[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10486-10499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. Talent):
  S. 1076. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the excise tax and income tax credits for the production of biodiesel; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today Senator Lincoln and I introduce 
legislation to extend the current excise tax credit for biodiesel 
through 2010. This tax credit brings great benefits to our nation's 
economy and environment while at the same time reducing our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  Biodiesel is a cleaner burning alternative to petroleum-based diesel, 
and it is made from renewable resources like soybeans and other natural 
fats and oils, grown here in the United States. It works in any diesel 
engine with few or no modifications. It can be used in its pure form 
(B100), or blended with petroleum diesel at a level--most commonly 20 
percent (B20). Soybean farmers in Missouri and across the Nation have 
invested millions of dollars to build a strong and viable biodiesel 
industry.
  In last years JOBS bill, we created an excise tax credit for 
biodiesel; a $1/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from virgin oils, 
and a $0.50/gallon credit for biodiesel produced from yellow grease or 
recycled cooking oil. This important tax credit is set to expire in 
less than 2 years. It is imperative that we extend this incentive that 
is expected to increase domestic energy security, reduce pollution and 
stimulate the economy.

[[Page 10487]]

  I certainly would prefer to fill up my tank with a clean burning fuel 
grown by farmers in our Nation's heartland instead of petroleum 
imported from the Saudis. Our farmers pose no security risks. I'm not 
alone in this preference. More than 400 major fleets use biodiesel 
commercially nationwide. About 300 retail filling stations make 
biodiesel available to the public, and more than 1,000 petroleum 
distributors carry it nationwide.
  I am pleased that we will soon have a biodiesel plant in Missouri. 
Missouri Soybean Association and Mid-America Biofuels LLC recently 
announced plans to build a biodiesel plant in Mexico, MO. The plant is 
expected to produce 30 million gallons of biodiesel annually. There is 
strong support for this endeavor and they have exhibited exceptional 
leadership by bringing this plant to Missouri. I look forward to 
working with them.
  As I've said before, biodiesel is a fuel of the future that we can 
use today. It is nontoxic, biodegradable and essentially free of sulfur 
and aromatics. Biodiesel offers similar fuel economy, horsepower and 
torque to petroleum diesel while providing superior lubricity. It 
significantly reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 
unburned hydrocarbons and sulfates. On a lifecycle basis, biodiesel 
reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum 
diesel. In other words, biodiesel is good for your car and the 
environment.
  Additionally, this new value added market for soybeans brings jobs to 
our economy and benefits to farmers. Based on the USDA baseline 
estimates for future soybean production, over a five year time period 
the biodiesel tax incentive could add almost $1 billion directly to the 
bottom line of U.S. farm income. In addition, the provisions will 
significantly benefit the U.S. economy and could increase U.S. gross 
output by almost $7 billion.
  I want to thank Senator Lincoln and Senator Grassley for their 
leadership on this important issue. We need to prevent this tax credit 
from expiring. It is expected to increase biodiesel demand from an 
estimated 30 million gallons in fiscal year 2004 to at least 124 
million gallons per year, based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture 
study.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 1080. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the 
use of nontoxic products in the case of hydraulic fracturing that 
occurs during oil or natural gas production activities; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators 
Lautenberg, Boxer, and Lieberman for working with me to introduce this 
important legislation, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005.
  Over half of our Nation's fresh drinking water comes from underground 
sources. The process of hydraulic fracturing threatens our drinking 
water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing occurs when fluids are injected at 
high rates of speed into rock beds to fracture them and allow easier 
harvesting of natural oils and gases. It is these injection fluids that 
are of high concern.
  In a recent report, the EPA acknowledged that these fluids, many of 
them toxic and harmful to people, are pumped directly into or near 
underground sources of drinking water. This same report cited earlier 
studies that indicated that only 61 percent of these fluids are 
recovered after the process is complete. This leaves 39 percent of 
these fluids in the ground, risking contamination of our drinking 
water.
  Let me share with you the story of Laura Amos, a resident of Colorado 
who suffers from ill health effects today. In May of 2001, while an oil 
and gas well was being hydraulically fractured near her home, the metal 
top of her drinking well exploded into the air. At the same time, her 
water became bubbly and developed a horrible odor.
  For three months, she was provided alternate drinking water by 
Ballard, later known as Encana, the company that owned the well near 
her home. It took this long until her water appeared normal again. 
Laura and her family drank from this well over the next couple of 
years. It was then that Laura developed a rare adrenal-gland tumor. 
During this time, Laura began actively investigating the chemicals used 
during the hydraulic fracturing of a well near her home. She learned 
about a chemical called 2-BE, which was later linked to adrenal-gland 
tumors in rodents.
  Litigation over the last several years has resulted in findings that 
hydraulic fracturing should be regulated as part of the underground 
injection control program in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Yet, EPA 
indicates in writing that they have no intention of publishing 
regulations to that effect or ensuring that state programs adequately 
regulate hydraulic fracturing.
  I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters to EPA and their 
responses dated October 14, 2004 and December 7, 2004, be inserted in 
the Record.
  In June of 2004, an EPA study on hydraulic fracturing identified 
diesel as a ``constituent of potential concern.'' Prior to this, EPA 
had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with three of the major 
hydraulic fracturing corporations, whom all voluntarily agreed to ban 
the use of diesel, and if necessary select replacements that will not 
cause hydraulic fracturing fluids to endanger underground sources of 
drinking water. However, all parties acknowledged that only technically 
feasible and cost-effective actions to provide alternatives will be 
sought.
  Hydraulic fracturing needs to be regulated under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and it has got to start now. It is unconscionable to allow 
the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground.
  My bill, the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, clarifies once 
and for all that hydraulic fracturing is part of the Underground 
Injection Control Program regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  This legislation also bans the use of diesel and other toxic 
pollutants for oil and natural gas exploration.
  Last1y, this legislation requires EPA to ensure that States 
adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing activities in all States to 
ensure that companies area adhering to our Nation's laws and conducting 
business in a manner safe for all Americans.
  We need to do the right thing, and take action now to protect our 
Nation's drinking water supply. According to the oil and gas industry, 
90 percent our oil and gas wells will be accessed through hydraulic 
fracturing. Congress and the EPA have to work together to provide a 
consistent and safe supply of drinking water for all Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                 Washington, DC, October 14, 2004.
     Administrator Michael O. Leavitt,
     Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Leavitt: We are writing to you regarding 
     the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) administration 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as it pertains to 
     hydraulic fracturing. In recent months, the Agency has taken 
     several key actions on this issue:
       On December 12, 2003, the EPA signed a Memorandum of 
     Understanding with three of the largest service companies 
     representing 95 percent of all hydraulic fracturing performed 
     in the U.S. These three companies, Halliburton Energy 
     Services, Inc., Schlumberger Technology Corporation, and BJ 
     Services Company, voluntarily agreed not to use diesel fuel 
     in their hydraulic fracturing fluids while injecting into 
     underground sources of water for coalbed methane production.
       In June of 2004, EPA completed its study on hydraulic 
     fracturing impacts and released its findings in a report 
     entitled, ``Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of 
     Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane 
     Reservoirs. The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing 
     poses little chance of contaminating underground sources of 
     drinking water and that no further study was needed.
       On July 15, 2004, the EPA published in the Federal Register 
     its final response to the court remand (Legal Environmental 
     Assistance Foundation (LEAF), Inc., v. United States 
     Environmental Protection Agency, 276 F. 3d 1253).

[[Page 10488]]

     The Agency determined that the Alabama underground injection 
     control (UIC) program for hydraulic fracturing, approved by 
     EPA under section 1425 of the SDWA, complies with Class II 
     well requirements.
       We are concerned that the Agency's execution of the SDWA, 
     as it applies to hydraulic fracturing, may not be providing 
     adequate public health protection, consistent with the goals 
     of the statute.
       First, we have questions regarding the information 
     presented in the June 2004 EPA Study and the conclusion to 
     forego national regulations on hydraulic fracturing in favor 
     of an MOU limited to diesel fuel. In the June 2004 EPA Study, 
     EPA identifies the characteristics of the chemicals found in 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids, according to their Material 
     Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), identifies harmful effects 
     ranging from eye, skin, and respiratory irritation to 
     carcinogenic effects. EPA determines that the presence of 
     these chemicals does not warrant EPA regulation for several 
     reasons. First, EPA states that none of these chemicals, 
     other than BTEX compounds, are already regulated under the 
     SDWA or are on the Agency's draft Contaminant Candidate List 
     (CCL). Second, the Agency states that it does not believe 
     that these chemicals are present in hydraulic fracturing 
     fluids used for coalbed methane, and third, that if they are 
     used, they are not introduced in sufficient concentrations to 
     cause harm. These conclusions raise several questions:
       1. The data presented in the June 2004 EPA study identifies 
     potential harmful effects from the chemicals listed by the 
     Agency in this report. Has the Agency or does the Agency plan 
     to incorporate the results of this study and the fact that 
     these chemicals are present in hydraulic fracturing agents 
     into the CCL development process, and if not, why not?
       2. In the June 2004 EPA study, the Agency concludes that 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids do not contain most of the 
     chemicals identified. This conclusion is based on two items--
     ``conversations with field engineers'' and ``witnessing three 
     separate fracturing events'' (June 2004 EPA Study, p. 4-17.)
       a. How did the Agency select particular field engineers 
     with whom to converse on this subject?
       b. Please provide a transcript of the conversations with 
     field engineers, including the companies or consulting firms 
     with which they were affiliated.
       c. How did the Agency select the three separate fracturing 
     events to witness?
       d. Were those events representative of the different site-
     specific characteristics referenced in the June 2004 study 
     (June 2004 EPA Study, p. 4-19) as determining factors in the 
     types of hydraulic fracturing fluids that will be used?
       e. Which companies were observed?
       f. Was prior notice given of the planned witnessing of 
     these events?
       g. What percentage of the annual number of hydraulic 
     fracturing events that occur in the United States does ``3'' 
     represent?
       h. Finally, please explain why the Material Safety Data 
     Sheets for the fluids identified as potentially being used in 
     hydraulic fracturing list component chemicals that the EPA 
     does not believe are present.
       The Agency concludes in the June 2004 study that even if 
     these chemicals are present, they are not present in 
     sufficient concentrations to cause harm. The Agency bases 
     this conclusion on assumed flowback, dilution and dispersion, 
     adsorption and entrapment, and biodegradation. The June 2004 
     study repeatedly cites the 1991 Palmer study, ``Comparison 
     between gel-fracture and water-fracture stimulations in the 
     Black Warrior basin; Proceedings 1991 Coalbed Methane 
     Symposium,'' which found that only 61 percent of the fluid 
     injected during hydraulic fracturing is recovered. Please 
     explain what data EPA collected and what observations the 
     Agency made in the field that would support the conclusion 
     that the 39 percent of fluids remaining in the ground are not 
     present in sufficient concentrations to adversely affect 
     underground sources of drinking water.
       After identifying BTEX compounds as the major constituent 
     of concern (June 2004 EPA study, page 4-15), the Agency 
     entered into the MOU described above as its mechanism to 
     eliminate diesel fuel from hydraulic fracturing fluids.
       3. a. How does the Agency plan to enforce the provisions in 
     the MOU and ensure that its terms are met?
       b. For example, will the Agency conduct independent 
     monitoring of hydraulic fracturing processes in the field to 
     ensure that diesel fuel is not used?
       c. Will the Agency require states to monitor for diesel use 
     as part of their Class II UIC Programs?
       4. a. Should the Agency become aware of an unreported 
     return to the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing by 
     one of the parties to the MOU, what recourse is available to 
     EPA under the terms of the MOU?
       b. What action does the Agency plan to take should such a 
     situation occur?
        c. Why did EPA choose to use an MOU as opposed to a 
     regulatory approach to achieve the goal of eliminating diesel 
     fuel in hydraulic fracturing?
       d. What revisions were made to the June 2004 EPA study 
     between the December 2003 adoption of the MOU and the 2004 
     release of the study? Which of those changes dealt 
     specifically with the use and effects of diesel fuel in 
     hydraulic fracturing?
       e. The Agency also states that it expects that even if 
     diesel were used, a number of factors would decrease the 
     concentration and availability of BTEX. Please elaborate on 
     the data EPA collected and the observations the Agency made 
     in the field that would support the conclusion that the 39 
     percent of fluids remaining in the ground (1991 Palmer), 
     should they contain BTEX compounds, would not be present in 
     sufficient concentrations to adversely affect underground 
     sources of drinking water.
       We are also concerned that the EPA response to the court 
     remand leaves several unanswered questions. The Court 
     decision found that hydraulic fracturing wells ``fit squarely 
     within the definition of Class II wells.'' (LEAF II, 276 F.3d 
     at 1263), and remanded back to EPA to determine if the 
     Alabama underground injection control program under section 
     1425 complies with Class II well requirements. On July 15, 
     2004, EPA published its finding in the Federal Register that 
     the Alabama program complies with the requirements of the 
     1425 Class II well requirements. (69 FR No. 135, pp 42341.) 
     According to EPA, Alabama is the only state that has a 
     program specifically for hydraulic fracturing approved under 
     section 1425. Based on this analysis, it seems that in order 
     to comply with the Court's finding that hydraulic fracturing 
     is a part of the Class II well definition, the remaining 
     states should be using their existing Class II, EPA-approved 
     programs, under 1422 or 1425, to regulate hydraulic 
     fracturing.
       To date, EPA has approved Underground Injection Control 
     programs in 34 states. Approval dates range from 1981-1996.
       5. Do you plan to conduct a national survey or review to 
     determine whether state Class II programs adequately regulate 
     hydraulic fracturing?
       At the time that these programs were approved, the 
     standards against which state Class II programs were 
     evaluated did not include any minimum requirements for 
     hydraulic fracturing. In its January 19, 2000 notice of EPA's 
     approval of Alabama's 1425 program, the Agency stated, ``When 
     the regulations in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146, including the 
     well classifications, were promulgated, it was not EPA's 
     intent to regulate hydraulic fracturing of coal beds. 
     Accordingly, the well classification systems found in 40 CFR 
     144.6 and 146.5 do not expressly include hydraulic fracturing 
     injection activities. Also, the various permitting, 
     construction and other requirements found in Parts 144 and 
     146 do not specifically address hydraulic fracturing.'' (65 
     FR No. 12, p. 2892.)
       Further, EPA acknowledges that there can be significant 
     differences between hydraulic fracturing and standard 
     activities addressed by state Class II programs. In the 
     January 19, 2000 Federal Register notice, the Agency states: 
     . . . since the injection of fracture fluids through these 
     wells is often a one-time exercise of extremely limited 
     duration (fracture injections generally last no more than two 
     hours) ancillary to the well's principal function of 
     producing methane, it did not seem entirely appropriate to 
     ascribe Class II status to such wells, for all regulatory 
     purposes, merely due to the fact that, prior to commencing 
     production, they had been fractured.'' (65 FR No. 12, p. 
     2892.)
       Although hydraulic fracturing falls under the Class II 
     definition, the Agency has acknowledged that hydraulic 
     fracturing is different than most of the activities that 
     occur under Class II and that there are no national 
     regulations or standards on how to regulate hydraulic 
     fracturing.
       6. In light of the Court decision and the Agency's July 
     2004 response to the Court remand, did the Agency consider 
     establishing national regulations or standards for hydraulic 
     fracturing or minimum requirements for hydraulic fracturing 
     regulations under state Class II programs?
       7. a. If so, please provide a detailed description of your 
     consideration of establishing these regulations or standards 
     and the rationale for not pursuing them.
       b. Do you plan to establish such regulations or standards 
     in the future?
       c. If not, what standards will be used as the standard of 
     measurement for compliance for hydraulic fracturing under 
     state Class II programs?
       We appreciate your timely response to these questions in 
     reaction to the three recent actions taken by the EPA in 
     relation to hydraulic fracturing--the adoption of the MOU, 
     the release of the final study, and the response to the Court 
     remand. Clean and safe drinking water is one of our nation's 
     greatest assets, and we believe we must do all we can to 
     continue to protect public health. Thank you again for your 
     response.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Jeffords.
     Barbara Boxer.
                                  ____

