[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18963-18971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 3919. A bill to assist small business concerns in complying with 
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order for the United States to continue 
to stand for the fairest, most transparent and efficient financial 
markets in the world, I believe we must provide assistance to America's 
small public companies in their efforts to comply with the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act.
  Just a few years ago, the trust and confidence of the American people 
in their financial markets was dangerously eroded by the emergence of 
serious accounting irregularities by some companies and possible 
fraudulent actions by corporations like WorldCom, Inc., Enron, Arthur 
Andersen and others. The shocking malfeasance by these businesses and 
accounting firms put a strain on the growth of our economy. The 
misconduct by a few senior executives has cost the jobs of thousands of 
hard-working Americans. The lack of faith in our financial markets 
contributed to an overall decline in stock values and has caused grave 
losses to individual investors and pension funds.
  By all accounts, Sarbanes-Oxley has been effective in bringing 
accountability to corporate governance, auditing, and financial 
reporting for public companies. The dark days of the Enron scandal have 
given way to a new corporate culture that embraces responsibility and 
transparency, and for this we have Sarbanes-Oxley to thank. Sarbanes-
Oxley has helped restore confidence in our capital markets and helped 
improve our nation's future economic growth.
  However, with compliance also comes cost. And while the cost of 
complying with the law is small enough to be absorbed by larger 
corporations, smaller public companies, particularly small minority 
public companies, have been disproportionately affected by these costs. 
Small business is the engine of economic growth in our Nation. Almost 
60 percent of Americans are employed by small businesses. Small 
business growth has been critical in developing the high wage jobs for 
America's future.
  Unfortunately, an April 2006 report to the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship by the United States Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) found that small public firms are incurring 
much higher audit fees and increased costs in complying with the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
  The report finds that of the 2,263 public firms with market 
capitalization of less than $75 million, just 66 have fully implemented 
Section 404 of the law that requires firms to construct formal internal 
control frameworks and filed internal control reports. These 66 firms 
reported paying $1.14 in audit fees per $100 of revenue, compared to 
just $.13 per $100 for firms with greater than $1 billion in market 
capitalization. I believe we must take action to help small companies 
comply with the regulatory burdens of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
  In addition to the costs associated with internal controls, 81 
percent of small firms responding to the GAO survey said they brought 
in outside consultants to comply with the Act. Nearly half of the small 
firms reported ``opportunity costs'' related to complying with the 
regulatory burden placed on them by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act such as 
deferring or canceling operational improvements, and more than one-
third of respondents were forced to defer or cancel information 
technology investments. Too many small firms simply do not have the 
resources and expertise necessary to implement the formal internal 
control frameworks required by Section 404, and as a result, they are 
disadvantaged compared to larger firms that are absorbing these costs.
  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has provided a lengthy 
compliance period for small businesses to comply with the Sarbanes-
Oxley regulations and is attempting to develop additional methods to 
ease the regulatory burden. However, I believe additional efforts are 
needed.
  In order to assist these firms with the increased costs of 
implementation and help our small businesses keep our economy moving 
forward, I am introducing the Small Business Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance 
Assistance Act of 2006. The bill would authorize the U.S. Small 
Business Administration to award grants to small public companies and 
small business concerns to help lessen the burden of these costs. If 
Congress is asking these small firms to bear the burden of cost for 
compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, the least we can do is chip in and help 
pay for it. My legislation authorizes $5 million to be awarded annually 
through 2011.
  My legislation also creates a task force, assembled by the SBA Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy, and comprising of representatives from the SEC 
and other appropriate bank regulatory agencies, to report semi-annually 
on how to assist small public companies in complying with Sarbanes-
Oxley. My hope is that this task force will continually find new ways 
to lift the regulatory burden on small businesses attempting to comply 
with the law. Each report of the task force will be required to 
evaluate upgrades or alternatives to the SEC's Electronic Data 
Gathering Analysis Retrieval System so that companies might submit 
filings to the SEC without the need for third party intervention. The 
task force will also report on the potential to reduce inefficiencies 
related to SEC filings; the feasibility of synchronizing filing 
requirements for substantially similar small firms; whether the SEC and 
bank regulatory agencies should commit additional resources to aiding 
small public firms with filing requirements; whether the SEC needs to 
publish guidance on reporting and legal requirements aimed at assisting 
smaller public firms; and the feasibility of extending incorporation by 
reference privileges to other Government filings containing equivalent 
information.
  This legislation will help some but not all of the thousands of small 
firms that are public or hope to become public. As more information 
becomes available, I am hopeful that the task force will provide ideas 
on how the SEC can help more of the small, non-accelerated filers 
implement the Sarbanes-

[[Page 18964]]

