[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2184-2194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2334. A bill to ensure the security of United States ports, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today 
along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation 
that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the 
operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton 
for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with 
Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey 
safe.
  I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this 
deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country. 
They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear, 
drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we 
enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that 
could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists 
transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That 
is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of 
our ports.
  Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our 
ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our 
legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in 
our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to 
manage national security risks arising from any existing port 
contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with 
the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well 
as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also 
includes a new public comment period.
  Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal 
through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress 
learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign 
state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we 
compromise national security by turning our port operations over to 
another country, whether friend or foe.
  Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again.
  I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over 
our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal 
operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments 
act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments 
act in their own national interests and in their own national security 
interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by 
stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a 
government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President 
Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the 
interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned 
companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones.
  That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning, 
leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just 
as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a 
foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports, 
which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a 
foreign government.
  The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue 
this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this 
argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has 
changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response 
accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has 
changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at 
the world in a traditional way.
  One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think 
outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury 
when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel 
commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass 
destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the 
box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States, 
in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can 
have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September 
11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over 
commercial transactions.

[[Page 2185]]

  Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I 
am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45-
day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai 
Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am 
not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was 
set to close on March 2, and we want to stop the clock now and make 
sure that 45-day investigative review period is precedent to the 
fulfillment of that agreement.
  We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these 
deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore 
our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals 
involving government-owned companies which could affect national 
security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a 
foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We 
know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were 
intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats 
raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external 
pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But 
starting an investigation that should have already been carried out 
under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the 
Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to 
discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working 
with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive 
solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States.
  As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this 
process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why 
the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was 
kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using 
their common sense, and to the American public that we must have 
transparency and openness as we address these national security issues.
  Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process 
doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has 
made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no 
obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the 
Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press 
only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own 
press release. That is why our legislation would require the 
notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where 
appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public 
impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal 
Government.
  These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem 
necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The 
fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this 
legislation.
  Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on 
this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of 
Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the 
third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on 
the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into 
improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been 
ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect 
of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of 
containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics. 
But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such 
as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.
  The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of 
containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from 
security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 
out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened, 
and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory 
glance at a cargo manifest.
  It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan 
that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A 
weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the 
Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of 
thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion 
dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed 
over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks, 
Congress has provided less than $800 million.
  This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the 
administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously 
focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical 
infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can 
no longer continue to accept.
  In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national 
security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and 
mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September 
11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or 
some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port 
which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the 
world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This 
is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic 
activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk.
  In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating 
the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something 
as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when 
we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our 
commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies 
to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a 
critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across 
the sea.
  That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand 
together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety 
and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our 
fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will 
never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security 
of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United 
States.
  I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us 
in this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2334

       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 ``Port Security Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LEASES OF REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES 
                   AT UNITED STATES PORTS BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-
                   OWNED ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 271(d) of the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Subject to subsection (d)'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Prohibition on leases of real property and facilities 
     at united states ports by foreign government-owned 
     entities.--The President shall prohibit any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover described in subsection (a)(1) that 
     will result in any entity that is owned or controlled by a 
     foreign government leasing, operating, managing, or owning 
     real property or facilities at a United States port.''.
       (b) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the leasing, operating, managing, or 
     owning real property or facilities at United States ports by 
     entities that are owned or controlled by foreign governments.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a list of all entities that are owned or controlled by 
     foreign governments that are leasing, operating, managing, or 
     owning real property or facilities at United States ports;
       (B) an assessment of the national security threat posed by 
     such activities; and

[[Page 2186]]

       (C) recommendations for any legislation in response to such 
     threat.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED TRANSPARENCY OF MANDATORY INVESTIGATIONS.