                                       United States Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2004.
     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeffords: Thank you for your letter to 
     Administrator Michael

[[Page 10489]]

     Leavitt, dated October 14, 2004, concerning the recent 
     actions that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
     taken in implementing the Underground Injection Control (UIC) 
     program with respect to hydraulic fracturing associated with 
     coalbed methane wells.
       The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) has 
     prepared specific responses to your technical and policy 
     questions regarding how we conducted the hydraulic fracturing 
     study, the reasons behind our decisions pertaining to the 
     recommendations contained in the study, and any plans or 
     thoughts we may have on the likelihood for future 
     investigation, regulation, or guidance concerning such 
     hydraulic fracturing.
       Since the inception of the UIC program, EPA has implemented 
     the program to ensure that public health is protected by 
     preventing endangerment of underground sources of drinking 
     water (USDWs). The Agency has placed a priority on 
     understanding the risks posed by different types of UIC 
     wells, and worked to ensure that appropriate regulatory 
     actions are taken where specific types of wells may pose a 
     significant risk to drinking water sources. In 1999, in 
     response to concerns raised by Congress and other 
     stakeholders about issues associated with the practice of 
     hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells in the State of 
     Alabama, EPA initiated a study to better understand the 
     impacts of the practice.
       EPA worked to ensure that its study, which was focused on 
     evaluating the potential threat posed to USDWs by fluids used 
     to hydraulically fracture coalbed methane wells, was carried 
     out in a transparent fashion. The Agency provided many 
     opportunities to all stakeholders and the general public to 
     review and comment on the Agency study design and the draft 
     study. The study design was made available for public comment 
     in July 2000, a public meeting was held in August 2000, 
     public notice of the final study design was provided in the 
     Federal Register in September 2000, and the draft study was 
     noticed in the Federal Register in August 2002. The draft 
     report was also distributed to all interested parties and 
     posted on the internet. The Agency received more than 100 
     comments from individuals and other entities.
       EPA's final June 2004 study, Evaluation of Impacts to 
     Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing 
     of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, is the most comprehensive 
     review of the subject matter to date. The Agency did not 
     recommend additional study at this time due to the study's 
     conclusion that the potential threat to USDWs posed by 
     hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells is low. 
     However, the Administrator retains the authority under the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1431 to take 
     appropriate action to address any imminent and substantial 
     endangerment to public health caused by hydraulic fracturing.
       During the course of the study, EPA could not identify any 
     confirmed cases where drinking water was contaminated by 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids associated with coalbed methane 
     production. We did uncover a potential threat to USDWs 
     through the use of diesel fuel as a constituent of fracturing 
     fluids where coalbeds are co-located with a USDW. We reduced 
     that risk by signing and implementing the December 2003 
     Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with three major service 
     companies that carry out the bulk of coalbed methane 
     hydraulic fracturing activities throughout the country. This 
     past summer we confirmed that the companies are carrying out 
     the MOA and view the completion of this agreement as a 
     success story in protecting USDWs.
       In your letter, you asked about the Agency's actions with 
     respect to hydraulic fracturing in light of LEAF v. EPA. In 
     this case, the Eleventh Circuit held that the hydraulic 
     fracturing of coalbed seams in Alabama to produce methane gas 
     was ``underground injection'' for purposes of the SDWA and 
     EPA's UIC program. Following that decision, Alabama 
     developed--and EPA approved--a revised UIC program to protect 
     USDWs during the hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds. The 
     Eleventh Circuit ultimately affirmed EPA's approval of 
     Alabama's revised UIC program.
       In administering the UIC program, the Agency believes it is 
     sound policy to focus its attention on addressing those wells 
     that pose the greatest risk to USDWs. Since 1999, our focus 
     has been on reducing risk from shallow Class V injection 
     wells. EPA estimates that there are more than 500,000 of 
     these wells throughout the country. The wastes injected into 
     them include, in part, storm water runoff, agricultural 
     effluent, and untreated sanitary wastes. The Agency and 
     States are increasing actions to address these wells in order 
     to make the best use of existing resources.
       EPA remains committed to ensuring that drinking water is 
     protected. I look forward to working with Congress to respond 
     to any additional questions, or the concerns that Members of 
     Congress or their constituents may have. If you have further 
     comments or questions, please contact me, or your staff may 
     contact Steven Kinberg of the Office of Congressional and 
     Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-5037.
           Sincerely,
                                             Benjamin H. Grumbles,
     Acting Assistant Administrator.
                                  ____



   EPA Response to Specific Questions Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing

       1. The data presented in the June 2004 EPA study identifies 
     potential harmful effects from the chemicals listed by the 
     Agency in this report. Has the Agency or does the Agency plan 
     to incorporate the results of this study and the fact that 
     these chemicals are present in hydraulic fracturing agents 
     into the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) development 
     process, and if not, why not?
       Although the EPA CBM study found that certain chemical 
     constituents could be found in some hydraulic fracturing 
     fluids, EPA cannot state categorically that they are 
     contained in all such fluids. Each fracturing procedure may 
     be site specific or basin specific and fluids used may depend 
     on the site geology, the stratigraphy, (i.e., type of coal 
     formation), depth of the formation, and the number of coal 
     beds for each fracture operation. The Agency's study did not 
     develop new information related to potential health effects 
     from these chemicals; it merely reported those potential 
     health effects indicated on the Material Safety Data Sheet 
     (MSDS) or other information we obtained from the service 
     companies.
       As noted in the final report, ``Contaminants on the CCL are 
     known or anticipated to occur in public water systems . . .'' 
     The extent to which the contaminants identified in fracturing 
     fluids are part of the next CCL process will depend upon 
     whether they meet this test.
       2. In the June 2004 EPA study, the Agency concludes that 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids do not contain most of the 
     chemicals identified. This conclusion is based on two items--
     ``conversations with field engineers'' and ``witnessing three 
     separate fracturing events''.
       a. How did the agency select particular field engineers 
     with whom to converse on this subject?
       The Agency did not ``select'' any of the engineers; we 
     talked with the engineers who happened to be present at the 
     field operations. In general those were engineers from the 
     coalbed methane companies and the service companies who 
     conducted the actual hydraulic fracturing. When we scheduled 
     to witness the events, we usually conversed with the 
     production company engineer to arrange the logistics and only 
     spoke with the field engineers from the service companies at 
     the well site.
       b. Please provide a transcript of the conversations with 
     field engineers, including the companies or consulting firms 
     with which they were affiliated.
       EPA did not prepare a word-for-word transcript of 
     conversations with engineers.
       c. How did the Agency select the three separate fracturing 
     events to witness?
       The events selected were dependent on the location of the 
     fracturing events, the schedules of both EPA OGWDW staff and 
     EPA Regional staff to witness the event, and the preparation 
     time to procure funding and authorization for travel EPA 
     witnessed the 3 events because the planning and scheduling of 
     these happened to work for all parties. In one event, only 
     EPA HQ staff witnessed the procedure, in another event only 
     EPA Regional staff witnessed it, and in one event, both EPA 
     HQ and Regional staff attended with DOE staff.
       d. Were those events representative of the different site-
     specific characteristics referenced in the June 2004 study 
     (p. 4-19)'' as determining factors in the types of hydraulic 
     fracturing fluids that will be used?
       Budget limitations precluded visits to each of the 11 
     different major coal basins in the U.S. It would have proven 
     to be an expensive and time-consuming process to witness 
     operations in each of these regions. Additionally, even 
     within the same coal basin there are potentially many 
     different types of well configurations, each of which could 
     affect the fracturing plan. EPA believed that witnessing 
     events in 3 very different coal basin settings--Colorado, 
     Kansas, and south western Virginia--would give us an 
     understanding of the practice as conducted in different 
     regions of the country.
       e. Which companies were observed?
       EPA observed a Schlumberger hydraulic fracturing operation 
     in the San Juan basin of Colorado, and Halliburton hydraulic 
     fracturing operations in southwest Virginia and Kansas.
       f. Was prior notice given of the planned witnessing of 
     these events?
       Yes, because it would have been very difficult to witness 
     the events had they not been planned. To plan the visit, EPA 
     needed to have prior knowledge of the drilling operation, the 
     schedule of the drilling, and the scheduling of the services 
     provided by the hydraulic fracturing service company. Wells, 
     in general, take days to drill (in some cases weeks and 
     months depending on depth of the well) and the fracturing may 
     take place at a later date depending on the availability of 
     the service company and other factors beyond anyone's 
     control.
       g. What percentage of the annual number of hydraulic 
     fracturing events that occur in the United States does ``3'' 
     represent?
       Because of a limited project budget, EPA did not attempt to 
     attend a representative number of hydraulic fracturing 
     events; that would have been beyond the scope of this Phase I 
     investigation. The primary purpose

