[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2029-2051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
        and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 2293. A bill to authorize a military construction project for the 
construction of an advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army 
Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President I am reminded daily of the sacrifice of the 
men and women of this country who serve or have loved ones who serve in 
our armed forces. As a Tennessean I often think of the courage and 
honor displayed by members of the 101st Airborne out of Fort Campbell 
and the many Guardsmen and Reservists from my State who have served in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan. These soldiers, many of whom call Tennessee 
home, make great sacrifices for our Nation. I am

[[Page 2030]]

saddened to think about those who have been wounded in recent military 
operations and in some cases are so severely injured that they require 
extensive medical care, along with years of treatment and 
rehabilitation. Their future quality of life and ability to provide for 
their families depends on the treatment and rehabilitation they receive 
from the country they have served.
  As a physician I marvel at the great work of my colleagues in the 
Armed Services Medical Commands who treat the most severely injured 
military personnel. The use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq has 
resulted in many injuries including amputations, head trauma, and in 
some cases partial and full paralysis. We must meet the care and 
rehabilitation needs of the soldiers who have sacrificed so much for 
our country.
  With this in mind I have joined with Senator Lieberman to sponsor a 
bill to authorize the construction of a world-class state-of-the-art 
advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army Medical Center. This 
center will not only serve military personnel disabled in operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, but will also provide care to those severely 
injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their 
duties, both combat and non-combat related.
  This center will provide necessary space and facilities for the 
rehabilitation needs of the patients and their caregivers. It will be 
constructed on a site sufficient in size to meet the needs of the 
center's patients and caregivers and will include top of the line 
indoor and outdoor facilities, a child care center, and other needed 
support facilities. I am proud of the service of our military personnel 
both past and present, and this new facility will go a long way in 
helping to meet their needs both now and into the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2294. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the 
coast of the State of California, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, with my friend and colleague from 
California, Dianne Feinstein, I introduce the ``California Ocean and 
Coastal Protection Act.'' This bill will permanently protect 
California's coast from the dangers of new offshore drilling.
  In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the 
protection of our oceans and coastlines. Many years ago, my State 
decided that the potential benefits that might be derived from future 
offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying 
our priceless coastal treasures. Regular chronic leakage associated 
with normal oil and gas operations, as well as catastrophic spills such 
as the horrific Santa Barbara rig blowout in 1969, irreparably 
contaminate our ocean, beaches, and wetlands.
  The beauty of California's coast is so important that California 
passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil and gas exploration in 
State waters in 1994. This protection is limited, however, to 
California's territorial waters--only three nautical miles out from 
shore.
  The Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond 
State waters to 200 nautical miles out, are increasingly at risk of 
drilling. Despite years of bipartisan support for the moratoria on new 
offshore drilling in Federal waters, recent efforts are threatening our 
coasts. Some recent proposals would immediately lift the moratoria and 
allow for drilling within 20 miles off our coasts. Last year's energy 
bill included provisions to conduct an inventory of oil and gas 
resources on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This inventory would be 
performed with seismic guns that could have devastating impacts on 
marine life.
  Because of these threats, I am introducing legislation to provide 
permanent protection for California's coast from future drilling. It 
would also prohibit the harmful inventory of OCS resources from being 
conducted off California's coast.
  The people of California agree that we must do everything we can to 
protect our coasts. This bill will finally provide the permanent 
protection against future drilling that Californians have demanded for 
a generation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator 
Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil 
and gas drilling.
  We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil 
spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying 
ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to 
permanently protect this treasure.
  California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the 
moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling 
and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36 
undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer 
Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.
  The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the 
federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California 
and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential 
deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/
3/05.
  That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently 
protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.
  California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of 
California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the 
Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing 
any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas 
leasing activities.
  Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean 
Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal 
legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing 
must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium 
and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to 
Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.
  Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore 
drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed 
thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this 
could happen again.
  A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of 
life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion 
to California each year.
  Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want 
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the 
coast of California with the permanent protection needed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2295. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a 
survey and monitoring of off-shore sites in the vicinity of the 
Hawaiian Islands where chemical munitions were disposed of by the Army 
Forces, to support research regarding the public and environmental 
health impacts of chemical munitions disposal in the ocean, and to 
require the preparation of a report on remediation plans for such 
disposal sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed 
to address the disposal of chemical weapons by the military from World 
War II until 1970. A report titled, Off-Shore Disposal of Chemical 
Agents and Weapons Conducted by the United States, lists possible sites 
and types of munitions that may be found in Hawaii.
  The Department of Defense has made tremendous strides in protecting 
the health and welfare of our citizens. However, it still is working on 
being better stewards of our environment. I am pleased the Army has 
taken preliminary steps to investigate these munition disposal sites in 
and around Hawaii. Given the health and safety threats that these 
munitions may pose, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Army 
will obtain a full accounting of the munitions found and the state of 
their condition. Furthermore, it requires the Army to monitor these 
areas for any health, safety, and environmental risks that these 
weapons may

[[Page 2031]]

pose. Lastly, and more important, the Army will provide a report on 
remediation plans for these areas.
  Sadly the issue of disposing hazardous ordnance and waste is not new 
to the State of Hawaii. Our citizens are keenly aware of the dangers 
that hazardous waste poses to the health and safety of the public and 
the environment. In fact, Departments of Defense installations are 
responsible for generating half of all hazardous waste in Hawaii. For 
these reasons, it is important for Congress to send the right message, 
specifically in this case, and ensure that the Army completes its 
survey, monitors the sites, and provides a plan for remediation. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to 
ensure that, if the Department of Defense is responsible for disposing 
of hazardous materials, wherever it may be, then it should be held 
accountable for monitoring and providing a plan for remediation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
        Leahy):
  S. 2296. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the 
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and 
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation 
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration 
of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a 
document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of 
Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the 
internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics 
lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will 
propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all.
  The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast 
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That 
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill 
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially 
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from 
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to 
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
  This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm 
across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an 
immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of 
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with 
Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help 
of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese 
descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately 
2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were 
held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in 
an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never 
set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.
  Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of 
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin 
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner 
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and 
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America, but 
some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin 
refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.
  When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin 
Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a 
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories 
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps 
in our country.
  The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. 
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled 
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, 
intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because 
this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to 
fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include 
in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
  I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would 
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts 
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin 
Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and 
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would 
give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain 
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
  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. 2296

       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 ``Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     Descent Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in 
     December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
     Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
       (1) During World War II, the United States--
       (A) expanded its internment program and national security 
     investigations to conduct the program and investigations in 
     Latin America; and
       (B) financed relocation to the United States, and 
     internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin 
     Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held 
     by Axis countries.
       (2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held 
     in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps 
     operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 
     1941 through 1948.
       (3) Those men, women, and children either--
       (A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment 
     by local police, and sent to the United States for 
     internment; or
       (B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily 
     entered internment camps to remain with their arrested 
     husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
       (4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans 
     of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the 
     individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department 
     of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American 
     countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior 
     to departure.
       (5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American 
     internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and 
     treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal 
     aliens in United States custody who were subject to 
     deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United 
     States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese 
     descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United 
     States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin 
     America, detained in internment camps in the United States, 
     and in some cases, deported to Axis countries to enable the 
     United States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to 
     Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the

[[Page 2032]]

     Secretary of War to prescribe military areas). Although the 
     United States program of interning Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive 
     Order 9066, an examination of that extraordinary program is 
     necessary to establish a complete account of Federal actions 
     to detain and intern civilians of enemy or foreign 
     nationality, particularly of Japanese descent. Although 
     historical documents relating to the program exist in distant 
     archives, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment 
     of Civilians did not research those documents.
       (8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a 
     group not covered by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.), which formally apologized and 
     provided compensation payments to former Japanese Americans 
     interned pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a 
     fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission 
     on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to 
     investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries 
     of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
     through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
     United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any, 
     based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and 
     new discoveries.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Commission on 
     Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, who shall be appointed not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, of whom--
       (1) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the House of Representatives and the 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
       (3) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
       (d) Meetings.--
       (1) First meeting.--The President shall call the first 
     meeting of the Commission not later than the later of--
       (A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation 
     making appropriations to carry out this Act.
       (2) Subsequent meetings.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (1), the Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (e) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve for 
     the life of the Commission.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the 
     Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 
     Act--
       (A) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances 
     surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and 
     deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the 
     impact of those actions by the United States; and
       (B) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to 
     review directives of the United States armed forces and the 
     Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in 
     internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries; and
       (2) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on 
     preliminary findings by the original Commission and new 
     discoveries.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission pursuant to section 3(d)(1), 
     the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress, 
     which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation 
     conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations 
     described in subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any 
     subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act--
       (1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries, 
     sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, 
     receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the 
     Commission or such subcommittee or member considers 
     advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or 
     member considers advisable.
       (b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall 
     bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and 
     shall be served by any person or class of persons designated 
     by the Chairperson for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may 
     issue an order requiring such person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court 
     may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
       (c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--Section 1821 of title 28, 
     United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or 
     subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission. The 
     per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid 
     from funds available to pay the expenses of the Commission.
       (d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to perform 
     its duties. Upon request of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

     SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may 
     be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
       (1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services to procure necessary financial and administrative 
     services;
       (2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and 
     property; and
       (3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the 
     conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, 
     and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report to Congress under 
     section 4(b).

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act for 
     fiscal year 2007.

[[Page 2033]]

       (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this section shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2298. A bill to facilitate remediation of perchlorate 
contamination in water sources in the State of California, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill 
today to help California drinking water providers address the growing 
problem of perchlorate contamination.
  The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes 
funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.
  The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation 
of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8 
million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more 
efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.
  The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental 
Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard 
for perchlorate as soon as practicable.
  The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel, 
missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.
  The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s. 
Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced 
in the country's rocket and missile inventories.
  Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly 
from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has 
allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.
  Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a 
serious threat to public health.
  Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid 
gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production, 
perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid 
helps regulate metabolism.
  Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of 
perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper 
development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate. 
Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's 
physical and mental development.
  Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova, 
CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered 
perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern 
California.
  By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the 
Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water 
supplies of 12 States.
  According to the California Department of Health Services at least 
350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water 
agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.
  But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by 
Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water 
supplies of 35 States.
  The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being 
defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which 
perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.
  Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated 
drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed 
to at least trace levels of perchlorate.
  In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the 
results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food. 
The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken 
from 5 different States, including California.
  The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken 
from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also 
contained perchlorate.
  Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University 
found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The 
milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.
  With such widespread contamination in my State and across the 
country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the 
most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant 
women, and those with compromised immune systems.
  Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are 
facing. As the population grows, so do the demands on our water supply. 
During times of drought, these demands are particularly challenging.
  States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are 
increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with 
perchlorate and other pollutants.
  When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from 
perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional 
water agencies to fix.
  These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering 
drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these 
challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department 
activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.
  Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of 
releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.
  I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the 
cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a 
handful of contaminated sites.
  In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken 
out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities 
and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources, 
often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly 
perchlorate removal equipment.
  This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for 
perchlorate remediation projects.
  Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35 
States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.
  I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would 
address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that 
those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this 
issue.
  Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In 
the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to 
establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate 
in drinking water.
  The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary 
guideline for perchlorate.
  Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public 
Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action 
Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18 
parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5 
parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per 
billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part 
per billion.
  Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory 
guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public 
about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that 
strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.
  Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a 
national standard for perchlorate.
  This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to 
remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by 
providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.
  To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our 
water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation 
solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for 
grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient 
perchlorate cleanup technologies.
  It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public 
health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should 
promulgate

[[Page 2034]]

a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the timeline 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.
  Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on 
the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking 
water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water 
sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state 
and throughout the West.
  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. 2298

       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 ``California Perchlorate 
     Contamination Remediation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) because finite water sources in the United States are 
     stretched by regional drought conditions and increasing 
     demand for water supplies, there is increased need for safe 
     and dependable supplies of fresh water for drinking and 
     agricultural purposes;
       (2) perchlorate, a naturally occurring and manmade compound 
     with commercial and national defense applications, is used 
     primarily in military munitions and rocket fuels, and also in 
     fireworks, road flares, blasting agents, and automobile 
     airbags;
       (3) perchlorate has been detected in fresh water sources 
     intended for drinking water and agricultural use in 35 States 
     and the District of Columbia;
       (4)(A) perchlorate has been detected in the food supply of 
     the United States; and
       (B) many fruits and vegetables, including lettuce, wheat, 
     tomato, cucumber, and cantaloupe, contain at least trace 
     levels of perchlorate, as do wine, whiskey, soy milk, dairy 
     milk, and human breast milk; and
       (5) if ingested in sufficient concentration and for 
     adequate duration, perchlorate may interfere with thyroid 
     metabolism, the effects of which may impair normal 
     development of the brain in fetuses, newborns, and children.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide grants for remediation of perchlorate 
     contamination of water sources and supplies (including 
     wellheads) in the State;
       (2) to provide grants for research and development of 
     perchlorate remediation technologies; and
       (3) to express the sense of Congress that the Administrator 
     should establish a national drinking water standard for 
     perchlorate.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) California water authority.--The term ``California 
     water authority'' means a public water district, public water 
     utility, public water planning agency, municipality, or 
     Indian tribe that is--
       (A) located in a region identified under section 
     4(b)(3)(B); and
       (B) in operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the California 
     Perchlorate Cleanup Fund established by section 4(a)(1).
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     California.