       Section 271(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2170(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``The President'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The President'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Notification to congress.--Not later than one day 
     after commencing an investigation under paragraph (1), the 
     President shall provide notice of the investigation and 
     relevant information regarding the proposed merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover, including relevant ownership 
     records to--
       ``(A) the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       ``(B) the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(C) the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee on 
     Finance, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government 
     Affairs, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;
       ``(D) the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, the Committee on Homeland Security, the 
     Committee on Financial Services, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(E) the Members of Congress representing the States and 
     districts affected by the proposed transaction.
       ``(3) Notification to public officials of investigations of 
     proposed transactions affecting united states ports.--In the 
     case of an investigation under paragraph (1) of a proposed 
     merger, acquisition, or takeover that will result in any 
     entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign government 
     leasing, operating, managing, or owning real property or 
     facilities at a United States port, the President shall, not 
     later than one day after commencing an investigation under 
     paragraph (1), notify the Governors and heads of relevant 
     government agencies of the States in which such ports are 
     located and provide to such Governors and relevant agency 
     heads information regarding the proposed merger, acquisition, 
     or takeover, including relevant ownership records.
       ``(4) Public comments.--
       ``(A) Solicitation of public comments.--Not later than 7 
     days after commencing an investigation under paragraph (1), 
     the President shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     description of the proposed merger, acquisition, or takeover, 
     including a solicitation for public comments on such proposed 
     merger, acquisition, or takeover.
       ``(B) Summary of public comments.--Not later than 10 days 
     prior to the completion of an investigation under paragraph 
     (1), the President shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     summary of the public comments received pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 271(e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2170(e)) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover considered on or after October 1, 
     2005 under section 271 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2170).

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad to hear our new colleague from 
New Jersey talking about our national security, and certainly this is 
one subject which always concerns us. It is the primary role of our 
National Government to provide for the security of the American people. 
I hope that in the debate, though, about the control of our ports, we 
don't operate on the basis of looking for political advantage but, 
rather, we take a calm and deliberate review of the facts.
  I heard this morning, in the Armed Services Committee, from the 
Director of National Intelligence, who said that after a review of this 
transaction, it was his opinion, as the lead Government official for 
the intelligence community in our Nation, that any risk in this 
transaction was low. Certainly, that was useful information to have, 
and I anticipate that we will continue to hear more as the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee continues to look into 
this transaction, and I trust we will do our due diligence during this 
45-day review period.
  But I hope we don't make this a political football. I hope we don't 
paint this with such a broad brush that we consider any Arab nation our 
enemy when, in fact, this Nation has been an ally in the global war on 
terror. I hope we will make our judgments based on behavior and not 
where someone comes from or their ethnicity or other origins because, 
of course, fanning the flames of prejudice based upon those sorts of 
considerations would be inappropriate entirely.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2337. A bill to increase access to postsecondary education, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Snowe, Akaka, Kerry, Durbin, and DeWine, the College Pathway 
Act of 2006. The intent of this bill is to provide a means of 
addressing the critical issue of college access and postsecondary 
academic success. College access for all will continue to be a struggle 
until the predictors of successful college performance are assimilated 
into high school curricula. The degree to which high school students 
are successfully prepared for college continues to be at the forefront 
of educational concerns. Reports abound repeating the same message: our 
high school students, particularly students from low-income and 
minority populations, are not being adequately prepared for the 
challenges of postsecondary education. The College Pathway Act seeks to 
foster alliances among the interested and integral stakeholders in the 
educational arena to create consistency in content and assessment 
standards between P-12 and higher education. We do this by encouraging 
the establishment of P-16 Commissions. We must rise to the challenge 
and forge a pathway to enhance both college access and academic 
success.
  Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for most students 
and the future strength of our economy and workforce will largely 
depend on the postsecondary educational attainments of students across 
the country regardless of ethnicity or economic status. High school 
preparation is a major part of the problem. Published reports on the 
status of this topic stress the lack of preparedness of high school 
graduates for postsecondary education. Most will need remedial help in 
college. More than 70 percent of high school graduates enter two and 
four year colleges, but at least 28 percent immediately take remedial 
English or math courses. At some point during their college years, 53 
percent of students will take one remedial English or math class if not 
more. For low-income and minority students, the percentage is higher. 
States require a certain number of English and math courses to be 
completed prior to graduation, however, the certainty of course content 
reflecting the knowledge and skills important for college success is 
not ensured.
  Students find themselves taking high school courses lacking in rigor 
and challenging content, particularly in the areas of math and science. 
If asked, 39 percent of students who have gone on to a postsecondary 
institution will admit they were not adequately prepared for college 
and there were gaps in their overall preparation. College instructors 
estimate that 42 percent of their students are not adequately prepared. 
The quality and intensity of the secondary school curriculum are the 
most significant predictors of college success; and are more 
significant than race, socioeconomic status, secondary school grade 
point average, or ACT and SAT scores. These findings are particularly 
significant for minority groups enrolling in college. Students who 
engage in challenging secondary coursework will attend and persist in 
pursuing higher education at a greater rate than those who follow 
programs of study that are not rigorous in content. All states have 
English and mathematics standards and assessments at the high school 
level, yet assessment standards and tests often do not reflect the 
demands put on students in postsecondary education and in the 
workplace. High school curricula must be aligned with college entry 
requirements. The American Diploma Project states that the challenge 
ahead is to create a system of assessments and