[[Page 10490]]

     of the site visits was to provide EPA personnel familiarity 
     with the hydraulic fracturing process as applied to coalbed 
     methane wells. The visits served to give EPA staff a working-
     level, field experience on exactly how well-site operations 
     are conducted, how the process takes place, the logistics in 
     setting up the operation, and the monitoring and verification 
     conducted by the service companies to assure that the 
     fracturing job was accomplished effectively and safely. EPA 
     understands that thousands of fracturing events take place 
     annually, for both conventional oil and gas operations and 
     coalbed methane production, and that three events represent 
     an extremely small fraction of that total.
       h. Finally, please explain why the Material Safety Data 
     Sheets for the fluids identified as potentially being used in 
     hydraulic fracturing list component chemicals that the EPA 
     does not believe are present.
       In Table 4-1 of the final study, EPA identified the range 
     of fluids and fluid additives commonly used in hydraulic 
     fracturing. Some of the fluids and fluid additives may 
     contain constituents of potential concern, however, it is 
     important to note that the information presented in the MSDS 
     is for the pure product. Each of the products listed in Table 
     4-1 is significantly diluted prior to injection. The MSDS 
     information we obtained is not site specific. We reviewed a 
     number of data sheets and we noted that many of them are 
     different, contain different lists of fluids and additives, 
     and thus we concluded in the final report that we cannot say 
     whether one specific chemical, or chemicals, is/are present 
     at every hydraulic fracturing operation.
       3. a. How does the Agency plan to enforce the provisions in 
     the MOU and ensure that its terms are met?
       There is no mechanism to ``enforce'' a voluntary agreement 
     such as the MOA signed by EPA and the three major service 
     companies. The MOA was signed in good faith by senior 
     managers from the three service companies and the Assistant 
     Administrator for Water, and EPA expects it will be carried 
     out. EPA has written all signers of the MOA and asked if they 
     have implemented the agreement and how will they ensure that 
     diesel fuel is not being used in USDWs. All three have 
     written back to EPA, stating that they have removed diesel 
     from their CBM fracturing fluids when a USDW is involved and 
     intend to implement a plan to ensure that such procedures are 
     met. EPA intends to follow up with the service companies on 
     progress in implementing such plans.
       b. For example, will the Agency conduct independent 
     monitoring of hydraulic fracturing processes in the field to 
     ensure that diesel fuel is not used?
       It is unlikely that EPA will conduct such field monitoring. 
     First, in most oil and gas producing states, and coalbed 
     methane producing states, the State Oil and Gas Agency 
     generally has UIC primary enforcement responsibility, and the 
     state inspectors are the primary field presence for such 
     operations. Second, EPA has a very limited field staff and in 
     most cases they are engaged in carrying out responsibilities 
     related to Class I, III and V wells in states in which they 
     directly implement the UIC program. EPA plans to work with 
     several organizations, including the Ground Water Protection 
     Council and the Independent Petroleum Association of America 
     to determine if there are other smaller companies conducting 
     CBM hydraulic fracturing with diesel fuel as a constituent 
     and will explore the possibility of including them in the 
     MOA.
       c. Will the Agency require states to monitor for diesel use 
     as part of their Class II programs?
       Given limited funds for basic national and state UIC 
     program requirements, EPA does not have plans to include the 
     states as parties to the MOA or require them to monitor for 
     diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fields. The State of 
     Alabama's EPA-approved UIC program prohibits the hydraulic 
     fracturing of coalbeds in a manner that allows the movement 
     of contaminants into USDWs at levels exceeding the drinking 
     water MCLs or that may adversely affect the health of 
     persons. Current federal regulations do not expressly address 
     or prohibit the use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids, but 
     the SDWA and UIC regulations allow States to be more 
     stringent than the federal UIC program.
       4. a. Should the Agency become aware of an unreported 
     return to the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing by 
     one of the parties to the MOD, what recourse is available to 
     EPA under the terms of the MOD?
       There are no terms in the MOA that would provide EPA a 
     mechanism to take any enforcement action should the Agency 
     become aware of an unreported return to the use of diesel 
     fuel in hydraulic fracturing by one of the parties to the 
     MOA. However, EPA would work closely with the companies to 
     determine why such action occurred and discuss possible 
     termination procedures. The agreement defines how either 
     party can terminate the agreement. EPA would make every 
     effort to work with such a company to maintain their 
     participation in the agreement. EPA entered the agreement 
     with an assumption that the companies would honor the 
     commitments they have made about diesel use in hydraulic 
     fracturing fluids.
       b. What action does the Agency plan to take should such a 
     situation occur?
       If such a situation does happen, and EPA learns that diesel 
     fuel used in hydraulic fracturing fluid may enter a USDW and 
     may present an imminent and substantial threat to public 
     health, EPA may issue orders or initiate litigation as 
     necessary pursuant to SDWA section 1431 to protect public 
     health. Otherwise, EPA would take the actions described under 
     the previous question.
       c. Why did EPA choose to use an MOU as opposed to a 
     regulatory approach to achieve the goal of eliminating diesel 
     fuel in hydraulic fracturing?
       While the report's findings did not point to a significant 
     threat from diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids, the 
     Agency believed that a precautionary approach was 
     appropriate. EPA chose to work collaboratively with the oil 
     service companies because we thought that such an approach 
     would work quicker, and be more effective than other 
     approaches the Agency might employ (i.e. rulemaking, 
     enforcement orders, etc.). We believed that once the service 
     companies became familiar with the issue, they would 
     willingly address EPA's concerns. After several months of 
     meetings and negotiations between representatives of the 
     service companies and high level management in EPA's Office 
     of Water, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was drafted and 
     signed by all parties effective December 24, 2003.
       We believe that the MOA mechanism accomplished the intended 
     goal of removing diesel from hydraulic fracturing fluids in a 
     matter of months, whereas proposing a rule to require removal 
     would have taken at least a year or more.
       d. What revisions were made to the June 2004 EPA study 
     between the December 2003 adoption of the MOD and the 2004 
     release of the study? Which of those changes dealt 
     specifically with the use and effects of diesel fuel in 
     hydraulic fracturing?
       During the specified time-frame, EPA focused on making 
     editorial changes to the report and clarifying information 
     relative to its qualitative discussion of the mitigating 
     effects of dilution, dispersion, adsorption, and 
     biodegradation of residual fluids. With respect to the use 
     and effects of diesel fuel, changes in the study primarily 
     focused on including language in the text of the report which 
     acknowledged that we had successfully negotiated an MOA with 
     the service companies. Specifically. EPA referenced this 
     agreement in the text of the report in the Executive Summary 
     at page ES-2 and on page BS-17 and further discussed the MOA 
     in Chapter 7 in the Conclusions Section of the study.
       e. The Agency also states that it expects that even if 
     diesel were used a number of factors would decrease the 
     concentration and availability of BTEX. Please elaborate on 
     the data EPA collected and the observations the Agency made 
     in the field that would support the conclusion that 39% of 
     fluids remaining in the ground (1991 Palmer), should they 
     contain BTEX compounds would not be present in sufficient 
     concentrations to adversely affect underground sources of 
     drinking water.
       EPA reiterates that the 39% figure from the 1991 Palmer 
     paper is only one instance where it has been documented what 
     quantity of the hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into 
     wells will remain behind. Dr. Palmer, who conducted the 
     original research, estimated that coalbed methane production 
     wells flow back a greater percentage of fracturing fluids 
     injected during the process. Where formations are dewatered 
     or produced for a substantial period of time, greater 
     quantities of formation and fracturing fluids would 
     presumably be removed. We used 39% remaining fluids as a 
     ``worst case'' scenario while doing our qualitative 
     assessment, since it was the only figure we had from research 
     conducted on coalbed methane wells.
       With respect to the BTEX compounds, we no longer believe 
     that they are a concern owing to the MOA negotiated between 
     EPA and the three major service companies.
       5. Do you plan to conduct a national surveyor survey or 
     review to determine whether state Class II programs 
     adequately regulate hydraulic fracturing?
       At this time, EPA has no plans to conduct such a survey or 
     review regarding the adequacy of Class II programs in 
     regulating hydraulic fracturing. In its final study design, 
     EPA indicated that it would not begin to evaluate existing 
     state regulations concerning hydraulic fracturing until it 
     decided to do a Phase III investigation. The Agency, however, 
     reserves the right to change its position on this if news 
     information warrants such a change.
       6. In light of the Court decision and the Agency's July 
     2004 response to the Court remand, did the Agency consider 
     establishing national regulations or standards for hydraulic 
     fracturing or minimum requirements for hydraulic fracturing 
     regulations under Class II programs?
       When State UIC programs were approved by the Agency--
     primarily during the early 1980s--there was no Eleventh 
     Circuit Court decision indicating that hydraulic fracturing 
     was within the definition of ``underground injection.'' Prior 
     to LEAF v. EPA, EPA had never interpreted the SDWA to cover 
     production practices, such as hydraulic fracturing. After the 
     Court decision in 1997, the Agency

[[Page 10491]]

     began discussions with the State of Alabama on revising their 
     UIC program to include hydraulic fracturing. The net result 
     of that process was the EPA approval of Alabama's revised 
     section 1425 SDWA UIC program to include specific regulations 
     addressing CBM hydraulic fracturing. This approval was signed 
     by the Administrator in December 1999, and published in the 
     Federal Register in January 2000.
       In light of the Phase I HF study and our conclusion that 
     hydraulic fracturing did not present a significant public 
     health risk, we see no reason at this time to pursue a 
     national hydraulic fracturing regulation to protect USDWs or 
     the public health. It is also relevant that the three major 
     service companies have entered into an agreement with EPA to 
     voluntarily remove diesel fuel from their fracturing fluids.
       7. a. If so, please provide a detailed description of your 
     consideration of establishing these regulations or standards 
     and the rationale for not pursuing them.
       b. Do you plan to establish such regulations or standards 
     in the future?
       c. If not, what standards will be used as the standard of 
     measurement for compliance for hydraulic fracturing under 
     state Class II programs?
       EPA has not explored in any detailed fashion minimum 
     national or state requirements for hydraulic fracturing of 
     CBM wells, except when it evaluated the revised UIC program 
     in Alabama.
       Considering and developing national regulations for 
     hydraulic fracturing would involve discussions with numerous 
     stakeholders, the states, and the public and it would require 
     an intensive effort to arrive at regulatory language that 
     could be applied nationwide. As EPA's study indicates, 
     coalbeds are located in very distinct geologic settings and 
     the manner in which they are produced for methane gas may be 
     very different in each locale. The proximity of USDWs to the 
     coal formations, and the regional geology and hydrology all 
     play roles in how hydraulic fracturing operations are 
     conducted.
       If EPA receives information of drinking water contamination 
     incidents and follow-up investigations point to a problem, 
     EPA would then re-evaluate its decision to not continue with 
     additional study relating to CBM hydraulic fracturing.
       Should additional states submit revised UIA programs for 
     EPA's review and approval which include hydraulic fracturing 
     regulations, we would evaluate these programs under the 
     effectiveness standards of the SDWA section 1425 as we did 
     for the State of Alabama.

