable the 
development of ``a class of new, more virulent biological agents 
engineered to attack distinct biochemical pathways and elicit specific 
effects, claimed panel members. The same science that may cure some of 
our worst diseases could be used to create the world's most frightening 
weapons.'' It specifically mentioned the possibility of ``binary BW 
agents that only become effective when two components are combined (a 
particularly insidious example would be a mild pathogen that when 
combined with its antidote becomes virulent)''; ``designer'' BW agents 
created to be antibiotic resistant or to evade an immune response; 
weaponized gene therapy vectors that effect permanent change in the 
victim's genetic makeup; or a ``stealth'' virus, which could lie 
dormant inside the victim for an extended period before being 
triggered.
  Illustrating the speed with which biotechnology is advancing to 
create new bioterrorism threats is a recent announcement by Craig 
Venter and his Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives that in 
fourteen days they had synthetically created working copies of the 
known existing bacteriophage virus Phi X174. Other researchers had 
previously synthesised the poliovirus, which is slightly bigger, 
employing enzymes usually found in cells. But this effort took years to 
achieve and produced viruses with defects in their code. So the 
timescale has shifted from years to weeks to make a virus. There are 
other bigger viruses that would require more time to assemble. Venter 
asserts that his team could make a bacteria with about 60 times larger 
genome from scratch within about a year of starting. Does this mean 
that the debate about whether to destroy smallpox virus stocks is 
pointless because any virus or bacteria whose DNA sequence is published 
is eventually going to be easily creatable by labs all around the 
world?
  These pathogens might be deployed by terrorists, sociopaths or rogue 
states that have no compunctions about killing massive numbers of 
``infidels'' or enemies in the west. They would experience great joy in 
sowing widespread panic, injury and death in America. Osama Bin Laden's 
spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, bragged that al Qaeda has ``the right 
to kill 4 million Americans'' in response to deaths he claims the west 
has inflicted on Muslims. We are facing sociopaths with no compunction 
about using whatever weapons of mass destruction they can develop or 
secure. They would see the potential to unleash a weapon in North 
America and trust that our borders would be closed so that it would 
only rage here and not spread to the Muslim world.
  The Brookings Institution estimated that a bioterror attack would 
cause one million casualties and inflict $750 billion in economic 
damage. An earlier Office of Technology Assessment found that there 
might be three million casualties. If there are this many casualties, 
what can we expect in the way of public panic and flight? A 2004 poll 
finds that ``most Americans would not cooperate as officials would 
expect them to during a terrorism incident.'' Only 2/5 said that they'd 
``follow instructions to go to a public vaccination site in a smallpox 
outbreak'' and only 3/5 would ``stay in a building other than their own 
home . . .'' A vivid vision of what an attack might look like is found 
in Albert Camus' The Plague, with its incinerators and quarantine 
camps. We can review the history of the Black Death, which killed up to 
one half of Europe's population between 1348 and 1349.
  Imagine what would happen if the attack involves a pathogen for which 
we have no diagnostic, vaccine or therapeutic. If we resorted to 
quarantines, what would the rules of engagement be for the police and 
military forces we deploy to enforce it? Would it be possible to 
establish an effective quarantine if there is mass panic and flight? 
Would our hospitals be overwhelmed by the ``worried well''? Would 
public health workers continue to serve or also flee? If our hospitals 
are contaminated, where would Americans receive medical care for non-
terror related emergencies?
  What would happen if a bioterror, chemical or radiological attack 
closed Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport--which handled nearly 
eighty million passengers last year? Or what would happen if we put a 
hold on the one hundred and twenty million international airline 
arrivals and departures we see each year? What would happen if we were 
forced to close our borders with Mexico and Canada--with 500 million 
crossings last year? What would happen if we restrained the 2.79 
trillion automobile passenger miles driven in the U.S., one billion of 
which exceeded 100 miles?
  What would happen if a terror attack rendered certain types of 
business activity uninsurable? What will happen if large swaths of 
residential real estate--none of which is currently insured for acts of 
terror--were contaminated and rendered worthless with anthrax spores?
  We are vulnerable to a bioterror attack in many ways, but one of the 
most troubling is that we have essentially none of the diagnostics, 
therapeutics and vaccines we need to treat those who might be exposed 
or infected. If we don't have these medicines, we are likely to see 
quarantines and panic, which will amplify the damage and disruption. My 
office is on the 7th floor of the Hart Building, immediately above 
Senator Daschle's office. We were told if we immediately started a 
course of treatment with Cipro we would not die, so there was no panic. 
Think what would have happened if the government had said, ``We don't 
know what this is, it's deadly, we have no way to tell who has been 
exposed, and we have no medicines to give you.''
  In the summer of 2000 the Defense Science Board found that we had 
only one of the fifty-seven diagnostics, drugs and vaccines we most 
need to respond to a bioterror attack, we had a therapeutic for 
chlamydia psittaci, a