[[Page 2187]]

graduation requirements that considered together signify readiness for 
college and work. We, as Federal policymakers, have an essential role 
to play in making this a reality and creating college access for all.
  In part, the misalignment between postsecondary institutions and high 
school stems from current governance systems in place for P-12 
educational systems and higher education. Both systems are generally 
governed, financed and operated differently. This gap must be bridged 
between the two systems. Creating a pipeline of shared information 
between the two entities and the business community will promote an 
exchange of necessary and useful information. Working to align 
standards from the early grades through grade 12 recognizes that skill 
acquisition and content assimilation build one upon the other and 
acknowledges that high-school graduation and college success is a 
culmination of preparation originating in the beginning years of 
school. Aligning curricula across school levels creates a more seamless 
education and ensures that students are prepared for each subsequent 
grade with particular attention to math, science, and engineering. 
Aligning P-12 and postsecondary education would reduce the number of 
students who arrive at college needing remedial coursework.
  The need to develop high-quality data systems is also critical to 
improving high school student outcomes. Accountability for high school 
graduation numbers and drop-out rates is critical to addressing 
education reform in our high schools. Currently reports have indicated 
that the quality of high school graduation and drop-out data is often 
not reliable and does not reflect the actual numbers.
  Tracking student growth over time using longitudinal student-unit 
databases will provide the most accurate information for policy 
decisions and assessments. Furthermore, information provided about 
student achievement over time can be linked to teachers, programs and 
schools serving those students. The National Governor's Association 
(NGA) recently convened a Task Force on State High School Graduation 
Data--which included representatives from the American Federation of 
Teachers, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School 
Officers, the Education Commission of the States, the Educational 
Testing Service, the Education Trust, the National Association of State 
Boards of Education, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Education Association, Standard and Poor's and the State 
Higher Education Executive Officers--to make recommendations about how 
States can develop a high-quality, comparable high school graduation 
measure, as well as complementary indicators of student progress and 
outcomes and data systems capable of collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting the data States need. The task force members concurred as a 
group on their mission and devised a compact to implement efforts to 
guide States in developing high quality data-systems ideally using a 
longitudinal student unit record data system. This compact was signed 
by 51 governors in all States and Puerto Rico. The ultimate goal is 
better outcomes for students. Better information can lead to better 
policies and program implementation. Our bill therefore includes 
incentives for States to develop or enhance such data systems.
  The College Pathway Act supplies a remedy to the critical issue of 
the disconnect existing between high school outcomes and college 
expectations. Through the formation of partnerships between P-12 and 
higher education systems in the States, academic success in 
postsecondary education becomes the priority agenda item for reform. We 
anticipate that P-16 Commissions will bring about an increase in the 
percentage of academically prepared students, particularly low-income 
and minority students, and a decrease in the percentage of college 
students requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to 
math, science, and engineering.
  The College Pathway Act of 2006 awards grants to States to establish 
P-16 Commissions in order to align P-12 outcomes with postsecondary 
institutions' expectations. The Commissions under the leadership of the 
governor or governor's designee, will convene stakeholders of the 
statewide P-12 education and higher education community, and may 
include parent groups, State legislative representatives, and 
particularly members of the business community. The commissions' goal 
to create a mission addressing college preparation will be the first 
and critical step of this process.
  Many States across our country have already seen the wisdom of a P-16 
commission and have been working on goals and implementation. The 
results, although preliminary for many States, are vastly encouraging. 
Our bill will provide support both to States with existing P-16 bodies, 
or States seeking to establish such commissions. It will give priority 
to the States also seeking to establish or enhance data systems.
  The College Pathway Act of 2006 can offer States an opportunity to 
craft a vision that will reach all students over time so that their 
educational pathway of access to and success in college will be 
ensured.
  I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of this 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. 2337