     SEC. 4. CALIFORNIA PERCHLORATE REMEDIATION GRANTS.

       (a) Perchlorate Cleanup Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund, to be known as the ``California 
     Perchlorate Cleanup Fund'', consisting of--
       (A) any amount appropriated to the Fund under section 7; 
     and
       (B) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Fund under paragraph (3).
       (2) Expenditures from fund.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), on receipt of 
     a request by the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall transfer to the Administrator such amounts as the 
     Administrator determines to be necessary to provide grants 
     under subsections (b) and (c).
       (B) Administrative expenses.--An amount not to exceed 0.4 
     percent of the amounts in the Fund may be used to pay the 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (3) Investment of amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals.
       (B) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be made 
     only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
       (C) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (i) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (D) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (E) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
       (b) Cleanup Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     Administrator shall provide grants to California water 
     authorities, the total amount of which shall not exceed 
     $50,000,000, to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     activities relating to cleanup of water sources and supplies 
     (including wellheads) in the State that are contaminated by 
     perchlorate.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 
     percent.
       (3) Eligibility; priority.--
       (A) Eligibility.--A California water authority that the 
     Administrator determines to be responsible for perchlorate 
     contamination shall not be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection.
       (B)  Priority.--
       (i) Activities.--In providing grants under this subsection, 
     the Administrator shall give priority to an activity for the 
     remediation of--

       (I) drinking water contaminated with perchlorate;
       (II) a water source with a high concentration of 
     perchlorate; or
       (III) a water source that serves a large population that is 
     directly affected by perchlorate contamination.

       (ii) Locations.--In providing grants under this subsection, 
     the Administrator shall give priority to an activity 
     described in clause (i) that is carried out in 1 or more of 
     the following regions in the State:

       (I) The Santa Clara Valley.
       (II) Regions within the natural watershed of the Santa Ana 
     River, including areas in Riverside and San Bernardino 
     Counties.
       (III) The San Gabriel Valley.
       (IV) Sacramento County.
       (V) Any other region that has a damaged water source as a 
     result of perchlorate contamination, as determined by the 
     Administrator.

       (c) Research and Development Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide grants, 
     the total amount of which shall not exceed $8,000,000, to 
     qualified non-Federal entities (as determined by the 
     Administrator) for use in carrying out research and 
     development of perchlorate remediation technologies.
       (2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $1,000,000.

     SEC. 5. EFFECT OF ACT.

       Nothing in this Act affects any authority or program of a 
     Federal or State agency in existence on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator should 
     establish a national drinking water standard for perchlorate 
     that reflects all routes of exposure to perchlorate as soon 
     as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $58,000,000, to remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2299. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to restore Federal aid for the repair, 
restoration, and replacement of private nonprofit educational 
facilities that are damaged or destroyed by a major disaster; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise provide a bit of background 
regarding legislation that I am introducing today. The bill that I am 
sending to the desk would provide independent colleges and universities 
with direct, immediate aid through the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA. Additionally, the bill would assist the recovery of non-
profit education institutions from the extensive damage they sustain 
during natural disasters.
  During crises, the critical role that small colleges and universities 
play in our communities is often overlooked or underestimated. In 
Louisiana, many of our colleges and universities are not only important 
in educating our students, but also in bolstering our economy.

[[Page 2035]]

  In my home State, this legislation would benefit Delgado Community 
College, Dillard University, Loyola University New Orleans, Nunez 
Community College, Our Lady of Holy Cross College, Southern University 
at New Orleans, Sowela Technical Community College, Tulane University 
of Louisiana, University of New Orleans, McNeese State University and 
Xavier University of Louisiana.
  Under current law, ``education'' has been omitted from the list of 
``critical services'' for which facility repair assistance can be 
awarded directly and immediately. Until 2000, when Congress changed the 
law, education was always eligible for direct FEMA assistance for 
facility damages. This legislation simply restores education to its 
rightful position as a recognized critical service.
  This is the only place in Federal law governing disaster assistance 
that makes this distinction between non-profit and public colleges and 
universities. This equity must be restored. This legislation is not a 
demand for the start of a new program, but the restoration of these 
institutions long-held position under Federal law.
  Recent media reports in the New York Times and USA Today have 
featured stories depicting the massive backlog of applications for aid 
options for those institutions not eligible for immediate, direct FEMA 
assistance. When disasters strike these institutions, which often 
already have limited resources, they incur an extensive range of costs 
for which they cannot secure any immediate Federal reimbursement or 
resources. These institutions cannot afford to lose a semester and 
neither can their students. They should be able to go directly to FEMA 
immediately, just as others do.
  Congressman Kendrick Meek introduced a companion bill, H.R. 4517, in 
December and I look forward to working with him on this legislation. 
Our colleges and universities are something we cannot afford to ignore 
and they are vital to rebuilding the State of Louisiana. I hope that my 
colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation 
to support our colleges and universities in this time of need.
                                 ______
                                 
      Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Lott):
  S. 2300. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to market exclusivity for certain drugs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower 
PRICED Drugs Act. I want to thank Senator Trent Lott for joining me on 
this important legislation, and for his leadership in increasing the 
availability of affordable generic drugs.
  I am very pleased that our legislation is supported by AARP, General 
Motors Corporation, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Families 
USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Care 
Management Association, PCMA, the National Association of Chain Drug 
Stores, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical 
Marketplace--an organization including large national employers and 
insurers.
  We know that greater availability of generic drugs translates into 
dramatic savings for consumers, manufacturers, businesses, and 
taxpayers. Of the 25 top selling drugs in 2004, the only one that did 
not increase in price was a drug available both in generic and over-
the-counter form. And, according to the National Association of Chain 
Drug Stores, while the average retail price for a brand drug in 2004 
was $96.01 the average retail price for a generic was $28.74, a savings 
of nearly 70 percent.
  It's a very well known principle of economics: competition lowers 
prices.
  But we don't need to rely on economic theory; we only have to look at 
what is happening with drug prices. Of the top five brand name drugs, 
by retail sales, the average price for 1 month's use of the cheapest 
among them is just over $76, and the 3rd most popular drug--zocor--is 
more than $140 per month. That's $1,680 per year for an important drug 
to lower cholesterol levels. The average price of the most popular five 
drugs--none of which faces generic competition--is over $114.
  There is nothing to hold down the prices of these drugs, and in fact, 
even though many of them have been on the market for years and years, 
their prices continue to increase. I first checked the prices of these 
drugs last November, and then again on Monday of this week. The prices 
this week are higher, by several dollars in many cases, than they were 
last year.
  However, consider the prices consumers pay for drugs for which there 
are generic equivalents. The most frequently dispensed generic drugs 
are hydrocodone, lisinopril, atenolol, amoxicillin and 
hydrocholorothiazide. Not only are these important drugs, used to treat 
pain, high blood pressure, and bacterial infections, considerably more 
affordable than their brand name equivalents, the average generic price 
is $9.34, representing a savings of more than 60 percent from the 
average brand price of $24.74, but the presence of competition has 
another important effect: The average price of these brand name drugs 
is a lot lower than the average price of brand drugs that don't face 
competition.
  While the generic provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, 
made important progress, there still isn't timely competition in the 
pharmaceutical market.
  New loopholes have been found to keep generics off the market, and 
keep prices higher than they need to be. In fact, in 2004, a year after 
AMA passed, brand name prescription drug prices rose by 7.1 percent, 
the biggest single-year price hike in 5 years.
  Our bill would close several loopholes that prevent and delay 
generics from coming to market. It will increase access to affordable 
generic drugs and save consumers, businesses and Federal health 
programs billions of dollars annually.
  The Lower PRICED Drugs Act would prevent abuse of the current 
pediatric exclusivity provision. It would ensure that pediatric 
exclusivity is used as intended, to generate information about the use 
of drugs in children, and prevent brand drug companies from keeping 
more affordable generic alternatives of drugs not suitable for 
children, or never studied in children, off the market.
  For example, Pravigard PAC contains two widely used medications: 
pravastatin, used to lower cholesterol, and aspirin. Despite the fact 
that aspirin isn't safe in children, the manufacturer received a six-
month pediatric extension. What sense does that make?
  The manufacturer of Pravigard PAC even includes the following warning 
in the patient information they put out:

       Who should not (manufacturer's emphasis) take PRAVIGARD 
     PAC?
       Do not take PRAVIGARD PAC if you: Are 18 years of age or 
     younger. Children younger than 18 years should not use any 
     product with aspirin in it.

  Pediatric marketing extensions should not be given for products not 
suitable for children, like those containing aspirin.
  Using pediatric marketing protections to extend brand name monopolies 
should be reserved for studies that help us learn more about drugs for 
kids, not to keep lower-cost generic alternatives of drugs for adults 
off the market.
  Our bill would also remove an arbitrary roadblock to the entry of 
generic versions of certain antibiotics, close a loophole that allows 
drug companies to use the current complex rules for challenging drug 
patents as a delaying tactic against the introduction of generics and 
prevent abuses of the citizen petition process.
  I look forward to working with Senator Lott to create more 
competition, more choices, and more savings for American consumers of 
prescription drugs, and I urge colleagues to join us in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill and the letters 
of support we have received at this time printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2300

       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 ``Lower Prices Reduced with 
     Increased Competition

[[Page 2036]]

     and Efficient Development of Drugs Act'' or the ``Lower 
     PRICED Drugs Act''.

     SEC. 2. GENERIC DRUG USE CERTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 505(j)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (viii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and'';
       (3) by inserting after clause (viii) the following:
       ``(ix) if with respect to a listed drug product referred to 
     in clause (i) that contains an antibiotic drug and the 
     antibiotic drug was the subject of any application for 
     marketing received by the Secretary under section 507 (as in 
     effect before the date of enactment of the Food and Drug 
     Administration Modernization Act of 1997) before November 20, 
     1997, the approved labeling includes a method of use which, 
     in the opinion of the applicant, is claimed by any patent, a 
     statement that--
       ``(I) identifies the relevant patent and the approved use 
     covered by the patent; and
       ``(II) the applicant is not seeking approval of such use 
     under this subsection.''; and
       (4) in the last sentence, by striking ``clauses (i) through 
     (viii)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) through (ix)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any abbreviated new drug application under 
     section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) that is submitted on, before, or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE THIRTY-MONTH STAY-OF-
                   EFFECTIVENESS PERIOD.