[[Page 8249]]

bacteria. It projected that we'd have twenty of the fifty-seven within 
5 years and thirty-four within 20 years. But today we have only two of 
the fifty-seven countermeasures, we now have a diagnostic for anthrax.
  At this rate of developing these medical countermeasures, we won't 
have twenty of them available until 2076 and we won't have thirty-four 
until 2132. This list does not include antibiotic resistant pathogens, 
hybrid pathogens, genetically modified pathogens, and a host of other 
exotic bioterror pathogens.
  The Congress administration have not responded to the anthrax attack 
with an appropriate sense of urgency, especially with regard to the 
development of medicines. We have not responded with a crash industrial 
development program as we did when we developed radar during the Second 
World War or as we are now undoubtedly undertaking to detect roadside 
bombs. Reluctantly, I would characterize our national response as 
lackadaisical.
  December 4 is the third anniversary of my introduction of legislation 
to provide incentives for the development of medical countermeasures--
including diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines--for bioterror 
pathogens, S. 1764. Chairman Hatch, October 17 is the second 
anniversary of our introducing our first bill together on this subject, 
S. 3l4, and we introduced our current bill on March 19 of last year (S. 
666). Twenty months ago President Bush proposed Project BioShield, a 
bill based on one of the twelve titles in our bills, and it was finally 
enacted into law on July 21. If we enact one of the titles of our bill 
every two years, it'll take 22 more years to complete our legislative 
work.
  The critical issue for this hearing is whether Project BioShield, 
Public Law 108-276, is sufficient or whether we need to supplement it 
with BioShield II, a bill that you and I intend to introduce this Fall. 
BioShield is only one title of our proposal--the title that provides 
that the government will define the size and terms of the market for a 
Bioterror countermeasure in advance before a biopharma company puts its 
own capital at risk. This is a necessary first step; companies won't 
risk their capital to develop a product unless they can assess the 
possible rate of return, product sale on their investment.
  Enacting BioShield is a step in the right direction. If we were to 
enact only one idea first, this is the right first step. We will now 
see how the Department of Health and Human Services implements this 
law. We will see what R&D priorities it sets, whether it projects a 
market for these products sufficiently large to engage the better 
biopharma companies in this research, and whether it sets contract 
terms that company Chief Financial Officers find acceptable.
  Unfortunately, we all heard a deafening silence from biopharma 
industry--the target of this legislation--as BioShield was being 
considered. The industry did essentially nothing to fix the 
Administration's draft--which the industry privately stated was laced 
with dysfunctional provisions. The industry did essentially nothing to 
pass BioShield. And the industry has said essentially nothing since 
BioShield was enacted.
  It is clear to me that BioShield is not sufficient to secure 
development of the medical countermeasures we need, indeed, I believe 
it is woefully insufficient.
  The industry is skeptical that the government will be a reliable 
partner during the development bioterror countermeasures. The basis of 
its skepticism runs deep.
  The industry points to the Cipro procurement as a case in point. In 
1999, before the anthrax attack, Bayer, the developer of Cipro, was 
asked by FDA and CDC to secure a label indication for Cipro for 
anthrax. The government wanted to have one antibiotic available that 
was explicitly labeled for anthrax--it understands that patients might 
be reluctant to take a medicine for anthrax where it is not labeled for 
this indication. Bayer incurred the expenses to do this with no 
expectation of ever utilizing the product in this manner, and when the 
attack occurred, Cipro was the only therapeutic with a label indication 
for anthrax. Bayer handled this emergency with honor. It immediately 