Oxley regulations. We must do all we can to insure that small firms can 
demonstrate that transparency and accountability in the private sector 
is thriving without having to incur such a burdensome cost. This 
legislation is supported by the National Black Chamber of Commerce as 
well as Small Business Majority. I ask all my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 3920. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to assure access to durable medical equipment under the Medicare 
Program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act with my colleague Senator 
Kent Conrad of North Dakota. This bill makes several modest changes to 
the competitive acquisition process for this equipment.
  In 2007, a competitive acquisition program will replace the current 
reimbursement policy for durable medical equipment in Medicare. This 
shift toward a market-based approach to payments for durable medical 
equipment was mandated through the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 
2003.
  Our bill was written with two key goals in mind. The Medicare Durable 
Medical Equipment Access Act would preserve access to home medical 
equipment in rural areas for older or disabled Americans who need this 
equipment. In addition, the bill will allow small businesses that 
provide homecare equipment to continue to participate in the Medicare 
Program if they qualify and meet the competitively bid price.
  Our legislation is identical to H.R. 3559 which was introduced 
earlier this Congress by Congressmen David Hobson and John Tanner. That 
bill has broad, bipartisan support and 132 House cosponsors.
  As background, section 302(b)(I) of the MMA requires Medicare to 
replace the current durable medical equipment payment methodology for 
certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 
in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
  The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require 
several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program.
  First, the MMA requires the Secretary to include quality standards in 
the competitive acquisition process and also allows the Secretary to 
waive the application of quality standards if applying the standards 
would delay implementation of the process. However, quality standards 
are essential to ensuring that beneficiaries are not forced to use the 
lowest-cost provider without consideration of the quality of the 
medical equipment items provided. This bill would require the Secretary 
to include quality standards before implementing competitive 
acquisition.
  Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas and urban 
areas with low population density to ensure that competitive 
acquisition is not implemented in areas that lack the health care 
infrastructure to support it. This bill would require the Secretary to 
exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people.
  Third, the MMA created a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee 
composed of stakeholders to advise the Secretary on the implementation 
of competitive acquisition. However, the MMA does not apply the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to it. The purpose of FACA is to ensure 
that advice rendered to the executive branch by advisory committees be 
both objective and accessible to the public. This bill would apply FACA 
to this oversight committee.
  Fourth, the MMA allows the Secretary to contract with only as many 
providers as the Secretary deems necessary to meet the demand of an 
area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from 
participating in Medicare for up to 3 years. This bill would allow 
applicable small businesses that did not receive a contract to continue 
to provide durable medical equipment in Medicare at the competitive 
acquisition bid rate.
  Fifth, the MMA explicitly prohibited administrative or judicial 
review for competitive acquisition of DME. This means that providers do 
not have legal recourse to appeal the bid amount or contracts. My bill 
would restore appeal rights for competitive acquisition of DME. These 
rights exist elsewhere in the Medicare program.
  Sixth, under the MMA, the Secretary can only competitively acquire an 
item if the Secretary believes that doing so would result in 
significant savings to Medicare. It is important for the Secretary to 
show that the savings from competitive acquisition justify constructing 
a bureaucracy to implement the program. To that end, this bill would 
require the Secretary to show that competitive acquisition would result 
in savings of at least 10 percent.
  Finally, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition 
bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill 
would require that, before doing so, the Secretary conduct a 
comparability analysis of the two MSAs. This will help prevent any 
applications of bid rates outside of an MSA that are inappropriate.
  The new, market-based competitive acquisition program in Medicare is 
designed to save money and make Medicare more efficient. In order to 
achieve this goal, we need to preserve access to care and preserve the 
cost-effective health care infrastructure that homecare represents. 
This bill will help ensure that the market reforms enacted by the MMA 
accomplish both cost savings and continued access to cost-effective 
care.
  Before I close, I would like to give a real life example from my home 
state of Utah on why this legislation is needed and necessary. A small 
provider of durable medical equipment in Utah approached me about how 
current law will impact him. This company was established in 1997 with 
just one employee. It has grown over the years by providing its 
customers the products that they need to stay at home and out of the 
hospitals.
  When competitive bidding hits the State of Utah in 2007, this small 
company will be forced to bid against large national companies. Much 
larger companies compete with the smaller ones to provide medical 
equipment such as wheelchairs, in home hospital beds, and home oxygen. 
If my Utah company loses the bid, it will go out of business, as will 
many of its smaller competitors in Utah. This company prides itself on 
being able to provide customers with a high quality of service. The 
owner of the company has asked me how he can continue to provide great 
service when his company has been forced to bid to the lowest price 
possible just to keep from going out of business.
  Therefore, this legislation means a lot to small companies not just 
in Utah, but all over the country, by allowing them to continue to 
provide medical equipment to those who need it.
  I heard from several small medical equipment companies in my home 
State of Utah for several years on this issue and they made very 
convincing arguments. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Durable 
Medical Equipment Access Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to talk to 
their constituents back home who own small durable medical equipment 
companies. I am certain that these companies are experiencing concerns 
similar to those shared with me.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that Medicare 
beneficiaries will continue to receive quality care at affordable 
prices for their medical supplies.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Hatch, in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment 
(DME) Access Act. This bill responds to the concerns I heard from 
seniors and suppliers in North Dakota about the negative impact 
competitive bidding could have on the ability of DME suppliers in rural 
States to remain viable. The bill we introduce today is designed to 
preserve access to DME in rural areas.
  The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) required Medicare to replace

[[Page 18965]]

the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a 
competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest 
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical 
Equipment Access Act would require several modest changes to the 
competitive acquisition program to help preserve access to medical 
equipment in rural areas.
  First, our bill would build upon language in the MMA that allows the 
Secretary to exempt rural areas to prevent these beneficiaries from 
losing access to needed medical equipment. Specifically, it would 
require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people.
  Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to waive the application of 
quality standards in the competitive acquisition process if applying 
the standards would delay implementation. Our bill would ensure that 
quality standards are included when determining the winning bid to 
ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment.
  Third, in creating the competitive acquisition program, the Secretary 
may contract with only as many providers as deemed necessary to meet 
demand in an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be 
prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to three years. This 
bill would allow certain small businesses to continue providing DME in 
Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate, allowing them to 
offer in-person care to Medicare beneficiaries.
  Fourth, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition 
bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill 
would require that the Secretary compare the two to ensure that the bid 
rates aren't inappropriately applied.
  Finally, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would take 
additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in 
savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial 
review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory 
and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public.
  These provisions are small steps, but they will ensure that 
beneficiaries in rural areas have access to the medical equipment they 
need. While we should pursue options for making the Medicare program 
more efficient, we must also protect access to care. I believe this 
bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 3921. A bill to modify the calculation of back pay for persons who 
were approved for promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps 
while interned as prisoners of war during World War II to take into 
account changes in the Consumer Price Index; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the World War II 
POW Pay Equity Act of 2006. This legislation would ensure that former 
World War II Prisoners of War, or their surviving spouses, receive the 
appropriate back pay for their honorable service, adjusted for 
inflation.
  Due to a technicality, Navy and Marine Corps POWs during World War II 
were denied promotions while they were interned. The Fiscal Year 2001 
National Defense Authorization Act included provisions to correct this 
injustice. Unfortunately, this legislation did not specify an 
adjustment for inflation. The result was that these heroes of our 
``greatest generation'' were paid in 1942 dollars which roughly equated 
to ten cents on the current dollar. It is well past time to properly 
compensate them for their dedicated service.
  When our great Nation called upon these brave individuals, they 
answered the call. Now they need our help to fix a technicality that 
has denied them the full amount of the back-pay they are due, pay that 
was earned in the harshest of environments. Many of these WWII veterans 
suffer from extreme financial distress. The total number of surviving 
WWII POWs is now less than 1,000, and there are approximately 400 
surviving spouses. We cannot abandon those who were truly responsible 
for defending the liberties we hold so dear. It would be shameful for 
Congress and our Nation not to compensate fairly these veterans, as 
this is a debt that our country incurred during their internment as 
POWs.
  The impact of this legislation goes well beyond those who have so 
bravely gone before us in defense of our Nation. This is a readiness 
issue as well. Today's service members are acutely aware of the manner 
in which our Nation honors its veterans. President George Washington 
reminded all of his fellow Americans of the keen relationship between 
our Nation's veterans and those on active duty when he said, ``The 
willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, 
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they 
perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by 
their country.'' That statement holds just as true today as it did over 
200 years ago.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 3922. A bill to clarify the status of the Young Woman's Christian 
Association Retirement Fund as a defined contribution plan for certain 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will 
clarify the legal status of the Young Women's Christian Association's 
Retirement Fund.
  The YWCA Retirement Fund is one of the oldest pension plans serving 
the retirement needs of women. This bill will help protect the 
retirement security of thousands of YWCA employees nationwide who serve 
well over a million users.
  Whether it is providing day care for working mothers, keeping a 
battered women's shelter open, or meeting the other pressing needs of 
women in our communities, the YWCA has a long tradition of service. 
Those who work at our local YWCAs deserve to know that their retirement 
plan is secure.
  Today, the YWCA Retirement Fund is a unique pension program. First, 
approximately 90 percent of its participants are women. Second, it is a 
multiple employer pension plan--one that relies on 300 local YWCAs to 
make funding contributions. And lastly, since it was established in 
1924, the pension plan's structure has remained generally unchanged--it 
is partially a defined benefit plan, and partially a defined 
contribution plan.
  Recently, some employers have transformed their traditional defined 
benefit pension plans into various types of ``hybrid'' plans, and in 
the process, some have reduced the rate at which benefits accrue for 
their older workers. Older workers have successfully challenged some of 
these arrangements as age discriminatory. During its more than 80-year 
history, the YWCA Retirement Fund has never treated any worker 
differently based on age or longevity of employment. Most of the 
controversy surrounding these plans focuses on how employers treat 
certain participants when they convert their pre-existing pension 
plans. But the YWCA pension program never converted--its basic 
structure has remained the same since it was established 1924.
  The success of some of these lawsuits has raised questions about 
whether the YWCA pension plan could be found to be age discriminatory 
merely on the basis of its design. This threat is particularly acute 
given the fact that the YWCA Retirement Fund is a multiple employer 
pension plan--a plan that relies on contributions from each local YWCA. 
This enormous potential liability would be shared jointly by all local 
YWCAs. Under current law, even the mere threat of lawsuit could cause 
local YWCAs to end their participation in this plan.
  If enacted, this legislation would merely classify the YWCA 
retirement plan as a defined contribution plan only for the purpose of 
testing for age discrimination--it would continue to protect 
participants from being treated differently on the basis of age while