                                S. 1080

       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 ``Hydraulic Fracturing Safety 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

       Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following: ``The term 
     `underground injection' includes hydraulic fracturing, which 
     means the process of creating a fracture in a reservoir rock, 
     through the injection of fluids and propping agents, for the 
     purpose of reservoir stimulation relating to oil and gas 
     production activities.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Hydraulic fracturing.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of hydraulic fracturing that 
     occurs during the exploration for, or the production of, oil 
     or natural gas, a producer of oil or natural gas shall not 
     use diesel fuel or any other material that the Administrator 
     has listed as a priority pollutant under the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary--
       ``(i) to regulate hydraulic fracturing in accordance with 
     this subsection; and
       ``(ii) to ensure that State programs under section 1422 or 
     1425 regulate hydraulic fracturing in accordance with this 
     subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. 
        Talent):
  S. 1081. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a minimum update for physicians' services for 2006 and 
2007; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserving 
Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005. This bill updates Medicare 
physician reimbursement for 2006 and 2007 according to the 
recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC). 
There would be a 2.7 percent increase to the physician payment schedule 
for 2006 and using the Medicare Economic Index update for the price of 
inputs, a 2.6 percent increase in 2007.
  If the schedule is left alone, the consequences for physicians will 
be a negative. Instead of the 1.5 percent payment increase for 2004 and 
2005 which I helped author in the Medicare Modernization Act, there 
would be a 4.3 percent decrease.
  The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to calculate physician 
payment depends on a number of factors: the number of Medicare fee-for-
service beneficiaries, the volume and type of services provided, the 
price of services rendered, changes in regulations and laws. The 
formula also incorporates other factors such as prescription-drug 
prices and the gross domestic product. The SGR was intended to control 
expenditures by basing a given year's physician payment rate on the 
previous year's performance. Instead, it creates an arbitrary 
deficiency that continues to force Congress to intervene.
  There is a debate going on, her CMS has the authority to alter the 
SGR formula by removing drugs. Setting that aside, though, the fact of 
the matter is that without Congress stepping in to provide for a 
physician payment update, it probably will not occur. My Senate 
colleagues and I have talked for many years about ensuring adequate 
physician payment because current and past administrations have failed 
to modify the formula. This formula is not doing what it was intended 
to do. Therefore, I believe we need to scrap it and start again. My 
bill is a starting point and proposes amounts for an update, but I 
would really like to see us go all the way back to the drawing board 
and answer the fundamental question of how to pay physicians 
appropriately for their services.
  I want doctors to be able to continue to assist our nation's seniors, 
but it is unfair to expect them to practice and to have their 
reimbursement decrease. Practice expenses, the costs of medical 
technology, wages for administrative and clinical staff, and medical 
liability premiums are all increasing while physicians are on track to 
receive a payment decrease. They cannot afford to continue practicing 
medicine while receiving reimbursements that do not allow them to even 
break even. Many are retiring early or threatening to limit the number 
of Medicare patients they treat.
  The service of physicians all across the country is vital to our 
seniors. Almost half a million doctors provide treatment to the 42 
million people under the Medicare program. Physicians are often the 
gateway for access to other medical services and treatments. Not being 
able to consult a physician results in delayed referrals, delayed 
treatment and delayed care. In sum, the quality of health care 
continues to erode and our system does not operate efficiently.
  Should the scheduled physician reimbursement cuts take effect, the 
result will be a $710 million decrease in payments to doctors in 
Arizona over 2006 through 2010. I have heard from virtually every 
physician with whom I have spoken about the constraints that inadequate 
payments are placing on their practice of medicine. While many work for 
hospitals and health systems, in the rural areas, a large number are 
solo practitioners or in small practices. For these physicians, poor 
payment hits their practice especially hard.
  If Medicare rates for doctors are inadequate, many other health care 
payors will also lack for adequate reimbursement. Other payors such as 
Medicaid and private insurers often base their payments on Medicare 
rates. While this bill only addresses Medicare physician payment, the 
problem of access to services will be compounded if physicians receive 
reimbursement from other payors that is below the appropriate levels.
  The cost of addressing the physician payment update is not cheap. 
Estimates on the cost of this bill are between $25 billion to $35 
billion over five years. I await an official score from the 
Congressional Budget Office. But I point out, that doing nothing to 
solve this problem may cost us more: more money, more health and access 
problems, and more physicians leaving the profession. Although this 
legislation provides for a two year update, we must develop a long 
range mechanism to pay physicians appropriately.

[[Page 10492]]

  I am grateful for the support of this legislation by my colleague, 
Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and encourage my other colleagues to 
support the Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 19, 2005.
     Hon. John Kyl,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: On behalf of the American Medical 
     Association (AMA), we offer our strong support of your 
     legislation, entitled the Preserving Patient Access to 
     Physicians Act of 2005. We thank you for your leadership in 
     introducing this legislation and providing a remedy to the 
     steep Medicare physician payment cuts that are expected, 
     beginning January 1, 2006.
       The Medicare Trustees have recently predicted that Medicare 
     payments for physicians' services will be cut by about 26 
     percent from 2006 through 2011. These cuts will critically 
     impact access to medical services for our Nation's senior and 
     disabled patients. A recent AMA survey concerning physician 
     responses to significant Medicare physician pay cuts 
     beginning January 1, 2006 indicates that if these cuts begin 
     in 2006: 38 percent of physicians plan to decrease the number 
     of new Medicare patients they accept; more than half of 
     physicians plan to defer the purchase of information 
     technology; and a majority of physicians will be less likely 
     to participate in Medicare Advantage.
       The expected cuts result from the inherently flawed payment 
     update formula, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) spending 
     target. The SGR is linked to the gross domestic product and 
     penalizes physicians and other practitioners for volume 
     increases that they cannot control and that the government 
     actively promotes through new coverage decisions and other 
     initiatives that, while beneficial to patients, are not 
     reflected in the SGR.
       The AMA applauds your leadership in addressing these cuts 
     and introducing legislation that protects access to needed 
     medical care. Your bill would provide a positive physician 
     payment update of not less than 2.7 percent in 2006 and an 
     update in 2007 that reflects physician practice cost 
     inflation, which, at this time, is expected to be about 2.6 
     percent.
       Your bill is critical for ensuring continued and long-term 
     access to health care services for Medicare beneficiaries. We 
     look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve 
     enactment of your legislation, as well as long-term reform of 
     the update formula.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Michael D. Maves,
                                    Executive Vice President, CEO.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the 
``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act'' with my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. This legislation is critical to 
ensuring that our Nation's 42 million Medicare beneficiaries continue 
to have access to high quality physician care.
  The Medicare program is one of the most successful Federal programs 
of all time. It has lifted countless seniors out of poverty, and it has 
ensured access to necessary, affordable, quality medical care for our 
most vulnerable citizens for the last 40 years.
  However, that success is threatened because the Medicare physician 
payment formula is fundamentally flawed. At a time when the doctors who 
treat our seniors are facing increasing practice costs, they are 
looking at a payment cut of 4.3 percent in 2006 for the Medicare 
services they provide that simply doesn't make sense.
  And the cuts don't stop in 2006: if Congress doesn't act, physicians 
will be hit with devastating cuts totaling 22 percent over the next 5 
years. Those cuts represent over $44 billion dollars nationwide, and a 
staggering $126 billion over the next 10 years.
  Currently, over 20,000 MDs and DOs in Michigan treat over 1.4 million 
Medicare-eligible Michiganians with very high quality care. But if the 
doctors in my State receive their scheduled cut of $109 million next 
year, and over $5 billion over the next ten years, it's not hard to 
imagine that they may be forced to limit the number of Medicare 
patients they serve.
  Numbers in the billions are indeed staggering--but the critical need 
for this legislation is even better demonstrated by getting down to the 
specifics: a Detroit physician currently is reimbursed $56.88 for an 
office visit. But while we all know medical inflation will continue to 
increase, under current law, that same physician will receive only 
$41.86 in 2011 for that same visit. And while an orthopedic surgeon in 
Detroit is now reimbursed $1,813.10 for performing a knee 
arthroplasty--a knee repair necessary to ensure full mobility--she is 
scheduled to receive $478.66 less for performing that same procedure in 
2011! The examples go on and on: a cardiologist inserting a stent in a 
Medicare patient to prevent heart problems receives $873.85 today. The 
same surgeon inserting a stent in 2011 will be reimbursed only $643.15.
  The ``Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005'' provides 
physicians with a minimum update in 2006 and 2007. Specifically, the 
legislation overrides the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula in 
these years: the update to the single conversion factor in 2006 would 
be 2.7 percent, and a formula based on input prices and a productivity 
adjustment is used for 2007--the likely update for 2007 will be 2.6 
percent.
  Kevin Kelly, Executive Director of the Michigan State Medical 
Society, tells me that the minimum updates provided in this legislation 
are essential to both physicians and patients in Michigan in terms of 
assuring access to Medicare services.
  And Robert Stomel, D.O., President of the Michigan Osteopathic 
Association, said that introduction of this legislation ``is an 
important step in efforts to protect the availability and access to 
physician services for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.'' Dr. Stomel 
went on to say, ``This bipartisan legislation represents a continued 
recognition that physician payment under Medicare must keep pace with 
the increasing cost of providing care.''
  Yet I know that this is just the beginning. We cannot continue to use 
stop-gap measures but must replace the SGR with a payment system that 
actually makes sense and reflects the costs of providing physician care 
to Medicare beneficiaries.
  Through the bipartisan partnership Senator Kyl and I have begun 
today, we can--and must--fix the physician payment formula and continue 
to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all of our 
seniors and people with disabilities.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record letters of 
support from the American Medical Association and the American 
Osteopathic Association.
  I urge my Colleagues to join us in this effort, and I thank the 
Chair.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 19, 2005.
     Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: On behalf of the American Medical 
     Association (AMA), we offer our strong support of your 
     legislation, entitled the Preserving Patient Access to 
     Physicians Act of 2005. We thank you for your leadership in 
     introducing this legislation and providing a remedy to the 
     steep Medicare physician payment cuts that are expected, 
     beginning January 1, 2006.
       The Medicare Trustees have recently predicted that Medicare 
     payments for physicians' services will be cut by about 26% 
     from 2006 through 2011. These cuts will critically impact 
     access to medical services for our nation's senior and 
     disabled patients. A recent AMA survey concerning physician 
     responses to significant Medicare physician pay cuts 
     beginning January 1, 2006 indicates that if these cuts begin 
     in 2006: 38% of physicians plan to decrease the number of new 
     Medicare patients they accept; more than half of physicians 
     plan to defer the purchase of information technology; and a 
     majority of physicians will be less likely to participate in 
     Medicare Advantage.
       The expected cuts result from the inherently flawed payment 
     update formula, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) spending 
     target. The SGR is linked to the gross domestic product and 
     penalizes physicians and other practitioners for volume 
     increases that they cannot control and that the government 
     actively promotes through new coverage decisions and other 
     initiatives that, while beneficial to patients, are not 
     reflected in the SGR.
       The AMA applauds your leadership in addressing these cuts 
     and introducing legislation that protects access to needed 
     medical care. Your bill would provide a positive physician 
     payment update of not less than 2.7% in 2006 and an update in 
     2007 that reflects physician practice cost inflation, which, 
     at this time, is expected to be about 2.6%.