donated huge stocks of Cipro, 2 million tablets to the Postal Service 
and 2 million tablets to the Federal government to be used to protect 
those who might have been exposed or infected. The government then 
sought to procure additional stocks of Cipro and demanded that Bayer 
sell it as one-fourth the market price. Threats were made by Members of 
Congress that if Bayer would not agree to this price the government 
might step in to challenge the patent for Cipro. Bayer readily agreed 
to the deep discount. We can assume that every other purchaser of Cipro 
then demanded this same price and that this cut Bayer's market return 
for Cipro. To add insult to injury, Bayer has had to defend itself from 
lawsuits by those who took Cipro in response to the attack even though 
it did what was asked, provided more than enough free product to treat 
all patients and greatly reduced it's stockpile pricing. Bayer also was 
deeply concerned with employee and plant security risks when it was 
publicly identified as the sole source of this counter-bioterrorism 
agent.
  The industry view this incident as proving that with regard to 
bioterrorism research, no good deed will go unpunished. If a large 
pharmaceutical company can be manhandled this way, what would happen to 
a small biotechnology company? The industry expects that if there is an 
attack, and the company has the indispensable medicine we need to 
respond to it, the government is likely to steal the product. The 
industry is deeply skeptical of the government already. It has very 
complex and often contentious relationships with other HHS agencies, 
including the Center for Medicare Services, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and the National Institute of Health. It has constant 
battles with state Medicaid agencies. This is not an industry that 
trusts government.
  Some in Congress have proposed legislation that feed industry fears. 
In 1994 and 1995 legislation was introduced in the House, H.R. 4370, 
introduced on May 10, 1994, and H.R. 761, introduced on January 31, 
1995, that provided the government with eminent domain power with 
regard to AIDS to confiscate ``all potential curatives and all data . . 
. regarding their development,'' including the patents for such 
compounds. Similarly, in 1999 and 2001 legislation was introduced in 
the House, H.R. 2927, introduced on September 23, 1999, and H.R. 1708, 
introduced on May 3, 2001, that provided for the compulsory licensing 
of ``any subject invention related to health'' where the government 
finds it ``necessary to alleviate health or safety needs'' or the 
patented material is ``priced higher than may be reasonably expected 
based on criteria developed by the Secretary of Commerce.'' Legislation 
has been introduced that would deny the benefits of the R&D tax credit 
for research by pharmaceutical companies where the products that arise 
from that research are sold at higher prices abroad than in the United 
States. See H.R. 3665 introduced on February 15, 2000.
  The industry response to these threats to its patents must be seen in 
light of the events of March 14, 2000. On that day a White House 
spokesman apparently indicated that the government might move to 
challenge some biopharma industry patents for genes. The industry lost 
$40 billion in market capitalization in the panic that ensued on Wall 
Street. That was not only the beginning of a deep drought in biotech 
company financing, it was the beginning of the collapse of the entire 
NASDAQ market. A similar collapse and drought had occurred in 1993-1994 
the Clinton Administration proposed that the prices of ``breakthrough 
drugs would be reviewed by a special government panel.''
  The issue of price controls and patents was recently considered and 
rejected by NIH in response to a petition for the government to march-
in on the patent of Abbott Laboratories for ritonavir, sold under the 
name of Norvir, an AIDS therapeutic. The petitioner, Essential 
Inventions, asked that the government cancel the license of this patent 
to Abbott, which it alleged was charging too much for Norvir. The 
petitioner had also been involved in the 1994-1995 NIH proceeding,