[[Page 18966]]

eliminating the potential crippling legal threat.
  Legislation was enacted in 2004--Public Law 108-476--to clarify the 
legal status of the YMCA pension plan, a plan that is similar to the 
YWCA plan. Congress was right to protect the YMCA pension plan then and 
now it is time to protect the pension plan serving our YWCAs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3922

       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 ``YWCA Retirement Plan 
     Preservation Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AGE DISCRIMINATION RULES.

       (a) In General.--A pension plan described in subsection (b) 
     shall be treated as a defined contribution plan for purposes 
     of sections 204(b)(1)(H) and 204(b)(2) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1054(b)(1)(H) and 1054(b)(2)) and section 4(i)(1) of the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 
     623(i)(1)).
       (b) Pension Plan Described.--A pension plan described in 
     this subsection is the plan subject to title IV of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 maintained by 
     the Young Women's Christian Association Retirement Fund, a 
     corporation created by an Act of the State of New York which 
     became law on April 12, 1924.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply in the case 
     of any civil action brought on or after September 21, 2006, 
     alleging a violation occurring before June 29, 2005, of 
     section 204(b)(1)(H) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(b)(1)(H)), section 
     4(i)(1) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 
     (29 U.S.C. 623(i)(1)), or both, with respect to the plan 
     described in subsection (b).
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3923. A bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States 
district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases 
among district judges; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce with Senator 
Feinstein legislation to establish a pilot program that is intended to 
enhance the level of expertise in patent cases among United States 
district court judges. In conversations with a number of constituents 
and both small and large companies in my home State of Utah, I have 
found that one of the frequent complaints by those who had been 
involved in patent litigation was that many district court judges had 
relatively little expertise in patent law, and--partially as a result--
the decisions of trial courts are often overturned on appeal due to 
technical errors in construing patent claims. Obviously, this is 
frustrating for litigants, because it prolongs the uncertainty they 
experience and makes an expensive appeal of the trial court's decision 
much more likely. This bill seeks to address that problem by providing 
a way to increase the level of expertise among district court judges in 
patent cases.
  The core provisions of this bill authorize a pilot project in at 
least five judicial districts that have a significant patent litigation 
caseload. Under the pilot program, judges in these districts will be 
allowed to form a smaller pool of judges who are willing to accept a 
larger portion of the patent litigation docket in the district. The 
bill also authorizes additional resources to allow participating courts 
to hire law clerks with expertise in patent law and to provide for 
educational programs relating to patent law for the participating 
judges. It is our intention that this program will allow these judges 
to acquire greater experience in handling patent trials, decrease the 
amount of time that patent cases take to resolve, and reduce reversals 
on appeal by enhancing the level of experience and expertise of judges 
and law clerks handling these cases. The project is authorized for at 
least five judicial districts, to be designated by the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts, and will last for a 10 year period.
  The bill also requires Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts and the Federal Judicial Center to provide a report to Congress 
on the results of the pilot program, along with additional information 
that will allow Congress to determine whether this approach has had the 
beneficial effects that we anticipate.
  Those who are following the patent debates in Congress closely will 
notice that this bill is very similar to a bill introduced in the House 
by Representatives Issa and Schiff, and I would like to acknowledge 
their work on this issue, as well as the work of other members of the 
House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 
and Intellectual Property. I would also like to thank my colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, for her interest in this issue and for 
her willingness to cosponsor this bill.
  I should also note that further refinements to this language will 
likely be necessary as it moves through the legislative process. In 
particular, we need to include a provision which would preserve a 
sufficient element of random assignment among judges. I understand some 
of my Senate colleagues have reservations about including this 
provision, but we will deal with that issue as the bill progresses.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Feinstein and me 
by supporting this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 3924. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
allow qualifying States to use all or any portion of their allotments 
under the State Children's Health Insurance Program for certain 
Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's 
Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. I am delighted to have 
Senator Murray, Bingaman, and Mikulski introduce this bill with me 
today.
  As health insurance costs continue to rise and the number of 
employers that offer health coverage to their employees decline, our 
safety net programs are all the more critical, especially for the 
health of our children. It is more important than ever to sustain 
existing health care coverage for our children--and, in fact, to expand 
it. It's the best way to reduce costs and improve access. It's about 
keeping children healthy.
  New Census data released last month showed that the number of 
uninsured has grown from 41.2 million in 2001 to 46.6 million in 2005. 
These are largely working families--the number of fulltime workers 
without any insurance increased to 17.7 percent in 2005 from 16.8 
percent in 2002.
  In Washington, our Medicaid program is currently providing coverage 
for more than 500,000 children. Our State Children's Health Insurance 
Program is providing coverage to another 11,000 children. But 100,000 
of our kids in Washington State remain uninsured even though they are 
eligible for one of the public programs.
  One barrier to expanding kids' access to health care in Washington is 
the funding rules that were put into place when SCHIP was enacted in 
1997. In short, our state has been punished for its early innovation 
for doing the right thing.
  When SCHIP was enacted at the Federal level in 1997, Washington was 
one of only four States already providing health coverage for children 
at the level Federal lawmakers wanted SCHIP to reach. Under the 
original Federal rules, Washington was not allowed to use new funds to 
pay for children who were covered prior to SCHIP's implementation.
  As a result, we have been penalized and prevented from fully using 
our share of the funding. That is why in 2002 I worked to ensure a 
temporary fix to the funding inequity and I have been fighting to make 
this fix permanent ever since. And as a result of these temporary 
fixes, Washington has been able to extend coverage to an additional 
60,000 children and reinvest $47.3 million in children's health safety 
net programs.