[[Page 10493]]

       Your bill is critical for ensuring continued and long-term 
     access to health care services for Medicare beneficiaries. We 
     look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve 
     enactment of your legislation, as well as long-term reform of 
     the update formula.
           Sincerely,
     Michael D. Maves.
                                  ____



                             American Osteopathic Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2005.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: As President of the American 
     Osteopathic Association (AOA), I am pleased to inform you of 
     our strong support for the ``Preserving Patient Access to 
     Physicians Act of 2005''. The AOA, which represents the 
     nation's 54,000 osteopathic physicians practicing in 23 
     specialties and subspecialties, extends its sincere gratitude 
     to you for introducing this bill.
       The current sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for 
     physician services under the Medicare program is broken. The 
     continued use of the flawed and unstable methodology will 
     result in a loss of physician services for millions of 
     Medicare beneficiaries. Physicians annually face reductions 
     in payment while their practice costs continue to rise. 
     Congress recognized this with the approval of the ``Medicare 
     Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
     2003'' (MMA) (P.L. 108-173) which replaced scheduled 
     physician payment reductions with modest increases of 1.5 
     percent per year for 2004 and 2005. Unfortunately, physicians 
     now face a projected reduction of 4.3 percent for 2006, with 
     additional reductions for the foreseeable future that could 
     amount to over 30 percent.
       Your legislation takes an important step to address the 
     projected 2006 and 2007 reductions in physician payment under 
     Medicare. Specifically, the bill would establish a minimum 
     physician payment update of 2.7 percent per year for 2006 and 
     2007. A minimum update of 2.7 percent will help ensure a 
     physician's continued ability to provide quality health care 
     services to Medicare beneficiaries.
       On behalf of my fellow osteopathic physicians, I pledge our 
     support for your effort to address the flawed Medicare 
     physician payment formula. We look forward to working with 
     you to advance this important legislation. Please do not 
     hesitate to call upon the AOA or our members for assistance 
     on health care issues. Contact the AOA's Department of 
     Government Relations at (202) 414-0140 for additional 
     information.

           Sincerely,
                                              George Thomas, D.O.,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 1084. A bill to eliminate child poverty, and for other purposes; 
read the first time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is shameful that in the richest and 
most powerful Nation on earth, nearly a fifth of all children--nearly 
13 million--live in poverty. That is why I am introducing the End Child 
Poverty Act to address this fundamental moral issue. It will set a 
national goal to reduce child poverty by half within a decade, and to 
eliminate it entirely as soon as possible after that.
  The effect of child poverty is far reaching. Children in poverty are 
often malnourished. They have weaker immune systems and are more 
vulnerable to infections and illness. Poor children also suffer in 
school. They lack vital nutrition necessary for healthy brain 
development. They have trouble concentrating in class. They often 
attend schools that have the least resources. Their families move 
frequently, so their school attendance is low. Overcrowding, utility 
shutoffs, and poor heating interfere with homework.
  The End Child Poverty Act would commit the U.S. to ending these 
horrors of children growing up in such dire conditions. The bill would 
establish a Child Poverty Elimination Board to make recommendations to 
the President on how best to meet this commitment to children. It would 
offset the cost with a one percent surtax on income over $1 million to 
be invested in a Child Poverty Elimination Fund.
  We must begin with this moral vision, just as we did with America's 
seniors. The elderly were once the poorest in society. But in 1935, we 
made a commitment that growing old shouldn't mean growing poor. We 
enacted Social Security and later Medicare, and now the elderly in 
America are significantly better off. The End Child Poverty Act is a 
vital step to give comparable security to America's children.
  It's time for America to make a real commitment, and give real hope, 
real opportunity and real fairness to children and families mired in 
poverty in communities in all parts of our country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1086. A bill to improve the national program to register and 
monitor individuals who commit crimes against children or sex offenses; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are here today in a battle to save our 
children, their families, and the victims, of repeat sex offenders.
  I am so proud of the real warriors in this battle: the victims and 
their family members. One of those warriors is Ed Smart, from my home 
State of Utah, whose daughter Elizabeth was kidnapped from her own 
bedroom by a sexual predator. Ed is joined by Patti Wetterling, Linda 
Walker, and other outstanding advocates of our children, including John 
Walsh of America's Most Wanted, Ernie Allen of the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, and Robbie Calloway of the Boys & Girls 
Club of America in support of this bipartisan legislation we are 
introducing today along with co-sponsor Senator Biden. We need 
legislation that will close the gaps in many laws already on the books; 
integrate and revive the existing laws; and expand covered offenses 
against children.
  The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act will bring all of 
the States up to date and enable citizens in every State to inform 
themselves about predators in their communities. This law will enable 
States to take public information about sex offenders and make it easy 
for citizens to access at one, open, web-site.
  This legislation will put the responsibility on the sex offenders 
themselves to register with the local authorities. They will be 
required to notify those authorities when they move or change jobs. And 
if they don't want to comply with the rules--then they will go to jail!
  This is common sense--those who break such a sacred trust and intend 
to harm our children, no matter who they are, where they are from, or 
where they commit their crime, should have some obligations under this 
law to voluntarily make their whereabouts known or subject themselves 
to additional jail time. That's what this bill is about. It's that 
simple.
  The victims and victims' families have dealt with the pain and 
anguish imposed on them by these sexual offenders and predators. But 
instead of lying down, they are standing up for imposing common-sense 
rules on those who have taken the life and liberty of the most innocent 
and defenseless among us. They are standing up for tough sentences 
against those who won't abide by these very simple rules. They are 
standing up to say that together we are stronger.
  Prior to 1994 just five states required convicted sex offenders to 
register their address with local law enforcement. Today there are over 
549,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, 
most of these receive and serve limited sentences and roam unchecked 
and unknown in our communities. Their crimes are heinous and they have 
a high risk of repeating their crimes on innocent children.
  Under this Act, sex offenders and predators will be required to 
register in person, versus mailing in a letter. They will be required 
to wear a tracking device while they are on probation for a first-time 
offense--and wear it for life if they choose to repeat their crimes.
  This Act enables states to offer citizens a searchable, statewide sex 
offender registry that interacts with all other states to provide 
seamless registration and notification across the country.
  The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act will strengthen 
and unite cities, communities and states in the effort to stop the 
assault on American children. This bill has a companion bill in the 
House, sponsored by Congressman Mark Foley and Congressman Bud Cramer. 
I invite you to join Senator Biden and me as we close the gaping holes 
that keep our children at risk.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Schumer):

[[Page 10494]]

  S. 1087. A bill to amend section 337 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act to prescribe the oath or affirmation of renunciation 
and allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the United 
States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Today I am introducing legislation to address an 
important statement on what it means to be a citizen of the United 
States: the Oath of Allegiance, to which all new citizens swear in 
court when they are naturalized.
  In the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to enshrine 
the Oath of Allegiance in law. I was joined in that effort by 34 
colleagues, including the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, as the 
lead cosponsor. That legislation was introduced, in part, in response 
to reports that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or 
BCIS, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, may have been 
planning to change the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants take to 
become a citizen of this nation. Other Senators and I felt the proposed 
language, as reported in the press, would have weakened the Oath.
  Today, I introduce a bill that puts forward a compromise that I hope 
everyone can support. I am again grateful to be joined in this effort 
by the senior Senator from New York. This bill introduces a modified 
Oath of Allegiance that is just as strong as the current one, but that 
uses more modem language.
  I was surprise to learn that Congress has never voted on the content 
of this Oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. That's not how we 
treat other symbols of our Nation or other statements on what it means 
to be an American.
  For example, the American Flag, with its 50 stars--one for each 
State--and 13 stripes for the original colonies, cannot be altered by 
Federal regulation. The only way a star gets added is when Congress 
acts to admit a new state. And we've never changed the 13 stripes since 
the flag was first adopted in 1777.
  The Pledge of Alliance, which we repeat each morning in the United 
States Senate, can't be altered by Federal regulation. The Pledge is a 
statement of some of the values of the American Creed: ``one nation, 
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' What if a 
Federal agency decided we should take out justice, just saying ``with 
liberty for all''? It can't happen: because the Pledge can only be 
altered by Act of Congress, as it last was in 1954 when the phrase 
``under God'' was added.
  The National Motto ``In God We Trust,'' which appears on all our 
coins and dollar bills, can't be altered by Federal regulation. It is a 
fundamental statement of the religious character of the American 
people--even though we don't permit and don't want the establishment of 
state religion. The Treasury Department can't decide to leave the motto 
off the next dollar bill it prints because the motto was adopted by 
Congress--at first in 1864 to be printed on the 2-cent piece, an later 
as the official National Motto in 1956.
  Our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, can't be changed by 
Federal regulation. It, too, is a statement of our values, declaring 
our country ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' If a 
government agency decided it preferred America the Beautiful, or the 
Battle Hymn of the Republic, or God Bless America, all of which are 
great songs, the agency would have to ask Congress to act. Why? Because 
the Star Spangled Banner was named our National Anthem by law in 1931.
  Likewise, the Oath of Allegiance should not be altered lightly--by a 
government agency, without public comment, and without approval from 
Congress. Of the five symbols and statements I've described--the Flag, 
the Anthem, the Pledge, the Motto, and the Oath, only the Oath of 
Allegiance is legally binding on those who take it. New citizens must 
take it, and they must sign it.
  On September 11, 2003, when I spoke about my legislation, I said:

       To be clear, I have no objection to others proposing 
     modifications to the Oath of Allegiance that we use today. . 
     . . perhaps ways can be found to make it even stronger.
       Still, let's make sure any changes have the support of the 
     people as represented by Congress. The Oath of Allegiance is 
     a statement of the commitments required of new citizens. 
     Current citizens, through their elected representatives, 
     ought to have a say as to what those commitments are. That's 
     a lesson in democracy. A legally binding statement on 
     American citizenship ought to reflect American values, 
     including democracy.

  It is in that spirit that I offer this compromise language that 
prescribes an updated but very strong Oath of Allegiance. This is the 
right way to go forward in considering any changes, and, I hope, will 
allow us to finally enshrine this statement of what it means to be an 
American in law.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 1088. A bill to establish streamlined procedures for collateral 
review of mixed petitions, amendments, and defaulted claims, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Streamlined 
Procedures Act. This legislation will reduce delays in federal courts' 
review of habeas corpus petitions filed by State prisoners.
  Currently, many Federal habeas corpus cases require 10, 15, or even 
20 years to complete. These delays burden the courts and deny justice 
to defendants with meritorious claims. They also are deeply unfair to 
victims of serious, violent crimes. A parent whose child has been 
murdered, or someone who has been the victim of a violent assault, 
cannot be expected to ``move on'' without knowing how the case against 
the attacker has been resolved. Endless litigation, and the uncertainty 
that it brings, is unnecessarily cruel to these victims and their 
families. As President Clinton noted of the 1996 habeas corpus reforms, 
``it should not take eight or nine years and three trips to the Supreme 
Court to finalize whether a person in fact was properly convicted or 
not.'' For the sake of all parties, we should minimize these delays.
  The 1996 habeas corpus reforms were supposed to prevent delays in 
Federal collateral review. Unfortunately, as the Justice Department 
noted in testimony before the House Crime Subcommittee in March 2003, 
there still are ``significant gaps [in the habeas corpus statutes] . . 
. which can result in highly protracted litigation, and some of the 
reforms that Congress did adopt in 1996 have been substantially 
undermined in judicial application.''
  The Streamlined Procedures Act is designed to fill some of these 
gaps. First, the SPA imposes reasonable but firm time limits on court 
of appeals' review of Federal habeas petitions. It requires a court of 
appeals to decide a habeas appeal within 300 days of the completion of 
briefing, to rule on a petition for rehearing within 90 days, and to 
decide a case on rehearing within 120 days before the same panel, or 
180 days before an en banc court.
  As generous as these time limits are, they would make a real 
difference in some cases. In Morales v. Woodford, 336 F.3d 1136, 9th 
Cir. 2003, for example, the Ninth Circuit took 3 years to decide the 
case after briefing was completed. And after issuing its decision, the 
court took another 16 months to reject a petition for rehearing. 
Similarly, in Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 9th Cir. 2002, the 
court waited 25 months to decide the case--and then waited another 27 
months to reject a petition for rehearing, for a total delay of almost 
4\1/2\ years after appellate briefing had been completed. This is too 
long for either defendants or victims to have to wait.
  The SPA also bars courts of appeals from rehearing successive-
petition applications on their own motion--current law bars petitions 
for rehearing or certiorari for such applications, but some courts have 
interpreted this restriction to not preclude rehearing by the court of 
appeals sua sponte. The SPA also bars Federal courts from tolling the 
current 1-year deadline on filing habeas claims for reasons other than 
those authorized by the statute, and clarifies when a State appeal is 
pending for purposes of tolling the deadline.