       (a) In General.--Section 505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the second sentence by striking ``may order'' and 
     inserting ``shall order''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In determining 
     whether to shorten the thirty-month period under this clause, 
     the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances, 
     including whether the plaintiff sought to extend the 
     discovery schedule, delayed producing discovery, or otherwise 
     acted in a dilatory manner, and the public interest.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any stay of effectiveness period under section 
     505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) pending or filed on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ENSURING PROPER USE OF PEDIATRIC EXCLUSIVITY.

       (a) Drug Product.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by striking 
     ``drug'' each place it appears and inserting ``drug 
     product''.
       (b) Market Exclusivity for New Drugs.--Section 505A(b) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically 
     meaningful'';
       (B) striking ``and'' after ``(which shall include a 
     timeframe for completing such studies),''; and
       (C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies 
     the Secretary approves labeling for the new drug product that 
     provides specific, therapeutically meaningful information 
     about the use of the drug product in pediatric patients'' 
     after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) in clause (i), by--
       (i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period''; 
     and
       (ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at 
     the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection 
     (j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by--
       (i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period''; 
     and
       (ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at 
     the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection 
     (j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and 
     inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``a listed patent'' and 
     inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent'' 
     and inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''.
       (c) Market Exclusivity for Already-Marketed Drugs.--Section 
     505A(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 355a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically 
     meaningful'';
       (B) striking ``and'' after ``the studies are completed 
     within any such timeframe,''; and
       (C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies 
     the Secretary approves labeling for the approved drug product 
     that provides specific, therapeutically meaningful 
     information about the use of the drug product in pediatric 
     patients'' after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any 
     period''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product 
     at the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection 
     (j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any 
     period''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product 
     at the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection 
     (j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and 
     inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''; and
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``a listed patent'' and 
     inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent'' 
     and by inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the 
     pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug 
     Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the 
     Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that 
     is claimed by the patent, and''.
       (d) Three-Month Exclusivity.--Section 505A of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by--
       (1) by striking ``six months'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``three months'';
       (2) by striking ``six-month'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``three-month'';
       (3) by striking ``6-month'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``three-month'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
     half years, fifty-four months, and eight years, 
     respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months, 
     fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months, 
     respectively''; and
       (5) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
     half years, fifty-four months, and eight years, 
     respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months, 
     fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months, 
     respectively''.
       (e) Definition.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(o) Drug Product.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `drug product' has the same meaning given such term in 
     section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     any successor regulation).
       ``(2) Separate drug products.--For purposes of this 
     section, each dosage form of a drug product shall constitute 
     a different drug product.''.
                                  ____

                                            Generic Pharmaceutical


                                                  Association,

                                 Arlington, VA, February 15, 2006.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Stabenow and Lott: On behalf of the Generic 
     Pharmaceutical Association, I would like to commend you on 
     your efforts to making life-saving medicines more affordable 
     and accessible. Your commitment to improving access to 
     generic drugs will ensure that more patients receive and 
     utilize the prescription drug treatments they need. 
     Additionally, generic drugs are an essential cost containment 
     tool for public health programs such as Medicaid and 
     Medicare, and your efforts will allow for these programs to 
     cover more treatments and help more beneficiaries.
       As you know, despite continued efforts to close unintended 
     loopholes that delay generic competition, unnecessary 
     barriers to market entry remain. These loopholes delay the 
     timely introduction of affordable medicines, forcing 
     consumers, insurers, and the government to pay brand prices 
     for years to come. Your proposed legislation, the Lower 
     Priced Drugs Act, includes important provisions to facilitate 
     greater access to generic

[[Page 2037]]

     antibiotics, combat against frivolous patent abuse by brand 
     companies, provide greater accountability into the citizen 
     petition process, and bring meaningful reform to the 
     pediatric exclusivity period.
       The Generic Pharmaceutical Association supports the Lower 
     Priced Drugs Act, and the industry applauds your efforts to 
     control the rising costs of prescription drugs. We strongly 
     encourage consideration and passage of this legislation to 
     bring meaningful reform to the system and increase the 
     quality and affordability of healthcare for all Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kathleen Jaeger,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                             AARP,
                                                February 15, 2006.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: AARP is pleased to endorse the 
     ``Lower Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and 
     Efficient Development of Drugs Act,'' which we believe will 
     help bring lower priced generic drugs to the marketplace.
       Prescription drug therapies have become more prevalent in 
     modern medicine. However, the cost of these therapies has 
     skyrocketed in recent years. Brand name prescription drugs 
     continue to rise at more than double the rate of inflation. 
     Consumers, governments, and health care payers cannot 
     continue to shoulder these costs. More must be done to make 
     drug therapies more affordable.
       Brand name prescription drug manufacturers are rewarded for 
     their innovation and research in the form of patent 
     exclusivity. Unfortunately oftentimes some brand name 
     manufacturers seek to artificially extend the life of their 
     patents by utilizing legal loopholes or engaging in 
     unnecessary litigation. AARP believes the legislation 
     sponsored by you and Senator Lott takes a necessary step 
     towards closing some of these loopholes.
       Generic drugs cost far less than their brand name 
     equivalents. Your proposal would close an FDA loophole by 
     allowing a generic drug manufacturer to bring certain 
     antibiotics to market, thereby providing the ability to take 
     advantage of these lower-priced drugs. In addition, your 
     legislation seeks to prevent brand name manufacturers from 
     abusing the current 30-month stay-of-effectiveness period by 
     engaging in unnecessary litigation as a means to artificially 
     extend the life of their patents. Equally important is the 
     requirement that in order to be granted a patent extension 
     under the pediatric exclusivity rules, a brand name 
     manufacturer must engage in meaningful research into 
     pediatric use. Finally, your legislation would prevent the 
     filing of citizen petitions solely as a means to halt the 
     approval of generic drugs.
       This bill makes some important strides in helping to make 
     lower cost drugs available and we look forward to working 
     with you and your colleagues to advance this initiative. If 
     there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to 
     call me, or have your staff call Anna Schwamlein of our 
     Federal Affairs staff at (202) 434-3770.
           Sincerely,

                                              David P. Sloane,

                                            Sr. Managing Director,
     Government Relations and Advocacy.
                                  ____



                                                         CCPM,

                                                February 15, 2006.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the Coalition 
     for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market CCPM, we commend you 
     for your commitment to increase timely access to affordable 
     generic medications for all Americans. We greatly appreciate 
     your work and applaud you for the introduction of The Lower 
     Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and Efficient 
     Development of Drugs Act The Lower Priced Drugs Act.
       CCPM is an organization of employers, insurers, generic 
     drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers and others 
     committed to improving consumer access to safe, affordable 
     pharmaceuticals. CCPM members strongly support public 
     policies that help manage soaring prescription drug costs, 
     which have increased by double-digit rates annually and are 
     unsustainable. Continuing to obtain and provide prescription 
     drug coverage is a tremendous challenge, with the 
     skyrocketing costs pressuring reductions in benefits and 
     undermining the ability of CCPM members to compete in the 
     global marketplace. The Lower Priced Drug Act will help CCPM 
     members in this effort.
       We have made significant strides working with congress to 
     close some of the loopholes that keep generic drugs off the 
     market even after brand drug patents have expired. However, 
     other abuses and misuses of the Hatch-Waxman law still exist 
     and need to be fixed. The Lower Priced Drugs Act addresses 
     several remaining obstacles to generic drugs while ensuring 
     patient safety. The American people will benefit from this 
     legislation's efforts to 1) reform the application of 
     pediatric exclusivity to apply only to those products for 
     which pediatric exclusivity was intended; 2) provide an 
     avenue for approval of additional generic antibiotics; 3) 
     reduce efforts to delay generic entry for other 
     pharmaceutical products when patents are challenged in court, 
     and; 4) reform the citizen petition process at the FDA.
       Generic drugs are equally safe and effective as brand drugs 
     and save consumers, employers, and Federal and State 
     Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, billions 
     of dollars. CCPM supports your legislation, and we thank you 
     for continuing the fight to find market driven solutions to 
     the rising costs of prescription drugs. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure that the Lower Priced Drugs Act is 
     carefully considered and becomes law.
           Sincerely,

                                             Annette Guarisco,

                                Chair, Coalition for a Competitive
     Pharmaceutical Market (CCPM).
                                  ____

                                       General Motors Corporation,
                                Washington, DC. February 15, 2006.
     The Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Deborah Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the General 
     Motors Corporation, I am writing in support of the ``Lower 
     Prices with Increased Competition and Efficient Development 
     of Drugs Act,'' the Lower Priced Drugs Act of 2006. GM 
     believes that the leadership role that you are playing makes 
     an important contribution toward sound policies that will 
     help bring more affordable generic drugs to the market and 
     save consumers billions of dollars.
       GM supports ``The Lower Priced Drugs Act'' as it would 
     increase access to safe, effective and affordable drugs for 
     our 1.1 million beneficiaries and all other Americans. We 
     commend you for your leadership and bipartisan efforts to 
     improve our health care system. We look forward to working 
     with you to pass this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ken W. Cole,
                                                   Vice President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2303. A bill to ensure that the one half of the National Guard 
forces of each State are available to such State at all times, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support one of our Nation's most 
important domestic policy issues--national security. I understand that 
some would expect me to say competitiveness or health care or farms or 
the environment or education, but what is happening with national 
security today greatly concerns me.
  In the future, I will continue to address different aspects of this 
issue of national security. I will address the war on terror and future 
threats to our Nation. But today I will focus on the primary point of 
failure in keeping the United States safe: how we are meeting our 
responsibility to the troops.
  The support of our troops is at the core of every national security 
issue we face. I urge Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle 
to join me in providing our troops with the tools they need to succeed.
  We are so fortunate to have such a vast number of Americans who are 
committed to fighting for our country, to laying their lives on the 
line every day to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The first thing we 
must do for our warfighters is to keep them safe.
  I want to know why, after 4 years of fighting the war on terror, our 
soldiers do not have the very best that they need to get the job done.
  Last week, President Bush presented his fiscal year 2007 budget to 
the Congress. Even though the defense budget accounts for most of the 
discretionary budget, we still have service members without the 
equipment they need.
  Last month, a Pentagon study revealed that dozens of American lives, 
soldiers' lives, would not have been lost in Iraq if soldiers had the 
proper side body armor. To make matters worse, the military is already 
operating with an equipment shortage. When troops deploy overseas, 
often most of their equipment is left behind, left in the theater and 
not replaced at armories and air wings. This leaves us vulnerable at 
home and dangerously affects national security. How will we be 
protected if our soldiers are not?
  The administration proposes to spend $439 billion on national 
security this year. That is 45 percent more Pentagon funding than when 
President Bush took office 5 years ago.

[[Page 2038]]

  There is a war supplemental on the way--more money. Let me make it 
clear that I do not oppose the defense budget. I respect that it is the 
job of the Secretary of Defense to assess the needs of the military in 
the coming year. I commend him. For example, I commend him on 
increasing the funding for special operations. But despite this vast 
budget, our troops are still taking a hit.
  The funding for high-tech weapons systems doubled in current dollars 
from $42 billion in 1996 to $84 billion in 2007. In order to pay for 
these big-ticket items, the 2007 budget reins in personnel costs.
  The military pay raise is only 2.2 percent. Previous years, it has 
been between 3 and 4 percent. During the Clinton administration, we saw 
military pay raises as high as 4.8 percent. It is unacceptable to me 
that the President proposes an increase in pay for our military that is 
less than the current rate of inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Our 
military personnel are losing ground with this so-called increase, and 
this at a time when we are asking so much of them--a time when we are 
at war. Troops have had multiple and lengthy deployments.
  Haven't we all heard the stories of 18-year-olds swiftly driving 
humvees down the roads of Iraq, praying that they will avoid roadside 
bombs and shoulder-fired missiles? Some of these young men and women 
joined the military after 9/11 seeking retribution; others joined 
intent on finding a way to college. They are all patriots who should be 
honored.
  I am concerned that we are in a fight right now between force 
structure and weapons systems. Our troops are caught in the crossfire. 
If they lose, we lose--at a time when we desperately need boots on the 
ground, particularly here at home.
  We are well aware that our National Guard has risen to the challenges 
of the war on terror in an unprecedented way. Our national security, 
however, is compromised on the homefront. Our States do not have the 
ability to respond with sufficient combat structure to domestic 
security missions, natural emergencies, and disasters.
  Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird noted last week:

       When you call out Guard and Reserve units, you call out 
     America.