[[Page 18967]]

  Despite this success, the State has still been forced to return over 
percent of its share of Federal funding. Over the first decade of the 
SCHIP program, Washington is expected to return $191 million in Federal 
funds.
  Let me say that again: we're returning millions of dollars to the 
Federal Government and we still have 100,000 uninsured children in our 
State--the majority of whom are eligible for these public programs.
  It's unacceptable and it runs contrary to the central goal of the 
SCHIP program. We need a permanent solution once and for all so that 
Washington and the other States that expanded eligibility in their 
Medicaid programs before the enactment of SCHIP in 1997 are no longer 
penalized for their early innovation and their commitment to the health 
of children.
  This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and 
Eligibility Act of 2006.
  This legislation will give states the ability to use SCHIP funds more 
efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. 
States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use their 
entire SCHIP funds allotment to maintain access to health care coverage 
for all low-income children in the state. The bill also ensures that 
all of the qualifying States that have demonstrated a commitment to 
providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in 
the same manner to support children's health care coverage. Finally, 
this bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest 
eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, 
to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had 
previously been covered above the mandatory level.
  The requirements are best practices that have been tested and proven 
all across our Nation: a simplified application process, twelve-month 
continuous eligibility and easy access to enrollment staff are just a 
few of the examples of actions that we have taken in Washington that 
are proven to work. They result in more children having coverage and 
accessing appropriate care. Many of our States are working to make the 
program easier for children and families to navigate and now Congress 
needs to make it easier for all States to access their SCHIP allotment 
in order to expand and improve coverage to our youngest citizens.
  Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our 
great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, 
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to 
build happy, healthy and productive lives. With the rising number of 
uninsured and the ever-increasing healthcare costs, it is more 
important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for 
children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children 
healthy. Removing barriers for innovative states and allowing them to 
fully access their SCHIP allocation is a major step in achieving this 
goal. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill and ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3924

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE ALL OR ANY 
                   PORTION OF THEIR SCHIP ALLOTMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``not more than 20 percent of any allotment under 
     section 2104 for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, or 
     2005'' and inserting ``all or any portion of any allotment 
     made to the State under section 2104 for a fiscal year''.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--Section 2105(g)(2) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``a State, that, on'' and inserting ``a 
     State that is described in subparagraph (A) and satisfies all 
     of the requirements of subparagraph (B).
       ``(A) State described.--A State described in this 
     subparagraph is a State that, on''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are the following:
       ``(i) No reduction in medicaid or schip income 
     eligibility.--Since January 1, 2001, the State has not 
     reduced the income, assets, or resource requirements for 
     eligibility for medical assistance under title XIX or for 
     child health assistance under this title.
       ``(ii) No waiting list imposed.--The State does not impose 
     any numerical limitation, waiting list, or similar limitation 
     on the eligibility of children for medical assistance under 
     title XIX or child health assistance under this title and 
     does not limit the acceptance of applications for such 
     assistance.
       ``(iii) Provides assistance to all children who apply and 
     qualify.--The State provides medical assistance under title 
     XIX or child health assistance under this title to all 
     children in the State who apply for and meet the eligibility 
     standards for such assistance.
       ``(iv) Protection against inability to pay premiums or 
     copayments.--The State ensures that no child loses coverage 
     under title XIX or this title, or is denied needed care, as a 
     result of the child's parents' inability to pay any premiums 
     or cost-sharing required under such title.
       ``(v) Additional requirements.--The State has implemented 
     at least 3 of the following policies and procedures (relating 
     to coverage of children under title XIX and this title):