[[Page 10495]]

  In addition, the SPA creates uniform, clear procedures for review of 
procedurally improper claims. Current judicial caselaw creates a series 
of different standards for addressing claims in a Federal petition that 
were not exhausted in state court, that were presented in a late 
amendment, or that were procedurally defaulted. The SPA sets a uniform 
standard, allowing procedurally improper claims to go forward only if 
they present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the 
crime, with all other improper claims barred.
  The SPA also expands and improves the special expedited habeas 
procedures authorized in chapter 154 of the United States Code. These 
procedures are available to States that establish a system for 
providing high-quality legal representation to capital defendants. 
Chapter 154 sets strict time limits on Federal court action and places 
limits on claims. Currently, however, the court that decides whether a 
State is eligible for chapter 154 is the same court that would be 
subject to its time limits. Unsurprisingly, these courts have proven 
resistant to chapter 154. The SPA would place the eligibility decision 
in the hands of a neutral party--the U.S. Attorney General, with review 
of his decision in the DC Circuit, which does not hear habeas appeals. 
The SPA also makes chapter 154's deadlines more practical by limiting 
the claims that can be raised under its provisions to those presenting 
meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime, and by 
extending the time for a district court to review and rule on a chapter 
154 petition from 6 months to 15 months.
  The SPA also eliminates duplicative Federal review of minor 
sentencing errors that already have been judged by State courts to be 
harmless or not prejudicial. It limits Federal courts to asking only 
whether the type of sentencing error at issue is one that could not 
have been harmless.
  The SPA also applies the deferential review standard enacted in the 
1996 reforms to all pending cases. Remarkably, some current habeas 
petitions still are not governed by the 1996 reforms. The SPA corrects 
this oversight, ending the need to apply the pre-1996 legal regime to 
any cases that still are being litigated today.
  And finally, the SPA limits judicial review of State clemency and 
pardon decisions, guaranteeing that a State won't be sued for 
formalizing and regularizing its pardon procedures; it limits 
defendants' ability to ask Federal courts for investigatory funds 
without allowing prosecutors to be present and rebut defense 
allegations; and it guarantees a crime victim's right to be notified 
of, to be present at, and to speak at a criminal defendant's Federal 
habeas hearing.
  To many people, the issues addressed by the SPA--petitions for 
rehearing, State remedies exhaustion, procedural default, chapter 154, 
AEDPA deference--may seem abstract and remote. For surviving crime 
victims, however, these matters can be very concrete.
  A case recently in the news illustrates the importance of these 
concerns: that of the man who murdered three member of the Ryen family 
and Christopher Hughes in Chino Hills, California in June 1983. The 
killer in that case was an escaped convict from a nearby prison. He has 
since admitted that he spent 2 days hiding in a vacant house next to 
the home of the Ryen family. After several unsuccessful telephone calls 
to friends asking them to give him a ride, the killer took a hatchet 
and buck knife from the vacant house and set out to find a vehicle. The 
California Supreme Court describes the rest of what occurred, 53 Cal.3d 
771, 794-95:

       On Saturday, June 4, 1983, the Ryens and Chris Hughes 
     attended a barbecue in Los Serranos, a few miles from the 
     Ryen home in Chino. Chris had received permission to spend 
     the night with the Ryens. Between 9 and 9:30 p.m., they left 
     to drive to the Ryen home. Except for Josh [the Ryen's 8-
     year-old son], they were never seen alive again.
       The next morning, June 5, Chris's mother, Mary Hughes, 
     became concerned when he did not come home. A number of 
     telephone calls to the Ryen residence received only busy 
     signals. [Mary's husband] William went to the Ryen home to 
     investigate.
       William observed the Ryen truck at the home, but not the 
     family station wagon. Although the Ryens normally did not 
     lock the house when they were home, it was locked on this 
     occasion. William walked around the house trying to look 
     inside. When he reached the sliding glass doors leading to 
     the master bedroom, he could see inside. William saw the 
     bodies of his son and Doug and Peggy Ryen on the bedroom 
     floor. Josh was lying between Peggy and Chris. Only Josh 
     appeared alive.
       William frantically tried to open the sliding door; in his 
     emotional state, he pushed against the fixed portion of the 
     doors, not the sliding door. He rushed to the kitchen door, 
     kicked it in, and entered. As he approached the master 
     bedroom, he found Jessica on the floor, also apparently dead. 
     In the bedroom, William touched the body of his son. It was 
     cold and stiff. William asked Josh who had done it. Josh 
     appeared stunned; he tried to talk but could only make 
     unintelligible sounds.
       William tried to use a telephone in the house but it did 
     not work. He drove to a neighbor's house seeking help. The 
     police arrived shortly. Doug, Peggy, Chris, and Jessica were 
     dead, the first three in the master bedroom, Jessica in the 
     hallway leading to that bedroom. Josh was alive but in shock, 
     suffering from an obvious neck wound. He was flown by 
     helicopter to Loma Linda University Hospital.
       The victims died from numerous chopping and stabbing 
     injuries. Doug Ryen had at least 37 separate wounds, Peggy 
     32, Jessica 46, and Chris 25. The chopping wounds were 
     inflicted by a sharp, heavy object such as a hatchet or axe, 
     the stabbing wounds by a weapon such as a knife.

  The escaped prisoner who committed this crime was caught 2 months 
later. Again, he admitted that he stayed in the house next door, but 
denied any involvement in the murders. According to the California 
Supreme Court, however, the evidence of defendant's guilt was 
``overwhelming.'' Not only had the defendant stayed at the vacant house 
right next door at the time of the murders; the hatchet used in the 
murders was taken from the vacant house; shoe prints in the Ryen house 
matched those in the vacant house and were from a type of shoe issued 
to prisoners; bloody items, including a prison-issue button, were found 
in the vacant house; prison-issue tobacco was found in the Ryen station 
wagon, which was recovered in Long Beach; and defendant's blood type 
and hair matched that found in the Ryen house. Defendant was convicted 
of the murders and sentenced to death in 1985, and the California 
Supreme Court upheld the defendant's conviction and sentence in 1991.
  The defendant's Federal habeas proceedings began shortly thereafter, 
and they continue to this day--22 years after the murders. In 2000, the 
defendant asked the courts for DNA testing of a blood spot in the Ryen 
house, a t-shirt near the crime scene, and the tobacco found in the 
car. Despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, the courts allowed 
more testing. All three tests found that the blood and saliva matched 
defendant, to a degree of certainty of one in 320 billion. Blood on the 
t-shirt matched both the defendant and one of the victims.
  One might have thought that this would end the case. Not so. In 
February 2004, the en banc Ninth Circuit sua sponte authorized 
defendant to file a second habeas petition to pursue theories that 
police had planted this DNA evidence. Since the evidence had been in 
court custody since 1983, the Ninth Circuit's theory not only required 
police to plan and execute a vast conspiracy to plant the evidence--it 
also required them to foresee the future invention of the DNA 
technology that would make that evidence useful in future habeas 
proceedings.
  The Streamlined Procedures Act would have made a difference in this 
case. For example, it would have eliminated the need to return to state 
court to exhaust new claims, reducing the delay in the Federal 
proceedings by nearly 3 years. It would have applied the 1996 reforms 
to this case, allowing deferential review of state factual findings and 
legal analysis. It would have placed time limits on Federal appeals 
court decisionmaking and grants of rehearing. And it would have 
prevented the court of appeals from ordering rehearing of the 
defendant's successive-petition application on its own motion, thereby 
barring the current round of O.J. Simpson-style conspiracy-theory 
litigation. The SPA could have brought this case to closure a long time 
ago.

[[Page 10496]]

  And this case deserves to be brought to closure. One cannot 
underestimate the grievous impact that crimes like these have on the 
families of the victims. Mary Hughes, the mother of 11-year-old 
Christopher Hughes, who was sleeping over at the Ryen house on the 
night of the murders, has spoken movingly of the loss of her son:

       Christopher Hughes loved his bicycle, swimming and showing 
     off for his mom and dad.
       The 11-year-old's bedroom was filled with swimming trophies 
     and Star Wars collectibles. He was a handsome kid who was 
     chased by a lot of fifth-grade girls on the playground during 
     recess at Our Lady of the Assumption in Claremont.
       He wasn't short on friends, either.
       Christopher really liked Joshua Ryen, an 8-year-old boy who 
     lived up the street from him. They would trick-or-treat 
     together on Halloween, play together, and their parents were 
     good friends.
       On the night of June 4 1983, Christopher asked his parents 
     if he could spend the night at the Ryen house.
       It was a decision that would change the Hughes family 
     forever.
       [Mary Hughes'] son Christopher would have been 32 today. 
     She sometimes wonders who he would have been, what he 
     would've looked like, and even during her most solemn 
     moments, she wonders what life would've been like if Cooper 
     had never gone to the Ryens' house.
       ``It never really ever gets better,'' she said. ``Kevin 
     Cooper robbed him of the chance to be a child, to attend his 
     first dance, to have a girlfriend, and to one day get married 
     and have kids of his own. He robbed me of my child.''
       Mary Ann Hughes does have one special memory of her son she 
     holds close to her heart. A week before his death, she took 
     him to see the movie ``Return of the Jedi.''
       ``He was so happy. It was such a great day,'' she said. 
     ``It seems like such a small thing, but it's the best memory 
     I have of both of us.'' (Sara Carter, ``He Was at the 
     Beginning of His Life When He Died,'' Inland Valley Daily 
     Bulletin, February 9, 2004.)