[[Page 8250]]

where NIH reviewed the impact of its 1989 protocol to review whether 
``reasonable'' prices were being charged by companies that had licenses 
with NIH. NIH found that this price review process was destroying the 
NIH technology transfer program--companies simply would not enter into 
agreements with NIH. As a result, NIH repealed the price review 
process. The new march-in petition raised essentially the same issues 
and if the petition had been granted, we could have expected that the 
NIH tech transfer process will be crippled--again, as it was from 1989-
1995. In rejecting the petition, NIH did not state, however, that is 
has no right to march-in based on the price of a product, implying that 
it could or might assert such power in the future. This can only have a 
chilling impact on companies considering entering into biodefense 
procurement and research agreements.
  Aside from fears about government actions, we could not have picked a 
worse time to ask the industry to undertake a whole new portfolio of 
research. The biotech NASDAQ index stood at 1380 and it now stands at 
about 725. The Amex biotech index peaked at 801 and it now stands at 
about 525. The Dow Jones pharmaceutical index peaked at 420 and it now 
stands at about 275. The biotech industry raised $32 billion in capital 
in 2000 and only $16 billion last year. In June of this year, 36 
percent of the public biotech companies had stock trading at less than 
$5 per share. There were 67 biotech IPOs in 2000 and only 7 last year. 
The industry losses each year continue run to $4 billion. The National 
Venture Capital Association reports that only 2 percent venture money 
went into biodefense following the October anthrax attack.
  Of the 506 drugs publicly disclosed to be under development by the 22 
largest pharmaceutical companies, only 32 are for infectious disease 
and half of these are aimed at HIV/AIDS. In 1967 we had 67 vaccine 
companies and in 2002 we had 12. World wide sales vaccines is about $6 
billion, but the world wide sales of Lipitor are $10 billion.
  In addition, it is not clear whether the government is able or 
willing to provide the industry with the operating margins--profits--it 
sees for its other products. The operating margin for successful 
biopharma companies is 2.76 to 3.74 times as great as the operating 
margins for major defense contractors. This means that the defense 
contractor model will not work to engage biopharma companies in 
developing medical countermeasures for bioterror agents. Whether the 
successful bipharma companies are ``too profitable'' is a separate 
issue. The issue addressed here is the operating margin that successful 
biopharma companies seek and expect as they assess lines of research to 
undertake. If the operating margin for biodefense research is less, or 
substantially less than the operating margin for non-biodefense 
research, it is not likely that these companies will choose to 
undertake biodefense research. This research is a voluntary undertaking 
putting their capital at risk; there is no requirement that they do 
this when the prospects for profits are not competitive with that from 
other lines of research.
  Mostly we are seeing the industry hiding, not commenting on the 
pending legislation, not participating in the legislative process, and 
making every effort not to seem to be unpatriotic or greedy. Companies 
do not say in public that they are disinterested. They will not say 
what package of incentives would be sufficient to persuade them to take 
up biodefense work. They fear a debate on patents. They feel besieged 
by the current drug import debate, pressure from CMS over drug prices, 
and the debate over generic biologics. While I understand these fears, 
we simply have to know what it would take in the way of incentives to 
establish a biodefense industry. If the incentives in BioShield or 
BioShield II are not sufficient, we need to know what incentives are 
sufficient. We need to know what reassurances would persuade the 
industry that what happened to Bayer will never happen again. And only 
the industry can give us a clear answer to these questions. We cannot 
have a dialogue on these urgent national questions without the 
government listening and the industry speaking.
  The goal of BioShield II is to shift the risk of countermeasure 
research and development to the industry. Given the skepticism of the 
industry about the reliability of the government as a partner, shifting 
the risk to the industry--with it risking its own capital to fund the 
R&D--will be difficult. But engaging the industry as entrepreneurs, 
rather than as defense contractors, is likely to be less expensive for 
the government and it's much more likely to secure the development of 
the medicines that we need.
  If the Government funds the research, the industry can expect to 
receive the operating margins that are typically paid to defense 
contractors--8.5-9 percent. If the industry risks its own capital and 
funds the failures and cost overruns, the industry believes it would be 
justified demanding the operating margins that are typically paid in 
the commercial sector--28-32 percent.
  If the Government funds the research, the industry expects that the 
government will control or own the patents associated with the 
medicines. If the industry funds the research, it believes it has 
claims on all the patents.
  The only companies that are likely to accept a defense contractor 
model are companies with no approved products, no revenue from product 
sales, and no other source of capital to keep the lights on. For them 
Government funding is ``non-dilution'' capital, meaning it's a form of 
capital that does not dilute the ownership shares of its current 
shareholders. Many biotech companies have stock trading in the low 
single digits, so they cannot issue another round of stock that would 
enrage the current shareholders. For them this Government funding might 
validate the scientific platform of the company, generate some revenue, 
and hype the stock.
  Biotech industry executives state in private that if their capital 
markets strengthen they will be even less likely to consider bioterror 
countermeasure research. One CEO whose company has received an NIH 
grant for bioterror countermeasure research stated in private that his 
company would never have considered this entanglement with the 
Government if it had any other options to fund its research.
  Our goal with BioShield IT should be to engage the successful 
biopharma companies in this research--companies that have brought 
products to the market--and persuade them that the Government will be a 
reliable partner. Then the risk of failure and cost overruns is shifted 
to the industry and we've engaged the companies with a track record of 
bringing products to the market. The Government will need to provide 
substantial rewards if--and only if--the companies do succeed in 
developing the medicines we need, but then the Government is only 
paying for results. When the Government funds the research, it funds a 
process with no guarantees of any success. Providing the industry with 
substantial rewards for success is a model that engages the industry as 
entrepreneurs, drawing on the greatest strength our Nation has in the 
war on terror.
  Our bill addresses a critical question: who is in charge for 
Government if there's a mass casualty event and how do they lead the 
multifaceted response. The legislation sets up an interagency board to 
map out and develop the response to such an event and places a new 
Assistant Secretary Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Homeland 
Security as its chair. In addition, the new Assistant Secretary would 
lead the DHS assets and resources as part of this effort. While this 
proposal is the result of discussions with some of the experts in this 
area, we recognize there may be different points of view about the 
optimal structure for the medical response capabilities within DHS and 
the proposed structure in this bill is open to further discussion. I 
look forward to working with the chairman of the Senate Homeland 
Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, and others 
in exploring these complex issues. On these issues, this bill is a 
discussion draft.