       ``(I) Simplified application form.--With respect to 
     children who are eligible for medical assistance under title 
     XIX, the State uses the same simplified application form 
     (including, if applicable, permitting application other than 
     in person) for purposes of establishing eligibility for 
     assistance under title XIX and this title.
       ``(II) Elimination of asset test.--The State does not apply 
     any asset test for eligibility under title XIX or this title 
     with respect to children.
       ``(III) Adoption of 12-month continuous enrollment.--The 
     State provides that eligibility shall not be regularly 
     redetermined more often than once every year under this title 
     or for children eligible for medical assistance under title 
     XIX.
       ``(IV) Same verification and redetermination policies; 
     automatic reassessment of eligibility.--With respect to 
     children who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     section 1902(a)(10)(A), the State provides for initial 
     eligibility determinations and redeterminations of 
     eligibility using the same verification policies (including 
     with respect to face-to-face interviews), forms, and 
     frequency as the State uses for such purposes under this 
     title, and, as part of such redeterminations, provides for 
     the automatic reassessment of the eligibility of such 
     children for assistance under title XIX and this title.
       ``(V) Outstationing enrollment staff.--The State provides 
     for the receipt and initial processing of applications for 
     benefits under this title and for children under title XIX at 
     facilities defined as disproportionate share hospitals under 
     section 1923(a)(1)(A) and Federally-qualified health centers 
     described in section 1905(l)(2)(B) consistent with section 
     1902(a)(55).''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2006, and shall apply to 
     expenditures described in section 2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii)) that are 
     made after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 3925. A bill to provide certain authorities for the Secretary of 
State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and for other purposes; 
read the first time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today at the 
request of the executive branch and will be seeking unanimous consent 
to request its passage as soon as possible. The Foreign Affairs 
Management Authorities Act of 2006 contains provisions requested by the 
State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors that will 
enable the two agencies to carry out their work more efficiently and 
effectively.
  Title I of this bill creates a new pay for performance system for 
Foreign Service officers with the rank of 01 and below and creates a 
uniform worldwide pay scale. The American Foreign Service Association 
supports these. I am including a letter from Anthony Holmes, the AFSA 
President.
  The Senior Foreign Service already participates in a pay for 
performance plan as mandated in previously enacted law, Section 
412(a)(2) PL108-447, Div. B. The legislation replaces ``within grade 
increases'' with a requirement that, upon the introduction of the new 
Foreign Service Schedule in April 2008, any further adjustments in pay 
are tied to individual performance rather than longevity of service. It 
directs the Secretary of State to pay to each member of the Service an 
adjustment taking

[[Page 18968]]

into account ``individual performance, contribution to the mission of 
the Department, or both, under a rigorous performance management system 
that makes meaningful distinctions based on relative performance and 
that clearly links individual pay and performance under precepts 
prescribed by the Secretary.'' Each Secretary/head of agency utilizing 
the Foreign Service personnel system may implement this section in a 
manner most suitable to the unique circumstances of his or her agency. 
Poor performers would get no increase in pay. As with the Senior 
Foreign Service, the pay for performance planned for the Foreign 
Service would utilize multiple levels of performance distinctions. 
Performance-based adjustments normally would be made only once in any 
12-month period.
  Title I also provides a number of employee protections. It 
specifically guarantees a minimum funding pool for performance-based 
pay adjustments to ensure that, in the aggregate, employees are not 
disadvantaged by conversion to the new pay system. It authorizes 
selection boards to rank order employees for the purpose of 
recommending pay for performance salary adjustments, and requires 
agencies that use selection boards for pay for performance to follow 
the selection board rankings in allocating salary increases, except in 
special circumstances. The legislation does not impact the negotiation 
of procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected 
employees with the employees' representative, the American Foreign 
Service Association, AFSA.
  Title I provides transitional authorities to the Secretary of State 
for use during the interim period before April 2008 when the new 
Foreign Service Schedule is established. It contains provisions that 
govern the conversion of employees to the new schedule and it provides 
for a one-year transition period from the current 14-step system. It 
also gives the Secretary authority to establish transitional rules that 
prevent a reduction in a member's rate of pay by reason of conversion 
to the new system, among other measures that are to be applied to 
provide for a smooth transition.
  In a long needed reform, Title I also provides uniform compensation 
for worldwide service by April 2008. It eliminates the disparity in pay 
between those serving in Washington, DC, and other domestic posts who 
receive locality pay increases and those serving overseas who do not. 
The discrepancy has skewed incentives to serve overseas and is 
inconsistent with mandatory worldwide and rotational assignment 
requirements. The Department estimates the cost of its three-stage 
transition to the new pay system to be $32 million in its 2007 budget, 
$64 million in 2008, and $32 million in 2009. The legislation provides 
for pay conversion and establishes temporary rules for the period 
leading up to April 2008 as the transition takes place.
  As Secretary Rice works to fill difficult posts around the world, 
including in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as our diplomats come 
increasingly under fire in tough places, it is common sense to 
restructure a pay system that, without reform, provides disincentives 
to serving overseas. The Foreign Service must know that our country 
stands behind them, appreciates their service, and is grateful for the 
contributions they make to the security of our country and the well-
being of our citizens.
  Title II contains a number of provisions that are contained in S.600, 
still being held on the Senate calendar. It also contains provisions 
that were requested by the executive branch subsequent to the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee's passage of S. 600. The provisions in 
Title II of this legislation are as follows:
  Section 201. Education allowances modifies current law to: 1. permit 
payment of certain fees required by overseas schools for successful 
completion of a course or grade; 2. allow for travel to the United 
States for children in kindergarten through 12th grade when schools at 
post are not adequate; 3. allow for education travel to a school 
outside the United States for children at the secondary and college 
level; 4. provide for educational travel at the graduate level for 
children who are still dependents (students older than 22 would be 
ineligible for such travel); and 5. allow the option of storing a 
child's personal effects near the school during their trip to post, 
rather than transporting the effects back and forth.
  Section 202. Fraud Prevention and Detection Account broadens the 
Secretary of State's authority to use a portion of fees collected for 
H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visas to investigate fraud in other visa categories, 
including fraud in connection with terrorist activities. Allowing an 
expanded use of the funds will assist the Department in developing a 
system that concentrates on H and L visa fraud, but will potentially 
reduce fraud among all visa classifications and increase the U.S. 
ability to disrupt terrorist travel.
  Section 203. Extension of Privileges and Immunities extends 
diplomatic privileges and immunities to the African Union Mission to 
the United States and to the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy 
See, and to members of both of these missions.
  Section 204. International Litigation Fund allows the Department to 
retain awards of costs and attorneys' fees when defending against 
international claims in addition to amounts currently allowed to be 
retained when it successfully prosecutes a claim.
  Section 205. Personal Services Contracting; BBG, the legislation 
extends for one year a pilot program allowing the BBG to hire 60 U.S. 
citizens or foreign nationals on contract rather than as full-time 
government employees. Such authority gives the BBG the flexibility to 
hire, for the short or medium-term, broadcasters and on-air hosts in 
difficult languages, some with many dialects. The BBG uses the 
authority, for example, for surge capacity in Urdu and Arabic.
  Inspector General, this section also establishes a limited authority 
for the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to 
hire personal service contractors (PSCs) to augment its ability to 
conduct oversight of programs and operations related to Afghanistan and 
Iraq. No more than 20 PSCs may be hired at any one time and, absent 
exceptional circumstances, the contract length for each PSC may not 
exceed two years. The Inspector General anticipates a need for 
additional staff once the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction's (SIGIR's) portfolio is either partially or fully 
transferred to the State Department. The OIG also expects an increase 
in short-term staffing needs to carry out oversight responsibilities 
related to Afghanistan.
  Section 206. Facilitating Service in Iraq and Afghanistan is a 
technical correction to an inadvertent drafting error in section 
1602(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, 
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (P.L. 109-234). 
The intent behind section 1602(a) was to provide the Secretary of State 
with additional authority to waive annuity limitations on reemployed 
Foreign Service annuitants to support U.S. efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As enacted, however, section 1602(a) has the unintended 
effect of cutting back significantly on the Secretary of State's pre-
existing authority to waive Foreign Service annuity limitations in an 
emergency involving a direct threat to life or property or other 
unusual circumstances, without regard to geographic location. This 
technical correction restores the Secretary's pre-existing authority 
and provides the intended additional authorities with respect to Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  Section 207. Discontinuance of Duplicative or Obsolete Reports 
discontinues a number of reports that have been overtaken by events or 
contain material that is covered in other executive branch submissions 
to the Congress.
  I ask my colleagues to give favorable and speedy consideration to 
this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 18969]]