  Our Active-Duty Forces have fought bravely on our behalf, and the 
Guard has fought with them.
  Montana is just one of the States with an infantry battalion that is 
facing major changes due to the Army's proposal to reduce 34 combat 
brigades to 28. We have based much of our State's military strategy on 
the capabilities and equipment our infantry battalion provides.
  The combat brigades provide a balance of combat force structure to 
the combat service support units already in the State. This balance is 
essential to ensure that we have the full spectrum of capabilities 
within Montana for homeland defense and national security.
  I am introducing a bill today which will ensure that each adjutant 
general will have the resources of 50 percent of their National Guard 
troops available to them at all times in the State. Deployments 
overseas will not be allowed to exceed that number. This bill 
recognizes the national security contribution of the Air National Guard 
and the Army National Guard, in particular the brigade combat teams and 
their subordinate units. This will help the country to achieve a 
standard level of emergency preparedness.
  When those troops come home, Active and Reserve, they must come home 
to jobs and veterans' benefits. That is the only right thing to do. In 
its 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
administration calls for a 6-percent increase in total veterans 
spending to $36 billion. Much of this increase, however, depends on the 
adoption of new health care fees. For example, the budget proposes a 
$250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug copayments to 
$15, from $8, for higher income, less disabled veterans. If these new 
fees are adopted, they would dissuade 200,000 veterans from even 
enrolling in the VA health care system. The veterans themselves are 
paying for the increase to the veterans budget. That is what is 
happening.
  I frequently hear that questioning issues of national security 
undermines the missions of our troops and that some Members of Congress 
just criticize and do not have a plan. Well, here is the plan: It is 
imperative that we provide everything possible for our troops in order 
to keep the United States safe. We have a responsibility to speak up on 
their behalf because I firmly believe that when we neglect our troops--
including our National Guard men and women--we are gambling with the 
national security of our Nation.
  We have the best soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors in the world. 
I have tremendous respect for all of them, and I am committed to 
helping them succeed. We are engaged in a war now, and we must give our 
troops the tools to win overseas while simultaneously protecting our 
homefront.
  I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to this bill I am 
introducing. I hope that at the appropriate time, we can get it 
enacted, basically get some more balance to our force structure, and 
also make sure our National Guard and Army and Air Guard have the 
support they need, not only for themselves but to keep our country safe 
and secure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for raising this 
important issue which affects every State in the Union. Of our National 
Guard in Illinois, 80 percent have been deployed overseas, and more 
this year. At this point, they have come home to empty parking lots 
where they used to have vehicles and equipment which they trained on 
and would use at times of national emergency.
  We cannot allow this Guard to become a hollow Army. It must be a 
viable force. I look forward to reviewing the bill the Senator 
introduced to see if I can join him in this effort to strengthen our 
Guard nationwide.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lott, and Mr. 
        Menendez):
  S. 2304. A bill to recognize the right of the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico to call a constitutional convention through which the people of 
Puerto Rico would exercise their right to self-determination, and to 
establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Burr and 
other colleagues in supporting the Puerto Rico self-determination act.
  Puerto Rico and its four million residents have enjoyed a positive 
relationship with the United States since the island's commonwealth 
status was established over 50 years ago. But it's important for all of 
us to protect the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-
determination, and this legislation will do so.
  Our bill calls for a constitutional assembly in Puerto Rico composed 
of delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. The delegates will 
determine the appropriate options for inclusion in a referendum to 
enable the Puerto Rican people to decide the future status of the 
island.
  Congress will have the final say on the referendum, but the process 
should start with the people of Puerto Rico and not in Washington. A 
constitutional assembly will best serve their interest by letting us 
know their wishes.
  The people of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, and many of them have 
served our Nation with great courage and sacrifice in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. At the very least we owe them a fair and democratic 
process in determining their future.
  The recommendations in the report released in December by the White 
House task force on the status of Puerto Rico do not adequately address 
this basic issue, since the options suggested in the report do not give 
Puerto Ricans the fair choice they deserve.
  The possibility of change in the current status has stirred intense 
debate

[[Page 2039]]

in recent years, and this bill is intended to allow a fair solution 
that respects the views of all sides in the debate. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation as the most effective way to 
resolve this issue and give the people of Puerto Rico the respect they 
deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2305. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
repeal the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationally as a 
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a 
provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people 
applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a 
U.S. passport or birth certificate. I thank my cosponsors of this 
legislation, Senators Obama, Bingaman, Inouye, Lautenberg, Jeffords, 
Kerry, and Lieber
man for their support.
  This provision must be repealed before it goes into effect July 1, 
2006. We have arrived at this conclusion because it will create 
barriers to health care, and from information we have gathered from 
agencies, it is unnecessary and will be an administrative burden to 
implement. These are reasons for this legislation. The Center on Budget 
and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 51 million individuals 
in this country would be burdened by having to produce additional 
documentation. In 16 States--Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington--more 
than a million Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to submit the 
additional documents to receive or stay on Medicaid. In Hawaii, an 
estimated 392,000 people who are enrolled in Medicaid will be required 
to produce the additional documentation.
  The requirements will disproportionately impact low-income, racial 
and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, and individuals born in rural 
areas without access to hospitals. Due to discriminatory hospital 
admission policies, a significant number of African-Americans were 
prevented from being born in hospitals. One in five African Americans 
born during 1939-1940 do not have birth certificates.
  We need to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not discriminated 
against and do not lose access to care, simply because they do not have 
a passport or birth certificate. Data from a survey commissioned by the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is helpful in trying to 
determine the impact of the legislation. One in 12 U.S.-born adults, 
who earn incomes less than $25,000, report they do not have a U.S. 
passport or birth certificate in their possession. Also, more than 10 
percent of U.S.-born parents, who have incomes below $25,000, do not 
have a birth certificate or passport for at least one of their 
children. An estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million U.S. born citizens may have 
their Medicaid coverage threatened simply because they do not have a 
passport or birth certificate readily available.
  Some groups are at a greater risk for losing their Medicaid coverage. 
Nine percent of African-American adults reported they did not have the 
needed documents. Seven percent of people over age 65 also report that 
they do not have birth certificates. Many others will also have 
difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born 
in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless 
individuals.
  It is difficult enough to get access to health care, let alone 
acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment. 
Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time 
investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport. 
The Hawaii Department of Health charges $10 for duplicate birth 
certificates. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get 
a birth certificate or $87 to $97 for a passport. Taking the time and 
obtaining the necessary transportation to acquire the birth certificate 
or a passport, particularly in rural areas where public transportation 
may not exist, creates a hardship for Medicaid beneficiaries. Failure 
to produce the documents quickly may result in a loss of Medicaid 
eligibility.
  Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an 
exemption for individuals suffering from mental or physical 
disabilities from the new requirements. I am really afraid that those 
suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's may lose their Medicaid 
coverage because they may not have or be able to easily obtain a 
passport or birth certificate.
  It is likely these documentation requirements will prevent 
beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the 
program. This will result in more uninsured Americans, an increased 
burden on our healthcare providers, and the delay of treatment for 
needed health care.
  The hardships that will be imposed are unnecessary due to existing 
requirements that check immigration status. A 2005 study by the Health 
and Human Services Office of the Inspector General concluded there is 
no substantial evidence indicating that illegal immigrants claiming to 
be U.S. citizens are successfully enrolling in Medicaid.
  Twenty-eight of 47 Medicaid directors, surveyed by the Health and 
Human Services Inspector General, indicated that requiring documentary 
evidence of citizenship would delay eligibility determination. Twenty-
five believe that providing additional evidence would result in 
increased eligibility personnel costs. State Medicaid Agencies would 
likely have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased 
workload with significant, additional administrative and financial 
costs. Twenty-one believe that it would be burdensome or expensive for 
applicants to obtain a birth certificate or other documentation.
  In my home State, the Hawaii Primary Care Association estimates the 
administrative costs for our Department of Human Services will result 
in an increased cost of $640,000. Mr. John McComas, the Chief Executive 
Officer, of AlohaCare, stated, ``We anticipate that there will be 
significant administrative costs added to our already overburdened 
Medicaid programs. These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and 
place an undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire 
Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.''
  I am frequently frustrated by the inability of the Congress to enact 
measures to improve health care for Americans. A misconceived provision 
to mandate these additional documentation requirements will cause real 
people real pain, and create public health and administrative 
difficulties. The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act will force 
every current and future Medicaid beneficiary to produce a passport or 
birth certificate. I look forward to my colleagues working with me to 
repeal this provision. I am hopeful that as my friends in the Senate go 
home during recess, they talk with their constituents at health 
centers, State Medicaid offices, and social service organizations, and 
hear how important it is to them for this legislation to be enacted to 
protect access to Medicaid.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record, as well as letters of support and concern 
from AlohaCare, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health 
Organizations, Maternal and Child Health Access, the Hawaii Primary 
Care Association, and Siren.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2305

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCING 
                   CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY AS A CONDITION FOR 
                   RECEIPT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE 
                   MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of 
     the Social Security Act (42

[[Page 2040]]

     U.S.C. 1396b), as added by section 6036 of the Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 2005, are each repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (i)--
       (i) in paragraph (20), by adding ``or'' after the semicolon 
     at the end; and
       (ii) in paragraph (21), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
     a period;
       (B) by redesignating subsection (y), as added by section 
     6043(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection 
     (x); and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (z), as added by section 
     6081(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection 
     (y).
       (2) Subsection (c) of section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction 
     Act of 2005 is repealed.
       (c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
                                  ____



                             Maternal and Child Health Access,

                               Los Angeles, CA, February 16, 2006.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: I am pleased to write a letter of 
     support for your bill to amend title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act to repeal the amendments made by the Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 2005 requiring documentation of citizenship 
     or nationality as a condition for receipt of medical 
     assistance under the Medicaid program.
       Maternal and Child Health Access has provided assistance to 
     thousands of families seeking medical coverage since the 
     early 1990s. In addition to the families we serve, we educate 
     and train other social service agencies and clinics about 
     health coverage programs and thus have the opportunity to 
     hear their experiences in assisting low-income people to 
     apply for Medicaid. In California, we are ecstatic that 
     nearly 90% of the children eligible have been enrolled in 
     Medicaid or our S-CHIP program, Healthy Families. We have 
     celebrated the fact that with few exceptions, the process of 
     obtaining health care coverage for low-income families 
     presents fewer barriers than in prior years. The requirement 
     that Medicaid applicants provide birth certificates would be 
     an unfortunate reversal of that trend.
       Even now, even with no requirement for such documentation, 
     Eligibility Workers mistakenly demand birth certificates as 
     part of the Medicaid application process. We see that the 
     need to provide such documentation causes untoward delays in 
     obtaining health care. For example, my office recently 
     assisted the family of a two-year-old child who had never had 
     Medi-Cal due to the Los Angeles County Eligibility Worker's 
     erroneous demand for a birth certificate from the client's 
     home state, which had been impossible to obtain. The child's 
     health care visits were delayed and inferior to what a two-
     year-old should have had.
       In California, birth certificates cost $17 and require a 
     notarized application, or sworn statement under penalty of 
     perjury. In addition to the added expense of notarizing, an 
     additional $25-$50 depending on the ability of often-
     unscrupulous notaries to charge, making people swear under 
     penalty of perjury is intimidating and will discourage people 
     from applying. It takes four to six months to obtain birth 
     certificates for newborns and if obtained in person, require 
     travel to a different office than for duplicate copies that 
     might be needed for adults or other children who need them. I 
     see no flexibility in the amendments as passed to allow for 
     families with no disposable income to obtain the birth 
     certificates timely.
       There is absolutely no need for a drastic measure of this 
     sort. A comprehensive study conducted last year by the Health 
     and Human Services Inspector General, ``Self-Declaration of 
     U.S. Citizenship Requirements for Medicaid,'' July 2005, 
     failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal 
     immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by 
     claiming they are citizens. Notably, the Inspector General 
     did not recommend requiring that documentation of citizenship 
     be required. State officials interviewed by the Inspector 
     General's office also noted that such a requirement would add 
     significant administrative costs and burdens. Half of the 
     state officials interviewed said they would have to hire more 
     eligibility personnel to handle the increased workload.
       Requiring a birth certificate will cause delays in 
     obtaining needed medical coverage and care and unnecessary 
     costs for applicants, states and counties. If we truly care 
     about ensuring that children, pregnant women, disabled 
     people, seniors and others in need obtain the health care 
     that may enable them to continue to be productive citizens or 
     ensure their readiness for school, we should not be putting 
     unnecessary costly barriers in their way.
       I thank you on behalf of the low income people my agency 
     serves daily.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lynn Kersey,
     MA, MPH, Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             Hawai`i Primary Care Association,

                                   Honolulu, HI, January 25, 2006.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka,
     Re Proposed birth certificate or passport requirement for 
         Medicaid application.