       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 ``College Pathway Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Postsecondary education is an important aspiration for 
     most students and the future strength of the United States 
     economy and workforce will largely depend on the 
     postsecondary educational attainments of all people of the 
     United States, regardless of sex, race, or ethnic background.
       (2) Parents and students recognize the value of 
     postsecondary education. Ninety-seven percent of secondary 
     school students expect to attend college, and more than 75 
     percent of secondary school graduates enroll in some 
     postsecondary education within 2 years of secondary school 
     graduation.
       (3) Notwithstanding those expectations, only 32 percent of 
     students graduate from secondary school adequately prepared 
     to enter a 4-year institution of higher education. Students 
     living in poverty and students of color are roughly half as 
     likely to be college-ready.
       (4) Despite the reality that most students will enter 
     college after secondary school, secondary school graduation 
     requirements are not aligned with the expectations of 
     postsecondary education.
       (5) Rather than beginning college-level work upon entering 
     postsecondary education, many students (nearly 1 in 3) enroll 
     in developmental coursework, and more than half will take at 
     least 1 class of developmental coursework before leaving 
     postsecondary education. Students who need to take a class of 
     developmental coursework in college have less than a 40 
     percent chance of completing their course of study, and 
     students who take 3 or more classes of developmental 
     coursework face reducing their prospects of completing their 
     course of study to less than 1 in 5.
       (6) The quality and intensity of the secondary school 
     curriculum--
       (A) are the most significant predictors of college success; 
     and
       (B) are more significant than race, socioeconomic status, 
     secondary school grade point average, or ACT and SAT scores.
       (7) States around the Nation have developed secondary 
     school academic standards, but there is often no relationship 
     between those standards and institutional expectations for 
     college-level study. Students, families, and school personnel 
     need information to address the gap that exists between 
     satisfying various kindergarten through grade 12 standards 
     and meeting the standards that indicate success in higher 
     education. The lack of clear information affects all 
     students, but the effect is particularly grave for students 
     living in poverty who are more reliant on schools and public 
     sources of information to gauge their preparedness for 
     college-level work.
       (8) Numerous reports have cited the need to improve 
     mathematics and science achievement in prekindergarten 
     through grade 12.
       (9) Current data systems are not designed to measure the 
     efficacy of State actions intended to prepare students to 
     enter and succeed in postsecondary education. State-level 
     data systems usually contain only data related to 
     kindergarten through grade 12, and often are not compatible 
     with postsecondary education data systems.