                                                  American Foreign


                                          Service Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2006.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Lugar: On behalf of the 14,000 members of the 
     American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), please accept 
     out sincere appreciation for your leadership during the 109th 
     Session on a number of fronts of vital importance to our 
     members and to the United States. In particular, AFSA is 
     grateful for your determination to address the existing pay 
     disparity between Washington-based Foreign Service personnel 
     and those on assignment overseas. As you know, this pay 
     equity issue has been our highest priority for many years.
       I want you to know the great importance that AFSA attaches 
     to passing legislation this year that will make the changes 
     necessary to the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to permit a 
     unified worldwide pay schedule. We realize that there are 
     many issues that you and your colleagues are currently 
     grappling with and will try to get passed before the mid-term 
     election recess next week. Our great fear, one that we hope 
     you can help us avoid, is that our modest bill, so important 
     to our members, will be shunted aside with the 
     rationalization that it can always be taken up again later. 
     Mr. Chairman, we are afraid that your colleagues are in 
     danger of missing an exceptional, perhaps unique, opportunity 
     to resolve this pay equity issue and to guarantee a win/win 
     outcome for all concerned by creating a model pay-for-
     performance personnel system for the Foreign Service that 
     will be a shining example for the rest of the federal 
     government.
       The current inequity is profoundly unfair and undermines 
     the moral of our Country's diplomatic corps. The U.S. Foreign 
     Service must have all the tools it needs to implement our 
     diplomatic and national security priorities around the globe, 
     often under extremely challenging circumstances. One vital 
     tool our nation can provide the men and women of the Foreign 
     Service and their families is the validation of their 
     essential efforts abroad that ending this pay disparity would 
     provide. With the increasing difficulty of service overseas 
     and continuing threats against American officials abroad, 
     this measure would be the single most important morale 
     booster that the Congress could provide, Conversely, a lack 
     of immediate action on the proposed legislation would be a 
     profound disappointment to our members.
       Mr, Chairman, I know that you fully understand that Foreign 
     Service members should not be penalized for serving abroad 
     with a 17.5 percent pay cut. That simply isn't right. It is 
     our sincere hope that you can persuade Congress to act on 
     this issue now or a crucial opportunity will be lost.
       Again, thank you for your leadership. AFSA is most grateful 
     for your support and friendship.
           Sincerely,
                                                J. Anthony Holmes,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 3926. A bill to provide for the energy, economic, and national 
security of America, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I gave a speech a couple weeks ago about 
the situation in the Middle East. I want to just do a reprise of that 
in brief to discuss the context of introducing today what we call the 
Empower America: Securing America's Energy Future Act.
  It comes from the basis that I believe we are facing in this 
country--a threat. We are, in my opinion, already in the very early 
stages of a world war. We can act now to make this threat--which I 
believe is a serious one but not yet fully actualized--less severe if 
we do certain things. One of them, as you will hear at the conclusion 
of my remarks, will be focusing on our energy situation here at home.
  One of the things I hear as a frustration of so many people I talk to 
in Pennsylvania is they look at the conflicts we are in in Afghanistan, 
Iraq, and other places in the world, and they don't see an end or a 
strategy of how we succeed. I suggest that part of that strategy is in 
creating energy security and developing a whole host of energy 
resources in this country so that we are not dependent upon--or as 
dependent upon foreign sources of energy and that we develop the new 
technologies that will allow America to continue to grow and keep 
prices down, and not just because I want to keep them down for 
consumers, which is great, but so we are not providing enormous riches 
for people to develop nuclear weapons and turn around and harm the 
United States and our allies.
  I believe the threat we face can be analyzed in a three-pronged 
approach. As I said on the floor last week or the week before, we face 
a threat, an enemy most people refer to as terrorists. I do not refer 
to them as terrorists; I refer to them as who they are: radical Islamic 
fascists. They have an ideology. These are not people who kill for the 
purpose of killing. They don't kill because of hatred. They kill 
because they have a belief, an objective.
  I know that for a year or two, the President, right after 9/11, 
referred to these terrorists as ``cowards.'' I notice that he doesn't 
do that anymore. I don't know of anybody who does that anymore. There 
is a reason: They are not cowards at all. These are people with great 
conviction. Some would even say that, in a demented way, they have 
great courage. But they are certainly not cowards. Calling them cowards 
gives the wrong impression to the American people that we are fighting 
a foe who is afraid of us or afraid of something. The problem is they 
seem to be afraid of very little when it comes to this world. They are 
willing to give up their lives. In fact, they want to give up their 
lives, and their objective, by the way, is to take as many other lives 
in the process. The object in this war is not territory; the object of 
this war is submission and death.
  So we are not dealing with a group of cowards. When we tell the 
American public we are dealing with cowards, they don't think this is a 
serious enemy that can defeat us. America would never lose to a group 
of cowards. But we can lose to a group of fanatical, zealous Islamists, 
who have a clear mission and a clear methodology by which to accomplish 
that mission.
  These are people who are very serious about what they want to do, 
whether it is radical Sunnis or radical Shias. They have an objective 
and a common enemy--as does the radical left, represented so comically, 
in my opinion, so ridiculously, by the speech of Hugo Chavez yesterday 
at the United Nations. What do Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, President of Iran, 
and Hugo Chavez have in common? Nothing except their hatred of 
everything this country holds dear--freedom, democracy, and individual 
human rights. That is what they hate. I would suggest they have as much 
in common as Mussolini and Hitler and Tojo. They had very little in 
common ideologically. The Japanese believed in the superiority of the 
Japanese race and wanted to conquer and rule the world. Hitler didn't 
believe in that, but they formed an alliance because there was a common 
enemy.
  That is the case here. We are seeing it. It is, hopefully, a 
frightening sight put on display over the last couple of days at the 
United Nations, as this character of a President, this ridiculous 
diatribe Hugo Chavez presented to the U.N. received applause from many 
around the world--most leaders around the world. This is a serious 
threat. We can look at it and put it in political terms and say we went 
to war for the wrong reason and this or that wasn't true. But that is 
looking in the rearview mirror when we have a huge threat. So they have 
an ideology and a common enemy.
  Secondly, they have a very effective methodology by which to conduct 
this war. It is one that doesn't require the kind of coordination and 
resources a traditional military campaign would require. They don't 
need to conquer land, to hold ground; they simply need to kill people 
every day. And they do--every day. And we cover it in America every 
day. American people watch it every day. And every day, the resolve of 
the American people is eroded. The resolve of the American people is 
eroded because--I will use the words of Osama bin Laden--because we 
Americans love life and the radical Islamists love death. That is how 
he said he would defeat us, because of America's and the West's love 
for life and respect for life, their attachment to this world, to the 
modern world, and the radical Islamist's attachment not to this world 
at all but to death, which, in their minds, means life--a better life 
with Allah. That is their objective, their methodology. Their 
methodology is to prey upon what they believe is the weakness of 
America, what they believe is the weakness of the West,