       Dear Senator Akaka: The Hawai`i Primary Care Association 
     would like to register our strong opposition to recently 
     proposed federal legislation that would require a birth 
     certificate or passport for each Medicaid applicant, and to 
     ask for your assistance to avert this mandate. We object to 
     this change because it is completely unnecessary to prevent 
     application fraud but would be a considerable barrier to 
     legitimate applicants and add to the cost incurred by public 
     and private agencies to complete and process applications.
       Unnecessary barrier. In the ample experience of community 
     health centers in Hawai`i and the Primary Care Association's 
     Hawai`i Covering Kids Project, immigrants, fearful of 
     jeopardizing their immigration status, are hesitant to apply 
     for programs for which they are clearly eligible. 
     Undocumented immigrants are even less likely to call 
     attention to themselves, for obvious reasons. The Hawai`i 
     State Department of Human Services, which monitors and checks 
     into self-declared eligibility status, has found no evidence 
     of fraud in this area.
       The following are some of the ways this proposed 
     requirement would deter legitimate applicants: Some people do 
     not have birth certificates because they were born at home or 
     in areas with no official registries (e.g., on plantations). 
     People who are mentally ill or homeless may be unable to 
     produce original or duplicate birth certificates. In the 
     event of a hurricane or other disaster, many people will be 
     unable to find documents, and public agencies may be in 
     disarray so that they can't provide duplicates. In an 
     emergency medical situation, an uninsured person may not be 
     able to find a birth certificate. The Hawai`i Department of 
     Health (DOH) charges $10 for duplicate birth certificates. 
     Procuring one for each family member that is applying or 
     renewing not only takes the applicant away from work or other 
     activities to stand in line at DOH, but also can be 
     prohibitively expensive. The application and enrollment 
     procedure will take longer and result in delays in coverage 
     that might cause serious health problems and put the health 
     care provider and individual at financial risk.
       Processing costs. If this regulation is implemented it will 
     result in more administrative costs for DHS and for agencies 
     that assist applicants. All current Medicaid customers must 
     also be asked to submit a birth certificate or passport. This 
     requires paper, envelopes, and mailing costs. When documents 
     arrive at a Medicaid office, they must be matched to a 
     record, noted in the electronic case file, and stored in the 
     customer's case file. If the customer does not produce the 
     required document, the case will be closed. However, this 
     person is otherwise eligible for benefits, therefore when 
     she/he locates a birth certificate a new application will not 
     only be submitted, but also the Medicaid office must review 
     it and open a new case. Hawai`i's Medicaid offices receive 
     approximately 66,000 applications annually. New applications 
     without birth certificates or passports attached will be sent 
     ten-day pending notices. This requires paper, envelopes, and 
     mailing costs. If the document is not received in the time 
     allotted, the application will be denied. If mailing notices 
     and updating or closing each current Medicaid file takes at 
     least 10 minutes of public workers' time, the current Med-
     QUEST enrollment of over 200,000 customers will take 33,333 
     hours and cost $640,000.
       Assumptions: 15 minutes to send notices and update or close 
     files. 2,080 is the number of work hours per year. Salary 
     plus operating costs per worker is $40,000 per year.
       Cost: 16 eligibility workers will work full-time for a year 
     at a cost of $640,000.
       In summary, we believe there is no good reason to implement 
     the proposed regulations and ample reasons to maintain the 
     current procedure that allows self-declaration. We ask for 
     your help in this matter to make sure Medicaid continues to 
     serve the most vulnerable members of our communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Beth Giesting,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Akaka: I have just been informed about your 
     bill to repeal the citizenship documentation requirements 
     contained in the reconciliation bill. On behalf of the 
     Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), I 
     write to express our support for Senator Akaka's bill.
       SIREN is a leading organization in Silicon Valley dedicated 
     to providing immigrant rights advocacy, community education 
     and naturalization assistance to Santa Clara County's diverse 
     immigrant communities. We believe that a requirement to check 
     citizenship status for Medicaid recipients will be costly and 
     an additional barrier to accessing this much needed program. 
     In addition, it is unnecessary and continues the stereotype 
     that immigrants are in this country to access social 
     services, which we know to be false. Immigrants come to this 
     country to create a better life for themselves and their 
     families. They contribute to the social and economic fabric 
     of our country every day.
       Thank you for your efforts to protect immigrants and to 
     save our country from a needless expense.
           Warmly,
                                                  Larisa Casillas.

[[Page 2041]]

     
                                  ____
                                      Association of Asian Pacific


                               Community Health Organizations,

                                    Oakland CA, February 10, 2006.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: The Association of Asian Pacific 
     Community Health Organizations, AAPCHO, a national non-profit 
     association of community health centers, is writing to 
     support your efforts to repeal an amendment requiring 
     individuals to provide evidence of citizenship when applying 
     for Medicaid benefits.
       We believe that these amendments, which are introduced in 
     the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, will not only raise the 
     ranks of the uninsured, but more importantly, that they will 
     leaves scores of our most vulnerable citizens without 
     critically needed health care services.
       As you well know, there are currently over 45 million 
     people without health insurance, many of whom are Asian 
     American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Requiring 
     Medicaid beneficiaries to provide a birth certificate or 
     passport to prove their citizenship could lead to millions of 
     low-income Americans either losing Medicaid coverage and 
     becoming uninsured, or being delayed coverage for necessary 
     medical care. At AAPCHO's member community health centers 
     across the country, this regulation would instantly put the 
     lives and health of a significant number of low-income 
     adults, children, elderly, and disabled individuals at risk.
       We thank you for continuing your fight to provide health 
     care for our most vulnerable populations, and we appreciate 
     your introduction of this important bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Jeffrey B. Caballero, MPH,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                    AlohaCare,

                                   Honolulu, HI, February 6, 2006.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: We applaud your concerns about the 
     proposed changes in Medicaid. We wish to lend our support to 
     the Amendment that you are proposing that will remove one of 
     the most draconian aspects of the proposal in Section 6037 of 
     the Budget Reconciliation Bill that will require that 
     everyone who is applying for Medicaid, whether current or 
     new, to provide proof of their citizenship.
       The primary forms of documentation acceptable would be 
     either a passport or a birth certificate presented in 
     conjunction with proof of identity such as a drivers' 
     license. For people who are naturalized citizens 
     naturalization papers would be accepted. This essentially 
     means that native-born citizens would have to produce birth 
     certificates or passports.
       The new requirements, which a recent study by the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Health and Human Services shows 
     to be unnecessary, would almost certainly create significant 
     enrollment barriers to millions of low-income citizens who 
     would otherwise meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements. 
     Because of Hawaii's demographics we believe that we would be 
     heavily impacted.
       On July 1, 2006 these new requirements will apply to all 
     applications or redeterminations of Medicaid eligibility that 
     occurred after that date, without exceptions, even for people 
     who are extremely old or have severe physical or mental 
     impairments, such as Alzheimer's disease.
       A major concern is that many people on Medicaid do not 
     travel or have not had a need for a passport. Others no 
     longer live near where they were born or have long since lost 
     their birth certificate. Many of the elderly in Hawaii were 
     born outside of hospitals or places where birth certificates 
     were not commonly issued.
       We anticipate that there will be significant administrative 
     costs added to our already overburdened Medicaid programs. 
     These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and will place an 
     undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire 
     Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.
       Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can be of any 
     assistance to you in your efforts to protect the Medicaid 
     beneficiaries in Hawaii.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     John McComas,
                               Chief Executive Officer, AlohaCare.

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare 
costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap 
between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital 
importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The 
Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million 
Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled.
  As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this 
year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility 
to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to 
question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the 
Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for 
individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy 
children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not 
deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would 
do just that.
  Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the 
costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some 
believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail 
alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a 
study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any 
substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting 
Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not 
recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship.
  If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal 
immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we 
must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement?
  Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the 
difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let 
alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the 
families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all 
their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the 
children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other 
relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required 
documents.
  About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million 
Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have 
a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition, 
studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible 
children without such documentation.
  These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7 
percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth 
certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for 
senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African 
American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living 
in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups 
who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such 
as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents, 
Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The 
documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current 
beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even 
for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as 
Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or 
a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
  The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by 
the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation 
requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for 
Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of state officials have 
reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle 
the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and 
financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics 
and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of 
birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or 
passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in 
significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications. 
State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not 
impose additional and unnecessary burdens.
  At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks, 
which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that 
members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable 
members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and 
productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program.
  Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to 
eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and 
I urge

[[Page 2042]]