[[Page 2188]]



     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To broaden the focus of Federal, State, and local 
     higher education programs to promote academic success in 
     postsecondary education, particularly with respect to 
     mathematics, science, and engineering.
       (2) To increase the percentage of low-income and minority 
     students who are academically prepared to enter and 
     successfully complete postsecondary-level general education 
     coursework.
       (3) To decrease the percentage of students requiring 
     developmental coursework through grants that enable States to 
     coordinate the public prekindergarten through grade 12 
     education system and the postsecondary education system--
       (A) to ensure that covered institutions articulate and 
     publicize the prerequisite skills and knowledge expected of 
     incoming postsecondary students attending covered 
     institutions, in order to provide students and other 
     interested parties with accurate information pertaining to 
     the students' necessary preparations for postsecondary 
     education;
       (B) to establish and implement middle school and secondary 
     school course enrollment guidelines--
       (i) to ensure that public secondary school students, in all 
     major racial and ethnic groups, and income levels, complete 
     academic courses linked with academic success at the 
     postsecondary level; and
       (ii) to increase the percentage of students in each major 
     racial group, ethnic group, and income level who graduate 
     from secondary school and enter postsecondary education with 
     the academic preparation necessary to successfully complete 
     postsecondary-level general education coursework, 
     particularly with respect to mathematics, science, and 
     engineering;
       (C) to implement programs and policies that increase 
     secondary school graduation rates; and
       (D) to collect and analyze disaggregated longitudinal 
     student data throughout P-16 education in order to--
       (i) understand and improve students' progress throughout 
     the P-16 education system;
       (ii) understand problems and needs throughout the P-16 
     education system; and
       (iii) align prekindergarten through grade 12 academic 
     standards and higher education standards so that more 
     students are prepared to successfully complete postsecondary-
     level general education coursework.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) In general.--The terms ``local educational agency'', 
     ``parent'', ``secondary school'', and ``State'' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (2) Academic assessments.--The term ``academic 
     assessments'' means the academic assessments implemented by a 
     State educational agency pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(3)).
       (3) Academic standards.--The term ``academic standards'' 
     means the challenging academic content standards and 
     challenging student academic achievement standards adopted by 
     a State pursuant to section 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)).
       (4) Covered institution.--The term ``covered institution'' 
     means an institution of higher education that participates in 
     a program under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
       (5) Developmental coursework.--The term ``developmental 
     coursework'' means coursework that a student is required to 
     complete in order to attain prerequisite knowledge or skills 
     necessary for entrance into a postsecondary degree or 
     certification program.
       (6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1002).
       (7) P-16 education.--The term ``P-16 education'' means the 
     educational system from prekindergarten through the 
     conferring of a baccalaureate degree.
       (8) P-16 educator.--The term ``P-16 educator'' means an 
     individual teaching in P-16 education.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (10) Student.--The term ``student'' means any student 
     enrolled in a public school.

     SEC. 5. P-16 EDUCATION STEWARDSHIP SYSTEM GRANTS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 10 for a fiscal year, and subject to subsection (b), 
     the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     States to enable the States--
       (1) to establish--
       (A) P-16 education stewardship commissions in accordance 
     with section 7; or
       (B) P-16 education stewardship systems consisting of--
       (i) a P-16 education stewardship commission in accordance 
     with section 7; and
       (ii) a P-16 education data system in accordance with 
     section 8; and
       (2) to carry out the activities and programs described in 
     the State application and plan submitted under section 6.
       (b) Award Basis.--In determining the approval and amount of 
     a grant under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give 
     priority to an application from a State that desires the 
     grant to establish a P-16 education stewardship system 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (c) Period of Grants.--
       (1) States establishing p-16 education stewardship 
     systems.--Each grant made under this section to a State to 
     establish a P-16 education stewardship system described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) shall be awarded for a period of 5 
     years.
       (2) States establishing p-16 education stewardship 
     commissions.--Each grant made under this section to a State 
     to establish a P-16 education stewardship commission 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be awarded for a 
     period of 3 years.

     SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATION AND PLAN.