[[Page 18970]]

which is the fact that we respect life, love life, we have human 
rights, and we believe in freedom. We believe it is our objective in 
this world to make it a better world. They don't care about that at 
all. So terror is a uniquely effective tactic that fits well into their 
culture of death and is particularly effective against our culture of 
life.
  In addition, they are trying to develop a new weapon; that is, a 
nuclear weapon. Iran has made it very clear and Chavez has announced 
his intention to develop a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction 
to use, in the words of Ahmadi-Nejad, ``to wipe Israel off the face of 
the earth'' and use that weaponry to get the rest of the Western World 
to submit to their radical, fanatical brand of Islam.
  This is their ultimate threat. This is the ultimate tactic of death 
and terror--to have a country that is committed publicly to using 
nuclear weapons not to defend itself, not to gain an earthly dominion 
over the world, but to cause mass chaos and destruction, in the case of 
Iran, for a religious purpose, because what they seek to accomplish is 
the return of the Hidden or 12th Imam. That is the 12th descendant of 
the Prophet Muhammad who, in the late 800s, went into hiding, according 
to the Shia religion, and is destined to return as the messiah of the 
Islamic faith at the end of times--the end of times meaning Armageddon. 
The interesting twist that the radical Shia project onto the world 
stage today is they believe it is their obligation to bring about the 
return of the Hidden or 12th Imam by causing a modern-day Armageddon. 
That is what they believe. You may not have heard this before, but let 
me assure you, that is what they believe. That is what they say. That 
is what they talk about all the time, that this is their objective. It 
is a messianic vision; they are being compelled by their faith.
  Some pass it off as a bunch of dictators who are just using religion 
to prop themselves up, to maintain control, or to try to dominate 
bigger areas of the world. Well, that would be bad enough. That would 
be dangerous enough. But I think we underestimate them when we say 
that. I think we underestimate President Ahmadi-Nejad and the ruling 
mullahs of Iran when we say that. I believe they are true believers, 
and I don't think we can afford the luxury of not believing that they 
believe this. I don't think we can dismiss them as another group of 
two-bit tyrants. These are two-bit tyrants who have billions upon 
billions of dollars and have allies like North Korea, who have access 
to nuclear technology. They have scientists from Russia who left Russia 
because there is nothing for them to do, and they are in Tehran today 
developing rocketry and the nuclear capability to project that power.
  Some would say I am beating the drums of war. No. I am accurately 
describing the situation at hand. Some disagree with me, and they are 
welcome to. Do you want to take that chance? Do you want to take the 
chance of having a nuclear weapon? They are clear about their intention 
of developing it. Do you want to take that chance? I don't.
  How did this happen? Radical Islam has been present in the Middle 
East for a long time. We have not heard much from them except when? In 
the last 30, 40 years. Why? The price of oil. It is oil, to begin with, 
and now the high price of oil. It gives them the resources to not only 
feed the people to keep them in power but to produce weapons to project 
power. The only reason, again, they have those resources is because of 
this one three-letter word--oil--which brings me back to the beginning 
of this discussion.
  If we are going to defeat radical fascist Islam, then we have to have 
a strategy to take resources away from them so they cannot project the 
power they can today. The only way to do that is by developing a more 
secure energy future for America and reducing our dependency on that 
oil, which would reduce the price of energy around the world. We need 
to encourage not only alternative energy production in this country; we 
have to do so around the world. We have to do so around the world by 
using alternative technology such as, for example, as I talk about in 
the bill, coal.
  One of the greatest new energy consumers in the world is China. They 
don't have a lot of oil, but they have a lot of coal. So it is an 
opportunity for us, with coal to gas and coal to liquid fuels 
technology, developing and commercializing that technology. And it is 
not just going to be coal to liquid fuels, but if you talk to folks in 
the business who are developing these plants right now--and one is 
being developed in Pennsylvania, which I have been involved with--they 
believe they can use all sorts of organic matter, such as waste 
products, to blend in with the coal to be able to produce liquid fuel.
  We need to have that technology in America, and they need to have 
that technology, and they are developing it, by the way, in China. We 
need to create from the vast amount of energy opportunities that we 
have in America and around the world new technologies so oil becomes 
less of a valuable commodity. This is one concrete way we can fight the 
war on radical Islamic fascism.
  I have put together a bill that talks about making--it does, if it 
would be passed--a huge investment, a huge investment in alternative 
technologies, a huge investment in coal, a huge investment in 
renewables to create a more secure energy future for America. We can no 
longer talk about how we are going to do this or that we will do it at 
some future date. We must act now, quickly. We need to provide support 
for the commercialization of this technology. We are not going to see 
energy produced at $20 a barrel, the equivalent of oil. We are not 
going to see it done at $30 or $40 a barrel. It may be more expensive. 
We have to make sure we provide proper support in loan guarantees, 
incentives, and tax credits to make this a profitable venture and a 
secure venture for people to invest in.
  This is not something that normally I have come to the Chamber and 
said that this is the Government's job. This is national security. This 
is not about subsidizing big business. This is about producing energy 
here for the security of our country. We either make the investment 
here or we pay a horrible price, human as well as financial, in the 
future.
  We need to think big, and we need to think now. That is why--when I 
spoke about the comments the Senator from Louisiana made before I came 
to the floor on opening up OCS--it is unconscionable for us to look at 
the national security situation we look at today, to look at the 
subsidies we are providing to our enemies and say: Oh, oh, we can't 
explore for oil in Alaska or OCS. Oh, we are worried about the 
environment.
  I am worried about the environment, too. In my State of Pennsylvania, 
in the western part of our State, we drill 3,000 gas wells a year--
3,000--on farms, in neighborhoods, outside neighborhoods, in people's 
backyards. At Oakmont Country Club, which is where the U.S. Open is 
going to be played, they are going to drill a gas well right next to 
Oakmont Country Club. That is pretty much an environmental area. Nobody 
wants to pollute Oakmont Country Club. We are going to drill a gas well 
there.
  Yet there are people on this floor who won't drill those wells in 
Alaska where nobody goes, where nobody is. As a result, our country is 
at risk. We feed an enemy huge resources to combat us in their attempt 
to destroy us. It is unconscionable for us, a country that produces oil 
and gas cleaner and more efficiently than any other country in the 
world, to allow our enemy to hold us, not just hostage, but to gain 
resources to destroy us because we placate an interest group who funds, 
campaigns, and influences voters.
  I know many in this Chamber and many in this country do not believe 
we are at war or do not believe this war is serious. Time will tell. I 
think, unfortunately, time will tell us in a relatively short period of 
time how serious this is, and we will look back on this time as we 
stood year after year for the past 10 years twiddling our thumbs, not 
doing what we can do to provide a more secure energy future for this 
country, and we will look back in horror of the blinders, of the scales 
we had on our eyes that we could not see the threat before us.