all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bond):
  S. 2306. A bill to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify 
that kidney paired donation and kidney list donation do not involve the 
transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators 
DeWine, Dorgan and Bond in introducing legislation that will save lives 
by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Our 
bill addresses relatively new procedures that did not exist when the 
National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA--was passed more than two decades 
ago. No Federal dollars will be needed to implement it. More 
importantly, it will make it possible for thousands of people who wish 
to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that 
they are medically incompatible, still to become living kidney donors.
  Kidney paired donations involve two living donors and two 
recipients--the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with 
the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the 
arrangement. For example, person A wants to donate her kidney to her 
husband, person B, but cannot because of a biological incompatibility. 
Likewise, person C wants to donate to his wife, person D, and cannot 
because of a biological incompatibility. However, testing reveals that 
A and D are biologically compatible, and C and B are biologically 
compatible. Therefore, a paired kidney donation can be made whereby A 
donates to D and C donates to B. Every paired donation transplant 
avoids burdening the kidney waiting list and increases access to organs 
for all kidney transplant candidates.
  Kidney list donations involve three individuals: a living donor; the 
recipient of the living donor's kidney, who is allocated the organ 
through the waiting list; and the donor's intended recipient who 
receives an allocation priority on the kidney waiting list. In this 
circumstance, a person intends to donate a kidney to a recipient but is 
found to be medically incompatible, and there are no other donor-
recipient pairs available for a simultaneous paired donation. The 
person donates his or her kidney, and the kidney is allocated to a 
medically suitable patient on the national Organ Procurement and 
Transplantation Network--OPTN--waiting list according to OPTN organ 
allocation policy. The donor's originally intended recipient then 
receives allocation priority through the national system to receive a 
deceased donor kidney, thus fulfilling the donor's original intent to 
donate to a particular person. It is estimated that clearing the way 
for these procedures will not only save lives, it would save Medicare 
tens of millions of dollars each year in avoided costs for renal 
dialyses of these patients. By permitting living paired donations, this 
bill will also have the effect of increasing the number of kidneys 
available to patients already on the kidney waiting list.
  The legislation we are introducing removes an unintended impediment 
to kidney donations by clarifying ambiguous language in Section 301 of 
the National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA. That section has been 
interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such 
donations. In Section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and 
selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ 
purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly 
acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable 
consideration. . . .'' The legislation we are introducing does not 
remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line 
to Section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it. 
When we originally enacted NOTA we expressly exempted several other 
actions from the valuable consideration provision, such as expressly 
permitting reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs for living 
donors, and for reimbursement of their lost wages. We did not know to 
include paired kidney donation events with these exceptions because 
they were not being performed then.
  Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements 
that permit either a kidney paired donation or a kidney list donation 
be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. A number of 
transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living 
kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief 
that these arrangements do not violate Section 301 of NOTA, and they 
are being performed in many states already. This legislation is 
necessary because some have questioned whether these paired donation 
situations might somehow involve valuable consideration in that the 
mutual promises to donate could be considered a thing of value being 
given in exchange for an organ. We do not believe that this is the 
case. Certainly, Congress never intended to impede paired donation when 
it outlawed buying and selling of organs.
  There is no known opposition to this legislation. It is supported by 
numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ 
Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American 
Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the 
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.
  It is important that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that 
transplant centers which have hesitated to implement paired donation 
programs can feel free to do so; and in order that the Organ 
Procurement and Transplant Network, which is operated by UNOS under 
contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, may 
implement a national registry of pairs who need to find other 
compatible pairs so that their loved ones can get the transplant they 
so desperately need.
  The experts in the field of organ donation and transplantation 
estimate that our legislation will result in well over 2,000 additional 
transplants annually and that Medicare would save millions in kidney 
dialysis costs. By its own estimate, Medicare spends more than $55,000 
annually for each dialysis patient, which equates to more than $3.6 
billion per year. Savings to Medicare due to removal of an additional 
2,000 patients from the dialysis program through living kidney donation 
would exceed $110 million. Since the median waiting time for each 
patient is four years, removal of each patient translates into a total 
Medicare savings of $220,000.
  It is our hope that the Senate will promptly act on this necessary 
legislation.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Levin, Dorgan, and Bond, to introduce the Living Kidney Organ 
Donation Clarification Act.
  This important legislation would clarify Section 301 of the National 
Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Section 301 makes it a felony ``for any 
person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human 
organ for valuable consideration for use in organ transplantation.'' 
This provision simply makes it illegal to buy and sell human organs. 
The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing would clarify that 
paired donations do not violate Section 301.
  When NOTA was first enacted, the only living organ donations took 
place between a single biologically compatible living donor and 
recipient. In the past decade, a new type of living donation procedure 
has developed. It's called the paired organ donation. The best way to 
describe a paired donation is through an example: Patient A is on the 
waiting list for a kidney transplant. Various family and friends have 
offered to donate a kidney to Patient A, but none of the potential 
donors are compatible. However, one of Patient A's potential donors is 
compatible with Patient B, who is also on the waiting list for a 
kidney. Patient B has a potential donor who is compatible with Patient 
A. Patient A and B could exchange donors and both get transplants.
  With the development of paired donations, concerns have arisen that 
the

[[Page 2043]]

mutual promises to donate organs could be considered ``valuable 
consideration'' under Section 301 of NOTA. It is important to note that 
while paired donations were not conceived at the time NOTA was written 
over 20 years ago, they are in keeping with all of NOTA's provisions 
and protections and should be permitted. Paired donors may not receive 
a monetary payment, except for reimbursement for expenses. I don't 
think that Congress would have intended to prohibit the practice of 
paired donations with the enactment of NOTA.
  The benefits of paired donations are tremendous. Successful kidney 
transplants eliminate the need for dialysis for the recipient, as well 
as decrease costs to Medicare. And, the practice of paired donations 
has the potential to increase the number of living donor transplants 
dramatically, as there are a large number of potential living donors 
who are biologically incompatible with their intended recipients.
  My own State of Ohio has the first state-sponsored program that 
arranges paired kidney donations. There have been at least four paired 
kidney donations in Ohio during the last two years arranged through the 
Paired Donation Kidney Consortium. With over 62,000 men, women, and 
children waiting for a kidney donation, we cannot afford to turn our 
back on the paired donation procedure.
  That is why it is critically important that Section 301 of NOTA be 
clarified to permit these donations. Clarification of the intent of 
Congress would encourage transplant centers throughout the country to 
implement their own paired donation programs. It also would enable the 
Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to create a national list of 
pairs of incompatible donors so that as many recipients can be matched 
up as possible.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Levin, 
DeWine and Bond to introduce the Kidney Transplant Clarification Act of 
2006. This legislation will help save lives by increasing the number of 
kidney donations made by living donors.
  There are currently 90,608 people in the United States who are on the 
national organ transplant waiting list. More than two-thirds of those 
on the waiting list suffer from end stage renal disease and are in need 
of a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, the number of people on the 
waiting list continues to grow far faster than the number of organ 
donors. In North Dakota alone, there are currently 91 patients who are 
waiting for a kidney transplant.
  The good news is that patients with end stage renal disease who 
require a kidney transplant no longer need to wait for a kidney from a 
deceased donor or from a blood relative. Advances in medical science 
now make it possible for friends and spouses to donate a kidney to a 
patient in need. Of the 16,004 kidney transplants in 2004, 6,647 were 
from living donors.
  The bad news is outdated Federal laws inappropriately stand in the 
way of widely adopting several innovative approaches that would 
increase the number of kidney donations from the living.
  One of these strategies is called a paired kidney donation. Here is 
how it works: Joe wants to donate a kidney to his wife Kathleen but 
can't because of incompatibility. Likewise, Suzy wants to donate a 
kidney to her husband Scott but can't because of incompatibility. A 
paired donation helps match up these couples so Joe can donate a kidney 
to Scott and Suzy can donate a kidney to Kathleen.
  The other approach is called a kidney list donation. Here is how it 
works: Rebecca wants to donate a kidney to her husband Grant but can't 
because of incompatibility. In this case, she decides to donate a 
kidney to someone who is already on the national waiting list. Once the 
donation is made, Grant is added to the waiting list but is given 
allocation priority for a kidney that becomes available in the future.
  The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will clarify that paired and 
list kidney donations are allowed under the National Organ Transplant 
Act, removing a barrier that has prevented more kidney donations from 
living donors from occurring.
  The National Organ Transplant Act, which was enacted in 1984, 
prohibits any person to acquire, receive or donate any human organ for 
anything of value. The purpose of this law is to prohibit the buying 
and selling of human organs. I agree with this law. The last thing that 
we want to do is sanction organ trafficking. Yet, when this law was 
enacted, paired and list kidney donations did not exist. It is 
important that we clarify that these innovative strategies to increase 
the number of kidney donations from living donors are allowed under 
current law.
  The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will not only save lives, it 
will save the federal government and taxpayers money. Patients with end 
stage renal disease require dialysis, which is covered by Medicare. 
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare 
spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. On average, 
patients with end stage renal disease wait 4 years before receiving a 
kidney transplant. This means that every kidney donation made from a 
living donor has the potential to reduce the number of people on the 
waiting list and save the government as much as $220,000.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 2307. A bill to enhance fair and open competition in the 
production and sale of agricultural commodities; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr. 
Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets 
Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for 
agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and 
Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 
and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA.
  A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are 
no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100 
years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking 
and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass 
several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace 
for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as 
lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the 
Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors 
from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive 
practices.
  Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a 
negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. 
Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful 
that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely 
critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The 
statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84 
percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement 
of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 
percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. 
Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms 
can exert tremendous power over the industry.
  The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have 
expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed 
hardly any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers 
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to 
enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts 
whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned 
by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to 
investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a 
report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described 
widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from 
conducting investigations

[[Page 2044]]

into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of 
enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations 
conducted.
  The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement 
by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level 
officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems 
within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the 
structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This 
legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition 
matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of 
the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on 
competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of 
bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed 
by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some 
would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given 
that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the 
recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to 
remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making 
changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector 
General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in 
1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar 
recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations 
were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition, 
no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have 
any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was 
sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA 
was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed.
  In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation 
also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards 
Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the 
market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive 
practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go 
through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly. 
For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 
that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving 
an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. 
The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair 
treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very 
difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act.
  This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and 
Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement 
protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a 
livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have 
the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the 
enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. 
This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better 
reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation 
also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry 
growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who 
raise broilers.
  The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to 
ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to 
strengthen their position in the marketplace without being 
discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed 
with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. 
The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and 
producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it 
does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of 
producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any 
reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain 
producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to 
an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses 
on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for 
having done so.
  I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide 
new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned 
earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the 
number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many 
require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no 
choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face 
leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.
  This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that 
contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the 
producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving 
producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to 
help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It 
prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without 
notice when producers have made large capital investments as a 
condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory 
arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in 
writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with 
arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy 
in the courts.
  History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is 
even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded 
market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of 
unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact 
legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago. 
This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will 
strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more 
fairly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Harkin, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 2308. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
1977 to improve mine safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to 
overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the 
safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in 
Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a 
miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made 
in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of 
the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a 
mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine, 
unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners. 
Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from 
the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky.
  A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of 
the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be 
other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the 
families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV, 
for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the 
investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the 
people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago 
will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may 
never be answered.''
  Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine 
accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10, 
when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another 
on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at the Alma mine in 
Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on February 1, 2006, 
where a miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support 
popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer struck a gas line 
at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the operator. Last year, 
the safest year on record, there were 22 fatalities in underground coal 
mines, in

[[Page 2045]]

20 separate accidents with 4 men killed in my home State of 
Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in Kentucky and 7 in other States.
  The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against 
it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant 
and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as 
``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of 
the mine until problems were corrected.
  While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42 
percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with 
inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by 
183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final 
appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4 
million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across-
the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget 
resolution ceiling.
  I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from 
Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business, 
and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my 
legislation.
  Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the 
Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the 
internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and 
Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of 
completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish 
formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing 
procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from 
$60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated 
failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a 
standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could 
have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and 
prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge 
for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine 
less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could 
cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be 
assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could 
significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health 
hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than 
24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans 
are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject 
to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed 
of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may 
waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused 
by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine 
representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews 
with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of 
wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar 
year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and 
conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise, 
unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be 
strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12. 
MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which 
includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live 
operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply 
to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and 
operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis--
provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That 
wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by 
the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an 
accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless 
communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by 
underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to 
communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary 
telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood 
that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the 
surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed 
oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the 
section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be 
increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a 
violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to 
situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully 
violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines 
increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives 
advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from 
not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person 
makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine 
will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000.
  All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the 
Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty 
assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to 
augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the 
following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training, 
research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner 
safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical 
support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and 
information activities.
  These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health 
Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions 
set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for 
miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners 
working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue 
operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be 
repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 2309. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the definition of agri-biodiesel; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest 
scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the 
existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that 
only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are 
eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of 
the highest quality.
  Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country 
off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural 
areas while enhancing our environment and public health.
  In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production, 
there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line. 
Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding 
communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities.
  The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago. 
It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading 
proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has 
recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I 
am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a 
good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it 
comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a 
goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union 
address.
  It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has 
sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental 
quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found 
itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the 
biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of 
feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service 
has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined 
that biodiesel produced from a variety of feedstocks, even those not 
listed in statute, are eligible for the credit.