       (a) In General.--A State desiring a grant under section 5 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       (b) Contents.--Each application submitted under this 
     section shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) A demonstration that the State, not later than 5 months 
     after receiving grant funds under this Act, will establish a 
     P-16 education stewardship commission described in section 7.
       (2) For a State applying for a grant under section 
     5(a)(1)(B), a demonstration that the State, not later than 2 
     years after receiving grant funds under this Act, will 
     implement, expand, or improve a P-16 education data system 
     described in section 8.
       (3) A demonstration that the State will work with the State 
     P-16 education stewardship commission and others as necessary 
     to examine the relationship among the content of 
     postsecondary education admission and placement exams, the 
     prerequisite skills and knowledge required to successfully 
     take postsecondary-level general education coursework, the 
     prekindergarten through grade 12 courses and academic factors 
     associated with academic success at the postsecondary level, 
     particularly with respect to mathematics, science, and 
     engineering, and existing academic standards and academic 
     assessments.
       (4) A description of how the State will, using the 
     information from the State P-16 education stewardship 
     commission, increase the percentage of students taking 
     courses that have the highest correlation of academic success 
     at the postsecondary level, for each of the following groups 
     of students:
       (A) Economically disadvantaged students.
       (B) Students from each major racial and ethnic group.
       (C) Students with disabilities.
       (D) Students with limited English proficiency.
       (5) A description of how the State will distribute the 
     information in the P-16 education stewardship commission's 
     report under section 7(c)(4) to the public in the State, 
     including public secondary schools, local educational 
     agencies, school counselors, P-16 educators, institutions of 
     higher education, students, and parents.
       (6) An assurance that the State will continue to pursue 
     effective P-16 education alignment strategies after the end 
     of the grant period.

     SEC. 7. P-16 EDUCATION STEWARDSHIP COMMISSION.

       (a) P-16 Education Stewardship Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Each State receiving a grant under section 
     5 shall establish a P-16 education stewardship commission 
     that has the policymaking ability to meet the requirements of 
     this section.
       (2) Existing commission.--The State may designate an 
     existing coordinating body or commission as the State P-16 
     education stewardship commission for purposes of this Act, if 
     the body or commission meets, or is amended to meet, the 
     basic requirements of this section.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--Each P-16 education stewardship 
     commission shall be composed of the Governor of the State, or 
     the designee of the Governor, and the stakeholders of the 
     statewide education community, as determined by the Governor 
     or the designee of the Governor, such as--
       (A) the chief State official responsible for administering 
     prekindergarten through grade 12 education in the State;
       (B) the chief State official of the entity primarily 
     responsible for the supervision of institutions of higher 
     education in the State;
       (C) bipartisan representation from the State legislative 
     committee with jurisdiction over prekindergarten through 
     grade 12 education and higher education;
       (D) representatives of 2- and 4-year institutions of higher 
     education in the State;
       (E) representatives of the business community; and
       (F) at the discretion of the Governor, or the designee of 
     the Governor, representatives from prekindergarten through 
     grade 12 and higher education governing boards and other 
     organizations.
       (2) Chairperson; meetings.--The Governor of the State, or 
     the designee of the Governor,

[[Page 2189]]