  In light of how much the surviving family already has suffered, one 
might expect that all participants in the criminal proceedings would 
take great concern and care for the feelings of the family. 
Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The Ninth Circuit has proved 
willing to turn the appeals into a three-ring circus, allowing 
continual pursuit of the most frivolous conspiracy theories. The impact 
of these now 22 years of trial and appeals on the victims' families has 
been predictable: they feel that they and the victims have become 
irrelevant to the entire process. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit 
authorized an additional round of appeals in this case, a local 
newspaper described what the families have experienced:

       For nearly 20 years, since convicted murderer Kevin Cooper 
     was sentenced to death for the 1983 slayings of a Chino Hills 
     family and their young houseguest, families of the victims 
     have waited silently for the day the hand of justice would 
     grant them peace.
       For those families, the last two decades have seemed like 
     an eternity.
       ``I lived through a nightmare,'' said Herbert Ryen, whose 
     brother Douglas Ryen was among those killed, along with 
     Douglas' wife Peggy, their 11-year-old daughter Jessica, and 
     her 10-year-old friend Christopher Hughes.
       [O]n the morning of Feb. 9, [2004,] the day of Cooper's 
     scheduled death by lethal injection, word came down that the 
     9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided to block the 
     execution.
       [T]o the Ryen and Hughes families, the stay just hours 
     before Cooper's scheduled execution at San Quentin State 
     Prison was nearly incomprehensible. The indefinite delay has 
     left them in a sort of emotional limbo, questioning whether 
     the legal system had abandoned them.
       ``The bottom line is that this whole issue is not about 
     Kevin Cooper . . . it is about the death penalty,'' said Mary 
     Ann Hughes, the mother of Christoper Hughes. ``We're so mad--
     mad because we feel as though the courts turned their back on 
     my son.''
       ``They (Court of Appeals) are holding us hostage,'' Hughes 
     said.
       For Herbert Ryen and his wife Sue, waiting for justice has 
     taken an equally destructive toll on their lives. The torment 
     their family experienced following the murders, and the 
     subsequent years lost to depression, could never be replaced, 
     he said from his home in Arizona.
       Mary Ann Hughes said the pain her family suffers is only 
     amplified by the seemingly continuous bombardment of 
     celebrities campaigning against Cooper's execution. She 
     wonders who will cry out in anger for the victims.
       One former television star and anti-death penalty activist, 
     Mike Farrell of the popular series MASH, spoke of the case on 
     a recent news program.
       ``He claimed that we must feel relieved since the stay of 
     execution was granted,'' Hughes said. ``How can (Farrell) 
     have the audacity to say he knows what we are feeling?''
       Farrell could not be reached for comment.
       Since Christopher's death, the Hughes family has chosen to 
     remain out of the media spotlight. And until recently, their 
     efforts were successful, due largely to the support of their 
     surviving children, family members and a strong network of 
     close friends, Hughes said.
       The court's decision Feb. 9 has re-opened the case, forcing 
     the families to re-live the nightmare they have fought so 
     hard to leave behind, they say.
       Mary Ann Hughes is left wondering about other families who 
     have had loved ones taken from them, about the legal battles 
     they have had to endure in their own quests for justice.
       She thinks of the parents of Samantha Runion, the 5-year-
     old Orange County girl who was murdered in 2003, and of what 
     her family could face in the next 20 years.
       For Bill Hughes, the anguish is intensified--he will 
     forever know the pain of walking into the Ryens' home the 
     morning after the murders, and finding his son, dead and 
     covered in blood near the Ryens' bedroom door. He was also 
     the first to discover Joshua Ryen, also drenched in blood, 
     clinging to life.
       ``It is a memory he will always have to live with,'' Mary 
     Ann Hughes said.
       Indeed, time has been no friend to the victims' families, 
     as California's recent appellate court ruling has further 
     denied them closure, she added.
       ``What this decision has done to our legal system in 
     California is unthinkable,'' she said. ``Somewhere along the 
     line, the courts have got to uphold the law, and we will wait 
     it out until they do.'' (Sara Carter, ``Families of Murder 
     Victims Wait for Justice in Cooper Case,'' Inland Valley 
     Daily Bulletin, February 24, 2004.)

  Mary Hughes' story demonstrates why the use of Federal judicial power 
must be measured and fair it illustrates the heavy cost imposed by 
judicial excess.
  No statement, however, better explains the gross cruelty caused by 
allowing endless litigation and appeals in a case like this than that 
given by one of the surviving victims of the 1983 attack. Josh Ryen was 
8 years old when he was stabbed in his parents' bedroom and his parents 
and sister were murdered. He is now 30 years old. On April 22, 2005, he 
gave a statement pursuant to the recently enacted Crime Victims' Rights 
Act in the federal habeas corpus hearing for his parents and sister's 
killer. I will close my remarks by asking unanimous consent that Josh 
Ryen's statement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Joshua Ryen, United States District Court for the District 
                              of San Diego

       April 22, 2005.--The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 
     years old and he slit my throat. He hit me with a hatchet and 
     put a hole in my skull. He stabbed me twice, which broke my 
     ribs and collapsed one lung. I lived only because I stuck 
     four fingers in my neck to slow the bleeding, but I was too 
     weak to move. I laid there 11 hours looking at my mother who 
     was right beside me.
       I know now he came through the sliding glass door and 
     attacked my dad first. He was lying on the bed and was struck 
     in the dark without warning with the hatchet and knife. He 
     was hit many times because there is a lot of blood on the 
     wall on his side of the bed.
       My mother screamed and Cooper came around the bed and 
     started hitting her. Somehow my dad was able to struggle 
     between the bed and the closet but Cooper bludgeoned my 
     father to death with the knife and hatchet, stabbing him 26 
     times and axing him 11. One of the blows severed his finger 
     and it landed in the closet. My mother tried to get away but 
     he caught her at the bottom of the bed and he stabbed her 25 
     times and axed her 7.
       All of us kids were drawn to the room by mom's screams. 
     Jessica was killed in the doorway with 5 ax blows and 46 
     stabs. I won't say how many times my best friend Chris was 
     stabbed and axed, not because it isn't important, but because 
     I don't want to hurt his family in any way, and they are 
     here.
       After Cooper killed everyone, and thought he had killed me, 
     he went over to my sister and lifted her shirt and drew 
     things on her stomach with the knife. Then he walked down the 
     hallway, opened the refrigerator, and had a beer. I guess 
     killing so many people can make a man thirsty.
       I don't want to be here. I came because I owe it to my 
     family, who can't speak for themselves. But by coming I am 
     acknowledging and validating the existence of Kevin Cooper, 
     who should have been blotted from the face of the earth a 
     long time ago. By coming here it shows that he still controls 
     me. I will be free, my life will start, the day

[[Page 10497]]

     Kevin Cooper dies. I want to be rid of him, but he won't go 
     away.
       I've been trying to get away from him since I was 8 years 
     and I can't escape. He haunts me and follows me. For over 20 
     years all I've heard is Kevin Cooper this and Kevin Cooper 
     that. Kevin Cooper says he is innocent, Kevin Cooper says he 
     was framed, Kevin Cooper says DNA will clear him, Kevin 
     Cooper says blood was planted, Kevin Cooper says the tennis 
     shoes aren't his, Kevin Cooper says three guys did it, Kevin 
     Cooper says police planted evidence, Kevin Cooper gets 
     another stay from another court and sends everyone off on 
     another wild goose chase.
       The courts say there isn't any harm when Kevin Cooper gets 
     another stay and another hearing. This just shows they don't 
     care about me, because every time he gets another delay I am 
     harmed and have to relive the murders all over again. Every 
     time Kevin Cooper opens his mouth everyone wants to know what 
     I think, what I have to say, how I'm feeling, and the whole 
     nightmare floods all over me again: the barbecue, me begging 
     to let Chris spend the night, me in my bed and him on the 
     floor beside me, my mother's screams, Chris gone, dark house, 
     hallway, bushy hair, everything black, mom cut to pieces 
     saturated in blood, the nauseating smell of blood, eleven 
     hours unable to move, light filtering in, Chris' father at 
     the window, the horror of his face, sound of the front door 
     splintering, my pajamas being cut off, people trying to save 
     me, the whap whap of the helicopter blades, shouted 
     questions, everything fading to black.
       Every time Cooper claims he's innocent and sends people 
     scurrying off on another wild goose chase, I have to relive 
     the murders all over again. It runs like a horror movie, over 
     and over again and never stops because he never shuts up. He 
     puts PR people on national television who say outrageous 
     things and then the press wants to know what I think. What I 
     think is that I would like to be rid of Kevin Cooper. I would 
     like for him to go away. I would like to never hear from 
     Kevin Cooper again. I would like Kevin Cooper to pay for what 
     he did.
       I dread happy times like Christmas and Thanksgiving. If I 
     go to a friend's house on holidays I look at all the mothers 
     and fathers and children and grandchildren and get sad 
     because I have no one. Kevin Cooper took them from me.
       I get terrified when I go into any place dark, like a house 
     before the lights are on. I hear screams and see flashbacks 
     and shadows. Even with lights on I see terrible things. After 
     I was stabbed and axed I was too weak to move and stared at 
     my mother all night. I smelled this overpowering smell of 
     fresh blood and knew everyone had been slaughtered.
       Every day when I comb my hair I feel the hole where he 
     buried the hatchet in my head, and when I look in the mirror 
     I see the scar where he cut my throat from ear to ear and I 
     put four fingers in it to stop the bleeding which, they say, 
     saved my life. Every year I lose hearing in my left ear where 
     he buried the knife.
       Helicopters give me flashbacks of life flight and my 
     Incredible Hulks being cut off by paramedics. Bushy hair 
     reminds me of the killer. Silence reminds me of the quiet 
     before the screams. Cooper is everywhere. There is no escape 
     from him.
       I feel very guilty and responsible to the Hughes family 
     because I begged them to let Chris spend the night. If I 
     hadn't done that he wouldn't have died. I apologize to them 
     and especially to Mr. Hughes for having to find us and see 
     his son cut and stabbed to death.
       I thank the judge who gave my grandma custody of me because 
     she took good care of me and loves me very much.
       I'm grateful to the ocean for giving me peace because when 
     I go there I know my mother and father and sister's ashes are 
     sprinkled there.
       Kevin Cooper has movie stars and Jesse Jackson holding 
     rallies for him, people carrying signs, lighting candles, 
     saying prayers. To them and you I say:

     I was 8 when he slit my throat,
     It was dark and I couldn't see.

     Through the night and day I laid there,
     trying to get up and flee.

     He killed my mother, father, sister, friend,
     And started stalking me.
     I try to run and flee from him but cannot get away,
     While he demands petitions and claims, some fresh absurdity.
     Justice has no ear for me nor cares about my plight,
     while crowds pray for the killer and light candles in the 
           night.
     To those who long for justice and love truth which sets men 
           free, When you pray
     your prayers tonight, please remember me.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 1089. A bill to establish the National Foreign Language 
Coordination Council to develop and implement a foreign language 
strategy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National 
Language Coordination Act of 2005 which provides a framework for 
leading and coordination the learning of foreign languages and 
cultures, with my good friends Senators Cochran and Dodd. 
  The National Foreign Language Coordination Act would create the 
position of a National Language Director and a National Foreign 
Language Coordination Council to develop and oversee the implementation 
of a foreign language strategy. The proposed Council, chaired by the 
National Language Director, would identify crucial priorities, increase 
public awareness of the need for foreign language skills, advocate 
maximum use of resources, coordinate cross-sector efforts, and monitor 
the foreign language activities of the Federal Government.
  The genesis of this legislation is a report entitled, ``A Call to 
Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' issued by the 
National Language Conference held in June 2004 under the auspices of 
the Department of Defense. This conference was an extraordinary 
gathering of government, industry, academia, and language association 
representatives. The mission of this meeting was twofold: to discuss 
and deliberate initial strategic approaches to meeting the nation's 
language needs in the 21st century, and to identify actions that could 
move the United States toward a ``language-competent nation.'' It was 
hosted by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness and by the Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) 
at the University of Maryland at College Park.
  I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report, ``A 
Call to Action for National Foreign Language Capabilities,'' be printed 
in the Record following my remarks.
  I believe the recommendations of this report speak eloquently to the 
need for this legislation. As Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness, notes in his forward to the report, 
``improving the nation's foreign language capability requires immediate 
and long-term engagement.''
  The intent of this legislation is to ensure that immediate and long-
term engagement.
  The establishment of a National Language Director and the creation of 
a National Foreign Language Coordination Council will ensure that the 
key recommendations of the Department of Defense sponsored conference 
will be implemented, which include: developing policies and programs 
that build the nation's language and cultural understanding capability; 
engaging federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector in 
solutions; developing language and cultural competency across public 
and private sectors; developing language skills in a wide range of 
critical languages; strengthening our education system, programs, and 
tools in foreign languages and cultures; and integrating language 
training into career fields and increase the number of language 
professionals.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, showed how much more was 
needed to improve education in these critical areas. The investigations 
surrounding the attacks have underscored how important foreign language 
proficiency is to our national security. The Joint Intelligence 
Committee inquiry into the terrorist attacks found that prior to 
September 11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared to handle the 
challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter-
terrorism intelligence that had been collected. Agencies within the 
Intelligence Community experienced backlogs in material awaiting 
translation and a shortage of language specialists and language-
qualified field officers in the most critical terrorism-related 
languages used by terrorists.
  America needs people who understand foreign cultures and who are 
fluent in locally-spoken languages. The stability and economic vitality 
of the United States and our national security depend on American 
citizens who are knowledgeable about the world. We need civil servants, 
including law enforcement officers, teachers, area experts, diplomats, 
and business people