[[Page 2046]]

  So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope. 
The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from 
any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit.
  In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that 
only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been 
reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it 
should in certain situations, and this provision should help address 
that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies 
that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is 
eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel 
such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My 
understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best 
quality indicator for satisfactory performance.
  The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our 
international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S. 
and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts 
consulted by my staff.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance 
Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this 
legislation forward.
  In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic 
energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way 
that is compliant with our international trading obligations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 2310. A bill to repeal the requirement for 12 operational aircraft 
carriers within the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
piece of legislation related to our Navy and National Security.
  The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on 
the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, 
in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review.
  The global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on 
our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented 
fundamental changes to fleet maintenance and deployment practices that 
have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in 
ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided 
appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.
  These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and 
dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to 
the added dimension of international terror while providing for the 
security of our Nation.
  However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in 
decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the 
Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security, 
requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.
  The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires 
that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further 
in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force with 
21st century capabilities, to increase our expeditionary capability, to 
maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to 
penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the 
open seas.
  The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical 
requirements against the backdrop of the national defense strategy and 
concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. The Navy, in its 
evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of 
313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required 
to maintain decisive maritime superiority.
  These findings are in whole agreement with previous concerns raised 
by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 
years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so 
we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force 
structure.
  The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike 
group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier 
capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 
carrier strike groups provide the decisively superior combat capability 
required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this 
conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 
to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the 
naval force.
  Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service 
life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The 
compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy 
(CV-67) is not deployable without a significant investment of 
resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval 
aviation, there are real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the 
Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea. In 
the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to make 
the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the 
future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to 
invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the 
surface combatant force.
  We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men 
and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where 
called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the 
world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force 
structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on 
operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base 
that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am 
encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, 
modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant 
seapower through the 21st century.
  However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, 
it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have 
served this country for so long. To this end, Mr. President, I offer 
this legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United 
States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of 
the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 2311. A bill to establish a demonstration project to develop a 
national network of economically sustainable transportation providers 
and qualified transportation providers, to provide transportation 
services to older individuals, and individuals who are blind, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in recent years, we have become 
increasingly aware of the great challenges facing our Nation as our 
population ages. While much discussion revolves around health care, 
social security, and pension systems, there is another daunting 
challenge that is rarely addressed in a comprehensive way.
  I am referring to the challenge of senior transportation.
  We Americans love our automobiles. From the time most of us were old 
enough to drive, we have been behind the wheel. Cars mean freedom--not 
in some grand philosophical sense--but in the real and practical sense 
that matters to us in our everyday lives. Having a car, and being able 
to drive it, means the freedom to go where we want, when we want.
  But as we age, we will find it harder and harder to use the freedom 
given to us by automobiles. Because as we age, our abilities decline, 
and driving becomes less and less simple. And then the day comes when 
we wonder whether we should keep driving at all, and if we don't, how 
we will get about our daily lives.
  That day has already come for millions of our senior citizens.
  All around the Nation, older Americans are struggling to stay active 
and independent while their ability to drive themselves declines. A few 
live in communities with well-developed public

[[Page 2047]]

transportation services geared to our senior citizens, but most do not. 
Many seniors drive as long as they can, perhaps longer than they think 
they should, simply because they feel they have no alternative.
  That is why I am today introducing the Older Americans Sustainable 
Mobility Act of 2006. Despite its rather awkward name, this legislation 
has a great purpose. It would create a 5-year demonstration project, 
overseen by the Administration on Aging, to establish a national, 
nonprofit senior transportation network to help provide some 
transportation alternatives to our aging population. The goal of this 
network is to build upon creative, successful models that are already 
showing how the transportation needs of older Americans can be met in a 
manner that is economically sustainable.
  This last point is important. Senior transportation is a complex and 
expensive logistical problem. We cannot expect to address this problem 
by creating a brand new, expansive, Federal Government program that 
requires the commitment of vast sums year after year in order to 
succeed. We can't afford that, and that really isn't what older 
Americans want.
  What older Americans want is what most of us have and take for 
granted--the freedom and mobility that our automobiles provide.
  My legislation would build upon models that have demonstrated how 
senior citizens can stay active and mobile even after they stop 
driving. One such model is ITNAmerica, which has been operating in my 
home State of Maine since the mid-1990s and has since branched out to 
communities across the Nation. ITNAmerica uses private automobiles to 
provide rides to senior citizens whenever they want, almost like a taxi 
service. Riders open an account which is automatically charged when the 
service is used. Riders can get credits for rides through volunteer 
services, through donations--and this is what I think is most 
intriguing--by donating their private car to the program after they 
have decided that they should no longer drive.
  Kathy Freund, the founder of ITNAmerica, sees this as a way of taking 
something people see as a liability, and turning it into an asset. 
Through Kathy's extraordinary vision and hard work, ITNAmerica has 
developed a model that works because it allows older Americans to make 
the transition away from driving themselves without asking them to 
sacrifice their independence, or to learn at an older age how to 
navigate public transportation systems that may simply be inappropriate 
for their needs, or widely unavailable in many parts of the country. 
They can still be mobile, they can still go where they want and when 
they want, and they can go by car.
  Senior citizens will often keep their vehicles long after they have 
stopped driving. I am sure you have seen these vehicles in your State 
as I have in mine. You will see them sitting in driveways--unattended 
and poorly maintained, sometimes not driven for many months at a time. 
In this form, these cars are ``wasting'' assets. But ITNAmerica has 
found that the value of these cars can be unlocked by allowing seniors 
to exchange them for rides. That is why my bill calls for the creation 
of a once-in-a-lifetime tax benefit for seniors who exchange their cars 
for rides, valued at the amount of the ride-credit they are provided.
  One of my senior citizen constituents, June Snow from Falmouth, ME, 
has been using the system that I described--the ITNAmerica system--
since 1995, when her eyesight began to fail. At first, she used the 
program only to get into the city, Portland, and only after dark, when 
she found it more difficult to drive. But more recently she has traded 
her car for rides, and now she depends on the system to go everywhere 
she needs to go. She finds that the program allows her to get around 
town, to run errands, and do the things she has to do and wants to do 
without worrying about whether she will be able to get safely from one 
place to another. She told me: It's not like riding a bus, where you 
have to work with their schedules, and they won't stop and help you 
with your groceries. They won't make you get your feet wet walking 
through the snow to the bus stop.
  But what she loves most is the personal attention she gets from the 
drivers, most of whom are volunteers. ``They help you to the door, and 
they even carry your bundles and put them in the trunk,'' she says.
  My bill also creates a limited-time matching grant program to help 
communities establish sustainable transportation alternatives for 
seniors as part of a national network. Programs that wish to compete 
for these matching grants must be able to show that they can become 
self-sustaining after 5 years, and that they can operate after that 
period without reliance on public funds. So what I am proposing, is 
that we just provide some seed money as a catalyst, to get these 
programs going, with the full expectation--indeed the requirement--that 
they become self-sustaining without any public funds after the initial 
period. My bill also provides smaller grants to help transportation 
providers acquire the technology they need to connect to this network, 
and grants to encourage efforts to get the baby boomers more involved 
in supporting transportation alternatives in their communities. The 
total cost of these grant programs would be only $25 million over the 
full 5 year period. Then the program sunsets, and these wonderful 
transportation programs that would be created all over the country 
would be sustainable on their own without public funding.
  The challenge of providing transportation alternatives to our 
Nation's senior citizens is literally growing by the day. The bill I am 
offering is one step toward a reasonable, practical, solution to this 
important challenge. I think all of us know of neighbors and family 
members who reach their senior years and really shouldn't be driving 
anymore but are very reluctant to give up those car keys because there 
are simply no workable alternatives for them. This bill would provide 
those alternatives, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2312. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to change the numerical identifier used to identify Medicare 
beneficiaries under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. 2312

       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 ``Social Security Number 
     Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
                   TO CHANGE THE NUMERICAL IDENTIFIER USED TO 
                   IDENTIFY MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE 
                   MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish and implement procedures to change 
     the numerical identifier used to identify individuals 
     entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title so 
     that such an individual's social security account number is 
     not displayed on the identification card issued to the 
     individual under the Medicare program under such title or on 
     any explanation of Medicare benefits mailed to the 
     individual.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
  S. 2313. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to 
permit medicare beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug plans and 
MA-PD plans that change their formalities or increase drug prices to 
enroll in other plans; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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:

[[Page 2048]]



                                S. 2313

       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 ``Medicare Drug Honest Pricing 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. PERMITTING MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES ENROLLED IN 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD PLANS THAT 
                   CHANGE THEIR FORMULARIES OR INCREASE DRUG 
                   PRICES TO ENROLL IN OTHER PLANS.

       (a) Special Enrollment Period.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1860D-1(b)(3) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(3)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(F) Enrollment under plans that change their 
     formularies.--In the case of a part D eligible individual who 
     is enrolled in a prescription drug plan that uses a 
     formulary, if the plan removes a covered part D drug from its 
     formulary or changes the preferred or tiered cost-sharing 
     status of such a drug and the individual is adversely 
     affected by such change, there shall be a 60-day special 
     enrollment period for the individual beginning on the date on 
     which the individual receives a notice of such removal or 
     change.
       ``(G) Enrollment under plans that increase negotiated 
     prices.--In the case of a part D eligible individual who is 
     enrolled in a prescription drug plan in which the negotiated 
     price used for payment for any covered part D drug increases 
     by 10 percent or more from the negotiated price used for 
     payment for the drug as of January 1 of the year (as 
     disclosed to the Secretary pursuant to section 1860D-
     2(d)(4)(A)).''.
       (2) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--Section 
     1860D-2(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     102(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--
       ``(A) Requiring plans to disclose negotiated prices to the 
     secretary.--Not later than November 8 of each year (beginning 
     with 2006), each sponsor of a prescription drug plan shall 
     disclose to the Secretary (in a manner specified by the 
     Secretary) the negotiated price used for payment for each 
     covered part D drug covered under the plan that will apply 
     under the plan on January 1 of the subsequent year.
       ``(B) Secretary to make negotiated prices available on the 
     cms website.--Not later than November 15 of each year 
     (beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall make information 
     disclosed under subparagraph (A) available to the public 
     through the Internet website of the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services.
       ``(C) Requiring plans to inform beneficiaries of january 1 
     negotiated price.--Not later than January 10 of each year 
     (beginning with 2007), each sponsor of a prescription drug 
     plan shall appropriately inform (as determined by the 
     Secretary) part D eligible individuals enrolled in the plan 
     for the year of the negotiated price used for payment for 
     each covered part D drug that is covered under the plan that 
     was disclosed to the Secretary under subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall promulgate regulations to carry out the 
     amendments made by this section.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2315. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
federally-supported education and awareness campaign for the prevention 
of methamphetamine use; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an 
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is 
particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems 
associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just 
beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in 
the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no 
guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth 
just once.
  The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant. 
The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this 
devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family 
relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health 
needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with 
meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth 
labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed 
toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today.
  With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat 
Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an 
emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a 
topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as 
there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers.
  My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for 
any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A 
100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the 
community organization or local government applying for funds has a 
stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the 
difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian 
reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack 
the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in 
half.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public 
health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the 
Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last 
year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we 
realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States--
now it's time to act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2316. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning 
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New 
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to 
protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and 
gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or 
COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey 
shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North 
Carolina.
  This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the 
Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer 
Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of 
Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means 
drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS 
may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a 
certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy-
five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New 
Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's 
critical tourist economy.
  According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, 
tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for 
more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State. 
To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the 
Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential 
reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it.
  The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas 
in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds 
up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves, 
and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply. 
And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State 
will be a small fraction of that.
  This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or 
making the United States more energy independent. This is about 
protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about 
protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and 
play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring 
States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches 
are protected for generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 2327. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to require the United 
States Trade Representative to identify trade