[[Page 18971]]

  We must do something. The bill I am introducing today is a 
comprehensive package that does a lot to make America a safer country, 
first and foremost, from a national security perspective and, secondly, 
from an economic perspective.
  I know we only have a week left. The Senator from Louisiana talked 
about trying to get a bill done. Let's get something done. I plead for 
us to get something done to create some new sources of energy for this 
country, to put some downward pressure on world market prices. It is 
essential for us to do so.
  We need to make this commitment for the future of our country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER.
  S. 3927. A bill to require the placement of blast-resistant cargo 
containers on all commercial passenger aircraft; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was pleased that the Senate leadership 
finally agreed to consider a port security bill last week. It is high 
time we did more about security at our ports.
  Our ports are a soft target. We knew this before 9/11 and many 
experts have warned us since that terrible day that our ports are 
vulnerable to attack.
  Since the port security bill was signed into law at the end of 2002, 
we have not moved forward on port security, and it remains dangerously 
underfunded. Since the 9/11 attacks, we have spent only $816 million on 
port security grants, despite Coast Guard estimates that $5.4 billion 
is needed over 10 years.
  Addressing port security is critical. However, security for other 
transportation modes is important, but the Republican leadership wanted 
us to do port security and nothing else.
  Through the efforts of many Senators, provisions for rail and transit 
security were included. But, the final bill the Senate approved does 
not contain any major provisions for aviation security. Yes, aviation 
security has improved greatly in the last five years. But, as we 
recently found out with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the 
British authorities, there are still holes in the system.
  Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has implemented new 
security procedures since we learned of the London terror plot to 
detonate liquid explosives on flights from Great Britain to the United 
States. While I support these new procedures, TSA is asking passengers 
to give up their lip gloss, yet we are not examining cargo loaded on 
board our passenger planes.
  I am pleased that the Department of Homeland Security will launch a 
pilot program at San Francisco Airport, SFO, this October to check all 
commercial cargo for explosives on passenger flights.
  We should be doing this at every airport to ensure the security of 
the flying public and the solvency of the airline industry. But until 
that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast 
resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This 
was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  For several years, I have been working to get these containers on 
planes.
  Currently, TSA is undertaking a pilot project using these containers, 
some of which are made with Kevlar, for cargo. But we must move past 
pilot programs.
  We should use blast-resistant containers for cargo on all passenger 
planes. That is why I an introducing a bill to do just that.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended, TSA should require that every 
passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened 
container to carry any suspect cargo. Therefore, all passenger planes 
should have at least one blast-resistant container for cargo.
  To place one blast-resistant container on each plane, it would cost 
about $75 million--this is equal to the cost of a little more than 5 
hours in Iraq. Imagine the impact on the security of the country and 
the financial outlook for the airline industry if a plane were to 
explode during a flight.
  We owe this to the American people. We cannot allow terrorists to 
exploit holes in our aviation security system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 3928. A bill to provide for the Office of Domestic Preparedness of 
the Department of Homeland Security to provide grants to local 
governments for public awareness education relating to preparedness for 
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and influenza pandemic; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in the last 5 years, Americans have faced 
both devastating terrorist attacks and natural disasters. We have also 
been warned that an avian flu pandemic is a strong possibility.
  In California, we have had fires, floods, mudslides, and 
earthquakes--thankfully not the big one.
  We have learned that disasters are inevitable. Being prepared is 
crucial--especially when the American people cannot rely on the Federal 
Government, which was demonstrated by the poor Federal response in 
Hurricane Katrina. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael 
Chertoff has even said, People should be prepared to sustain themselves 
for up to 72 hours after a disaster.
  Therefore, being prepared and knowing how to respond in the days 
following a natural disaster is extremely important. However, people do 
not know how to prepare, and, unfortunately, local governments may lack 
the resources to educate their residents.
  According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County officials 
could not afford to distribute pamphlets on earthquake preparedness for 
individuals with special needs.
  That is why I am pleased to introduce legislation that will provide 
grants, through the Department of Homeland Security's Office of 
Domestic Preparedness, to local governments to educate the public about 
how to deal with natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and an influenza 
pandemic.
  It is important that we work to make sure that local communities are 
able to prepare their citizens to deal with future disasters.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

                          ____________________