[[Page 8251]]

  We should not need a 9/11 Commission report to galvanize the 
administration and the Congress to respond to the unprovoked and deadly 
bioterror attacks of 3 years ago. The threat could not be more obvious 
and what we need to do is also obvious. If we don't develop the 
diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to protect those who might be 
exposed or infected, we risk public panic and quarantines. We have the 
world's preeminent biopharma industry and we need to put it to work in 
the national defense.
  BioShield I is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step 
that does not take us where we need to go. We need to follow the 
implementation of BioShield very carefully and set clear metrics for 
determining its effectiveness. We should not wait to begin to review 
the policy options available to supplement BioShield. Senator Hatch and 
I will be proposing BioShield II and we will press for its 
consideration. We should press the biopharma industry to present its 
views on what it will take to engage it in this research and what it 
will take to establish a biodefense, research tool, and an infectious 
disease industry.
  The American philosopher, George Santana said, ``Those who cannot 
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' It's only been 3 years 
since the anthrax attack but I fear our memory of it already has faded. 
Let this hearing stand as a clear statement that some of us in the 
Congress remember what happened and are determined not to permit it to 
happen again. War has been declared on us and we need to act as if we 
noticed.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered 
the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of 
September 11, 2001 to a new reality.
  A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing 
threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was 
contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months.
  Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001.
  As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our 
borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health 
infrastructure.
  Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect 
our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still 
being carefully reviewed and revised.
  And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even 
yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on 
our country through chemical plants within the next five years.
  While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act 
of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still 
needs to be done.
  That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud 
to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation 
over the past several years.
  Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our 
earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the 
administration and our colleagues in Congress.
  In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint 
hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee 
to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on 
legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else 
needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we 
do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to 
push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law 
by the President.
  It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using 
biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before 
its collapse.
  Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop 
smallpox strains that were universally lethal.
  Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is 
resistant to 10 different antibiotics.
  Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are 
working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror 
agents are still in the former Soviet Union.
  As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of 
another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why 
Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on 
the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately.
  Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform 
a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness 
against a bioterror threat.
  In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally 
occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically 
unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available 
to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the 
infected individuals.
  I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more 
realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is 
available.
  To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario.
  There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists, 
where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that 
they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to 
care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons 
to our enemies.
  Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public 
health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those 
who are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose 
quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we 
will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did. 
Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people 
would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage.
  Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens 
must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful 
scenarios.
  Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We 
must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic 
agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat 
bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons 
to cause death or injury to human beings.
  Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these 
discussions because they will play an integral role.
  Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process 
to ensure bioterror readiness.
  We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage 
our enemies to move forward.
  We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect 
our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from 
future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further 
attacks on the United States.
  BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our 
Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement, 
research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a 
robust biodefense industry.
  Direct government funding can only go so far.
  To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential 
investors will want to fund the research associated with building a 
strong and flexible defense against potential attacks.
  But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of 
the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions.
  Bioshield II will encourage biophar-
ma companies to take the lead in the development of vaccines, 
therapeutics and diagnostics to combat bioterrorism. These efforts will 
also help protect our Nation against naturally occurring diseases. In 
fact, a major improvement in this bill is that we allow the array of 
incentives to be employed against infectious diseases and as well as 
disease prevalent in the developing world.
  All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV, 
malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our 
public health system must be able to take on all

[[Page 8252]]

comers; it is not just deliberately engineered agents that threaten us.
  Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our 
hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight 
illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of 
covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for 
diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations.
  The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared 
America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with 
the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships 
with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never 
work and the American public will remain at great risk.
  The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not 
developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure.
  Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have 
their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives--
also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is 
bare.
  This is simply not acceptable.
  As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of 
another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason, 
Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act 
of 2005''.
  We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress, 
including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking 
Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley 
and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance 
Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic 
member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the 
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
  We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush 
administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all 
interested parties in the House.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important 
legislation.

                          ____________________