[[Page 2049]]

enforcement priorities and to take action with respect to priority 
foreign country trade practices, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I--along with Senator Hatch and 
Senator Stabenow--introduce the Trade Competitiveness Act of 2006, a 
bill that will provide the administration with additional tools, 
resources, and accountability to enforce international trade 
agreements.
  This bill is the first in a comprehensive package of legislation that 
I will introduce during the next few weeks to bolster American 
competitiveness.
  The United States is still a world leader in almost every way 
imaginable. But we need a bold agenda to maintain America's economic 
leadership and preserve high-wage American jobs here at home.
  I just got back from China and India, and that trip only underscored 
the challenges we face in the global economy. To rise to this 
challenge, my bills will address trade and all other keystones of 
America's competitiveness--education, energy, health, savings, 
research, and tax policy.
  But today, we start with international trade. Trade and investment in 
international markets is a challenge that I have asked U.S. companies 
to embrace.
  I want American companies to get aggressive about getting their 
products and their people into foreign markets to bolster the U.S. 
presence around the world and bring jobs and dollars back home.
  But when American companies embrace these new market opportunities, 
they need to know that the American government will back them up. They 
need to know that we will do all that we can to make sure our trading 
partners play by the rules.
  That is why trade enforcement is critical. And this bill will step up 
trade enforcement in five ways.
  Number one: Under my legislation, every year, the USTR will be 
required to identify the biggest trade barriers hurting the U.S. 
economically. The USTR will have to get Congress's input. And the USTR 
will be required to act, through the WTO or in some other way, to break 
those barriers down.
  Number two: My bill will create a ``Chief Trade Enforcement Officer'' 
at the USTR. This person will be confirmed by the Senate. His or her 
entire job will be to investigate enforcement concerns and recommend 
action to the USTR. This person will also answer to Congress when it 
has concerns about enforcement.
  Number three: This new Trade Enforcement Officer is going to have 
some backup. My bill will create a ``Trade Enforcement Working Group'' 
in the Executive Branch. It will be chaired by the USTR, and include 
representatives of the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, and 
Treasury. They will help the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer get the 
job done.
  Number four: This new Trade Enforcement Officer will need resources 
to get the job done. My bill provides $5 million additional to the USTR 
for enforcement. Right now, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget 
effectively cuts enforcement funds.
  Number five: This bill will send a strong message to the 
International Monetary Fund. It will urge our Administration to tell 
the IMF to get aggressive with countries that manipulate their own 
currency to obtain a trade advantage. It will also urge the IMF to 
undertake reforms so it becomes more transparent and more 
representative of the emerging economies in Asia.
  Senator Hatch wanted to make sure that the Federal Government does 
not lose sight of Federal and State sovereignty when negotiating, 
implementing, and enforcing trade agreements. That's an important issue 
to consider, and I'm glad it's in this bill.
  The bottom line is that improving enforcement of our trade agreements 
will allow American companies to play hard and win big in the global 
marketplace. A level playing field is the foundation of American 
competitiveness on trade. This bill will help to provide it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2318. A bill to provide driver safety grants to States with 
graduated driver licensing laws that meet certain minimum requirements; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, 
Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform 
Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation 
that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage 
drivers in our country.
  We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative 
stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and 
adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a 
person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The 
teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a 
time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and 
girls transition successfully into young men and women.
  As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk-
taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National 
Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the 
brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age 
of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach 
teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we 
have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive 
risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from 
negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and 
the well-being of others.
  Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in 
teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all 
too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a 
teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. 
And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when 
irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle 
causes severe harm and death.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans 
between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young 
Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes--
an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a 
fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate 
for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16 
years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times 
the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.
  A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation 
for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly 
more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which 
they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those 
crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
  Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that 
the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is 
doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with 
three or more peers in the vehicle.
  Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high-
profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken 
together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem 
clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It 
is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, 
and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. 
Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative 
methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities 
that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.
  One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated 
driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a 
teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before 
earning the full privileges associated with

[[Page 2050]]

an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to 
teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, 
responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain 
restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on 
passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his 
or her passengers, and other motorists.
  First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now 
exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted 
at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several 
studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction 
measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of 
teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year 
that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent 
reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage 
drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were 
implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor 
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in 
each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in 
California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in 
crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40 
percent between 1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's 
GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving 
teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
  These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are 
taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem 
concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no 
uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and 
other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong 
initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others 
have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are 
killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how 
many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor 
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and 
I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national 
minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State 
the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific 
needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner 
and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. 
There are four principal components of this legislation which I would 
like to briefly discuss.
  First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national 
minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core 
requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. 
These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, 
implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a 
restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and 
implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications 
devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.
  Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that 
encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety 
of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring 
that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, 
requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice 
driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed 
driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the 
learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed 
driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is 
operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an 
unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice 
driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a 
motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, 
misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or 
driving without a fastened seatbelt.
  Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come 
into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's 
annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be 
used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State 
agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational 
materials on the GDL law.
  Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States 
that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill 
withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the 
first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second 
fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does 
allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into 
compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non-
compliance.
  There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on 
States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the 
national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of 
the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists 
in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths 
and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to 
address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.
  The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well-
known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 
2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 
50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans 
support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans 
support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with 
a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or 
restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, 
these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends 
party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of 
Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner 
and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting 
this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that text of this legislation 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. 2318

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Teen and Novice Driver 
     Uniform Protection Act of 2006'' or the ``STANDUP Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
     reported that--
       (A) motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death of 
     Americans between 15 and 20 years of age;
       (B) between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 Americans between 15 and 
     20 years of age died in motor vehicle crashes, an average of 
     122 teenage deaths per week;
       (C) teenage drivers between 16 and 20 years of age have a 
     fatality rate that is 4 times the rate for drivers between 25 
     and 70 years of age; and
       (D) teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor 
     vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate 
     for drivers aged between 30 and 60 years of age.
       (2) According to the American Automobile Association, 
     teenage drivers comprise slightly more than \1/3\ of all 
     fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are 
     involved and nearly \2/3\ of all fatalities in those crashes 
     are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
       (3) According to the Insurance Institute for Highway 
     Safety, the chance of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver 
     is doubled if there are 2 peers in the vehicle and quadrupled 
     with 3 or more peers in the vehicle.
       (4) According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, the cognitive distraction caused by hands-
     free and hand-held cell phones is significant enough to 
     degrade a driver's performance, particularly teenage drivers 
     between 15 and 20 years of age.
       (5) Although only 20 percent of driving by teenage drivers 
     occurs at night, more than 50

[[Page 2051]]

     percent of the motor vehicle crash fatalities involving 
     teenage drivers occur at night.
       (6) In 1997, the first full year of its graduated driver 
     licensing system, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction 
     in fatal and injurious crashes among teenage drivers between 
     the ages of 15 and 18, compared with 1995, according to the 
     Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
       (7) The Journal of the American Medical Association reports 
     that crashes involving 16-year-old drivers decreased between 
     1995 and 1999 by 25 percent in Michigan and 27 percent in 
     North Carolina. Comprehensive graduated driver licensing 
     systems were implemented in 1997 in these States.
       (8) In California, according to the Automobile Club of 
     Southern California, teenage passenger deaths and injuries 
     resulting from crashes involving 16-year-old drivers declined 
     by 40 percent from 1998 to 2000, the first 3 years of 
     California's graduated driver licensing program. The number 
     of at-fault collisions involving 16-year-old drivers 
     decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
       (9) The National Transportation Safety Board reports that 
     39 States and the District of Columbia have implemented 3-
     stage graduated driver licensing systems. Many States have 
     not yet implemented these and other basic safety features of 
     graduated driver licensing laws to protect the lives of 
     teenage and novice drivers.
       (10) A 2001 Harris Poll indicates that--
       (A) 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 
     50 hours of practice driving with an adult;
       (B) 92 percent of Americans support a 6-month learner's 
     permit period; and
       (C) 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of 
     teenage passengers in a car with a teenage driver and 
     supervised driving during high-risk driving periods, such as 
     night.

     SEC. 3. STATE GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING LAWS.

       (a) Minimum Requirements.--A State is in compliance with 
     this section if the State has a graduated driver licensing 
     law that includes, for novice drivers under the age of 21--
       (1) a 3-stage licensing process, including a learner's 
     permit stage and an intermediate stage before granting an 
     unrestricted driver's license;
       (2) a prohibition on nighttime driving during the 
     intermediate stage;
       (3) a prohibition, during the learner's permit intermediate 
     stages, from operating a motor vehicle with more than 1 non-
     familial passenger under the age of 21 if there is no 
     licensed driver 21 years of age or older present in the motor 
     vehicle;
       (4) a prohibition during the learner's permit and 
     intermediate stages, from using a cellular telephone or any 
     communications device in non-emergency situations; and
       (5) any other requirement that the Secretary of 
     Transportation (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') 
     may require, including--
       (A) a learner's permit stage of at least 6 months;
       (B) an intermediate stage of at least 6 months;
       (C) for novice drivers in the learner's permit stage--
       (i) a requirement of at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel 
     training with a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age; 
     and
       (ii) a requirement that any such driver be accompanied and 
     supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at 
     all times when such driver is operating a motor vehicle; and
       (D) a requirement that the grant of full licensure be 
     automatically delayed, in addition to any other penalties 
     imposed by State law for any individual who, while holding a 
     provisional license, convicted of an offense, such as driving 
     while intoxicated, misrepresentation of their true age, 
     reckless driving, unbelted driving, speeding, or other 
     violations, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Rulemaking.--After public notice and comment rulemaking 
     the Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement 
     this section.

     SEC. 4. INCENTIVE GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--For each of the first 3 fiscal years 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall award a grant to any State in compliance with 
     section 3(a) on or before the first day of that fiscal year 
     that submits an application under subsection (b).
       (b) Application.--Any State desiring a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require, including a certification by the 
     governor of the State that the State is in compliance with 
     section 3(a).
       (c) Grants.--For each fiscal year described in subsection 
     (a), amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be 
     apportioned to each State in compliance with section 3(a) in 
     an amount determined by multiplying--
       (1) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for 
     such fiscal year; by
       (2) the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned to each 
     such State for such fiscal year under section 402 of title 
     23, United States Code, bears to the total amount of funds 
     apportioned to all such States for such fiscal year under 
     such section 402.
       (d) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     this section shall be used for--
       (1) enforcement and providing training regarding the State 
     graduated driver licensing law to law enforcement personnel 
     and other relevant State agency personnel;
       (2) publishing relevant educational materials that pertain 
     directly or indirectly to the State graduated driver 
     licensing law; and
       (3) other administrative activities that the Secretary 
     considers relevant to the State graduated driver licensing 
     law.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Fiscal year 2010.--The Secretary shall withhold 1.5 
     percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to 
     any State for fiscal year 2010 under each of the paragraphs 
     (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United 
     States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section 
     3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2009.
       (2) Fiscal year 2011.--The Secretary shall withhold 3 
     percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to 
     any State for fiscal year 2011 under each of the paragraphs 
     (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United 
     States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section 
     3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2010.
       (3) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--The Secretary shall 
     withhold 6 percent of the amount otherwise required to be 
     apportioned to any State for each fiscal year beginning with 
     fiscal year 2012 under each of the paragraphs (1), (3), and 
     (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, if 
     that State is not in compliance with section 3(a) of this Act 
     on the first day of such fiscal year.
       (b) Period of Availability of Withheld Funds.--
       (1) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2011.--Any 
     amount withheld from any State under subsection (a) on or 
     before September 30, 2011, shall remain available for 
     distribution to the State under subsection (c) until the end 
     of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year for which 
     such amount is appropriated.
       (2) Funds withheld after september 30, 2011.--Any amount 
     withheld under subsection (a)(2) from any State after 
     September 30, 2011, may not be distributed to the State.
       (c) Apportionment of Withheld Funds After Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--If, before the last day of the period for 
     which funds withheld under subsection (a) are to remain 
     available to a State under subsection (b), the State comes 
     into compliance with section 3(a), the Secretary shall, on 
     the first day on which the State comes into compliance, 
     distribute to the State any amounts withheld under subsection 
     (a) that remains available for apportionment to the State.
       (2) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--Any amount distributed under paragraph (1) shall 
     remain available for expenditure by the State until the end 
     of the third fiscal year for which the funds are so 
     apportioned. Any amount not expended by the State by the end 
     of such period shall revert back to the Treasury of the 
     United States.
       (3) Effect of non-compliance.--If a State is not in 
     compliance with section 3(a) at the end of the period for 
     which any amount withheld under subsection (a) remains 
     available for distribution to the State under subsection (b), 
     such amount shall revert back to the Treasury of the United 
     States.

                          ____________________