[[Page 10498]]

with the ability to communicate at an advanced level in the languages 
and understand the cultures of the people with whom they interact.
  Experts tell us we should develop long-term relationships with people 
from every walk of life all across the world, whether or not the 
languages they speak are considered critical for a particular issue or 
emergency.
  They are right.
  As then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz noted at the 
National Language Conference, ``The greater our ability to communicate 
with people, the easier the burden on our troops and the greater the 
likelihood that we can complete our missions and bring our people home 
safely. Even better, the greater our linguistic skill, the greater the 
possibility that we can resolve international differences and achieve 
our objectives without having to use force.''
  I am proud of my own State of Hawaii, whose language patterns reflect 
that we are a mixing pot of varying cultures. According to the 2000 
Census, more than 300,000 people or about 27 percent of those five 
years and older spoke a language other than English at home. This is 
compared to about 18 percent nationwide. Language education offerings 
to improve conversational proficiency with formal training in non-
English languages are working to keep pace with increased demand. In 
addition, enrollments in foreign language courses at the University of 
Hawaii have been markedly increasing--a trend that I am gratified to 
see happening across the country. But more needs to be done both in 
Hawaii and the rest of the country.
  I am a passionate believer in beginning these programs at the 
earliest age possible. Americans need to be open to the world; we need 
to be able to see the world through the eyes of others if we are going 
to understand how to resolve the complex problems we face.
  The need to hear and understand one another is timeless and 
essential.
  An ongoing commitment to developing language and cultural expertise 
helps prevent a crisis from occurring and provides diplomatic and 
language resources when needed. We cannot afford to seek out foreign 
language skills after an event like 9/11 occurs. The failures of 
communication and understanding have already done their damage. We must 
provide an ongoing commitment to language education and encourage 
knowledge of foreign languages and cultures.
  The answer is simple. If we are committed to maintaining these 
relationships and creating a language proficient citizenry, we must 
have leadership. The National Foreign Language Coordination Act will 
provide this leadership and ensure that we are aware and involved in 
the world around us.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Executive Summary--A Call to Action and Leadership

       Vision: Our vision is a world in which the United States is 
     a stronger global leader through proficiency in foreign 
     languages and understanding of the cultures of the world. 
     These abilities are strengths of our public and private 
     sectors and pillars of our educational system. The 
     government, academic, and private sectors contribute to, and 
     mutually benefit from, these national capabilities.
       The terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Global War on 
     Terrorism, and the continued threat to our Homeland have 
     defined the critical need to take action to improve the 
     foreign language and cultural capabilities of the Nation. We 
     must act now to improve the gathering and analysis of 
     information, advance international diplomacy, and support 
     military operations. We must act to retain our global market 
     leadership and succeed against increasingly sophisticated 
     competitors whose workforces possess potent combinations of 
     professional skills, knowledge of other cultures, and 
     multiple language proficiencies. Our domestic well-being 
     demands action to provide opportunities for all students to 
     learn foreign languages important for the Nation, develop the 
     capabilities of our heritage communities, and ensure services 
     that are core to our quality of life.
       Success in this crucial undertaking will depend on 
     leadership strong enough to:
       Implement policies, programs, and legislation that build 
     the national language and cultural understanding capability;
       Engage Federal, state, and local agencies and the private 
     sector in solutions;
       Develop language and cultural competency across public and 
     private sectors;
       Develop language skills in a wide range of critical 
     languages;
       Strengthen our education system, programs, and tools in 
     foreign languages and cultures; and
       Integrate language training into career fields and increase 
     the number of language professionals, especially in the less 
     commonly taught languages.
       Leadership must be comprehensive, as no one sector--
     government, industry, or academia--has all of the needs for 
     language and cultural competency, or all of the solutions. 
     Some actions must be initiated immediately by specific 
     agencies and Federal Departments should organize to work on 
     proposed recommendations. Other necessary solutions must be 
     long-term, strategic, and `` involve multiple organizations 
     in all levels. To accomplish this agenda, the Nation needs:
       A National Language Authority appointed by the President to 
     develop and implement a national foreign language strategy;
       A National Foreign Language Coordination Council to 
     coordinate implementation of the national foreign language 
     strategy.
       This is the Call to Action to move the Nation toward a 21st 
     century vision.

                                S. 1089

       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 ``National Foreign Language 
     Coordination Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there is a severe shortage of qualified language 
     professionals, including teachers, translators, and 
     interpreters, especially in less commonly taught languages, 
     across the United States;
       (2) Federal, State, and local governments need individuals 
     with bilingual and bicultural capabilities, including--
       (A) diplomats;
       (B) defense and intelligence analysts;
       (C) military personnel;
       (D) foreign language instructors;
       (E) health professionals;
       (F) medical and social services providers;
       (G) court interpreters;
       (H) translators; and
       (I) law enforcement officers;
       (3) deficiencies in the national language capabilities 
     have--
       (A) undermined cross-cultural communication and 
     understanding at home and abroad;
       (B) restrained social mobility;
       (C) lessened national commercial competitiveness;
       (D) limited the effectiveness of public diplomacy;
       (E) restricted justice and government services to sectors 
     of society; and
       (F) threatened national security;
       (4) ample resources are not available to develop language 
     and cultural capabilities in all of the world's languages, 
     requiring prioritization of such resources; and
       (5) a National Foreign Language Coordination Council and a 
     National Language Director can help to raise public awareness 
     and provide top-down coordination and direction.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE 
                   COORDINATION COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the National 
     Foreign Language Coordination Council (referred to as the 
     ``Council'' in this Act), which shall be an independent 
     establishment as defined under section 104 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Membership.--The Council shall consist of the following 
     members or their designees:
       (1) The National Language Director, who shall serve as the 
     chairperson of the Council.
       (2) The Secretary of Education.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense.
       (4) The Secretary of State.
       (5) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (6) The Attorney General.
       (7) The Director of National Intelligence.
       (8) The Secretary of Labor.
       (9) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
       (10) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       (11) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (12) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (13) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       (14) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (15) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (16) The heads of such other Federal agencies as the 
     Council considers appropriate.
       (c) Responsibilities.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall be charged with--
       (A) developing a national foreign language strategy within 
     18 months of the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) overseeing the implementation of such strategy.
       (2) Strategy content.--The strategy developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) identification of crucial priorities across all 
     sectors;

[[Page 10499]]

       (B) identification and evaluation of Federal foreign 
     language programs and activities, including--
       (i) recommendations on coordination;
       (ii) program enhancements; and
       (iii) allocation of resources so as to maximize use of 
     resources;
       (C) needed national policies and corresponding legislative 
     and regulatory actions in support of, and allocation of 
     designated resources to, promising programs and initiatives 
     at all levels (Federal, State, and local), especially in the 
     less commonly taught languages that are seen as critical for 
     national security and global competitiveness in the next 20 
     to 50 years;
       (D) effective ways to increase public awareness of the need 
     for foreign language skills and career paths in all sectors 
     that can employ those skills, with the objective of 
     increasing support for foreign language study among--
       (i) Federal, State, and local leaders;
       (ii) students;
       (iii) parents;
       (iv) elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational 
     institutions; and
       (v) potential employers;
       (E) incentives for related educational programs, including 
     foreign language teacher training;
       (F) coordination of cross-sector efforts, including public-
     private partnerships;
       (G) coordination initiatives to develop a strategic posture 
     for language research and recommendations for funding for 
     applied foreign language research into issues of national 
     concern;
       (H) assistance for--
       (i) the development of foreign language achievement 
     standards; and
       (ii) corresponding assessments for the elementary, 
     secondary, and postsecondary education levels, including the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress in foreign 
     languages;
       (I) development of--
       (i) language skill-level certification standards;
       (ii) an ideal course of pre-service and professional 
     development study for those who teach foreign language;
       (iii) suggested graduation criteria for foreign language 
     studies and appropriate non-language studies, such as--

       (I) international business;
       (II) national security;
       (III) public administration; and
       (IV) health care; and

       (J) identification of and means for replicating best 
     practices at all levels and in all sectors, including best 
     practices from the international community.
       (d) Meetings.--The Council may hold such meetings, and sit 
     and act at such times and places, as the Council considers 
     appropriate, but shall meet in formal session at least 2 
     times a year. State and local government agencies and other 
     organizations (such as academic sector institutions, foreign 
     language-related interest groups, business associations, 
     industry, and heritage community organizations) shall be 
     invited, as appropriate, to public meetings of the Council at 
     least once a year.
       (e) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Director may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of such additional personnel as the Director 
     considers necessary to carry out the duties of the Council.
       (2) Details from other agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Council, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to 
     the Council.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Council, the Director may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (f) Powers.--
       (1) Delegation.--Any member or employee of the Council may, 
     if authorized by the Council, take any action that the 
     Council is authorized to take in this Act.
       (2) Information.--The Council may secure directly from any 
     Federal agency such information the Council considers 
     necessary to carry out its responsibilities. Upon request of 
     the Director, the head of such agency shall furnish such 
     information to the Council.
       (3) Donations.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (4) Mail.--The Council may use the United States mail in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (g) Conferences, Newsletter, and Website.--In carrying out 
     this Act, the Council--
       (1) may arrange Federal, regional, State, and local 
     conferences for the purpose of developing and coordinating 
     effective programs and activities to improve foreign language 
     education;
       (2) may publish a newsletter concerning Federal, State, and 
     local programs that are effectively meeting the foreign 
     language needs of the nation; and
       (3) shall create and maintain a website containing 
     information on the Council and its activities, best practices 
     on language education, and other relevant information.
       (h) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Council 
     shall prepare and transmit to the President and Congress a 
     report that describes the activities of the Council and the 
     efforts of the Council to improve foreign language education 
     and training and impediments, including any statutory and 
     regulatory restrictions, to the use of each such program.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL LANGUAGE DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--There is established a National Language 
     Director who shall be appointed by the President. The 
     National Language Director shall be a nationally recognized 
     individual with credentials and abilities across all of the 
     sectors to be involved with creating and implementing long-
     term solutions to achieving national foreign language and 
     cultural competency.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The National Language Director 
     shall--
       (1) develop and oversee the implementation of a national 
     foreign language strategy across all sectors;
       (2) establish formal relationships among the major 
     stakeholders in meeting the needs of the Nation for improved 
     capabilities in foreign languages and cultural understanding, 
     including Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
     academia, industry, labor, and heritage communities; and
       (3) coordinate and lead a public information campaign that 
     raises awareness of public and private sector careers 
     requiring foreign language skills and cultural understanding, 
     with the objective of increasing interest in and support for 
     the study of foreign languages among national leaders, the 
     business community, local officials, parents, and 
     individuals.
       (c) Compensation.--The National Language Director shall be 
     paid at a rate of pay payable for a position at level V of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 5. ENCOURAGEMENT OF STATE INVOLVEMENT.

       (a) State Contact Persons.--The Council shall consult with 
     each State to provide for the designation by each State of an 
     individual to serve as a State contact person for the purpose 
     of receiving and disseminating information and communications 
     received from the Council.
       (b) State Interagency Councils and Lead Agencies.--Each 
     State is encouraged to establish a State interagency council 
     on foreign language coordination or designate a lead agency 
     for the State for the purpose of assuming primary 
     responsibility for coordinating and interacting with the 
     Council and State and local government agencies as necessary.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________