     shall serve as chairperson of the P-16 education stewardship 
     commission and shall convene regular meetings of the 
     commission.
       (c) Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) Meetings of covered institutions.--
       (A) In general.--Each State P-16 education stewardship 
     commission shall convene regular meetings of the covered 
     institutions in the State for the purpose of assessing and 
     reaching consensus regarding--
       (i) the prerequisite skills and knowledge expected of 
     incoming freshmen to successfully engage in and complete 
     postsecondary-level general education coursework without the 
     prior need to enroll in developmental coursework, 
     particularly with respect to mathematics, science, and 
     engineering; and
       (ii) patterns of coursework and other academic factors that 
     demonstrate the highest correlation with success in 
     completing postsecondary-level general education coursework 
     and degree or certification programs.
       (B) Findings of covered institutions.--The covered 
     institutions shall communicate to the P-16 education 
     stewardship commission the findings of the covered 
     institutions, which--
       (i) shall include the consensus on the prerequisite skills 
     and knowledge, patterns of coursework, and other academic 
     factors described in subparagraph (A);
       (ii) shall address, at minimum, the subjects of reading, 
     mathematics, science, grammar, and writing, and may cover 
     additional academic content areas;
       (iii) shall be descriptive of content and purpose, and 
     shall not be limited to a simple listing of secondary course 
     names; and
       (iv) may be different for 2- and 4-year institutions of 
     higher education.
       (2) Commission recommendations.--Not later than 18 months 
     after a State receives a grant under section 5, and annually 
     thereafter for each year in the grant period, the State P-16 
     education stewardship commission shall--
       (A) develop recommendations regarding the prerequisite 
     skills and knowledge, patterns of coursework, and other 
     academic factors described in paragraph (1)(A); and
       (B) develop recommendations and enact policies to increase 
     the success rate of students in the students' transition from 
     secondary school to postsecondary education.
       (3) Commission findings.--Not later than 3 years after a 
     State receives a grant under section 5(a)(1)(B), the State P-
     16 education stewardship commission shall--
       (A) compile and interpret the findings from the P-16 
     education data system; and
       (B) include the compilation and interpretation of the 
     findings in the report described in paragraph (4)(A).
       (4) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after a State 
     receives a grant under section 5, and annually thereafter for 
     each year in the grant period, the State P-16 education 
     stewardship commission shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a clear and concise report that shall include the 
     recommendations described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (2).
       (B) Distribution to the public.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the submission of a report under subparagraph (A), each 
     State P-16 education stewardship commission shall publish and 
     widely distribute the information in the report to the public 
     in the State, including--
       (i) all public secondary schools and local educational 
     agencies;
       (ii) school counselors;
       (iii) P-16 educators;
       (iv) institutions of higher education; and
       (v) students and parents, especially students entering 
     grade 9 in the next academic year and the parents of such 
     students, to assist the students and the parents in making 
     informed and strategic course enrollment decisions.

     SEC. 8. P-16 EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 2 years after a State 
     receives a grant under section 5(a)(1)(B), the State shall 
     establish a State-level longitudinal data system that 
     provides each student, upon enrollment in a public school or 
     in a covered institution in the State, with a unique 
     identifier that is retained throughout the student's 
     enrollment in P-16 education in the State.
       (b) Functions of Data System.--The State shall, through the 
     implementation of the data system described in subsection 
     (a), carry out the following:
       (1) Identify factors that correlate to students' ability to 
     successfully engage in and complete postsecondary-level 
     general education coursework without the need for prior 
     developmental coursework.
       (2) Implement procedures to track developmental coursework 
     enrollment rates.
       (3) Implement procedures to assist with identifying 
     correlations between course-taking patterns in public 
     secondary education and increased academic performance in 
     higher education.
       (4) Implement procedures to assist with identifying the 
     points at which students exit the P-16 education system, 
     including the assimilation of valid and reliable secondary 
     school dropout data.
       (5) Incorporate data to track postsecondary degree and 
     certification completion rates and student persistence 
     patterns.
       (6) Ensure that the data system is compliant with the 
     Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. 
     1232g).
       (7) Disaggregate the data described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (5) by race, ethnicity, income level, sex, secondary 
     school attended, and type of institution of higher education 
     attended.
       (c) Existing Data Systems.--A State may employ, coordinate, 
     or revise an existing data system for purposes of this 
     section if such data system produces valid and reliable 
     information that satisfies the requirements of subsection 
     (b).

     SEC. 9. REPORTS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) State Reports.--
       (1) Annual report.--Each State that receives a grant under 
     section 5 shall submit an annual report to the Secretary for 
     each year of the grant period that shall include a 
     description of the activities undertaken under the grant to 
     improve academic readiness for postsecondary-level general 
     education coursework and course completion.
       (2) Dissemination.--Each State shall prepare, publish, and 
     widely disseminate the report described in paragraph (1) to 
     the public in the State, including secondary schools, local 
     educational agencies, school counselors, P-16 educators, 
     institutions of higher education, students, and parents.
       (b) Secretary Reports.--
       (1) Annual report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report to Congress that includes--
       (A) findings from the State reports submitted under 
     subsection (a)(1);
       (B) a description of the actions taken by the Department of 
     Education to assist States with creating P-16 education 
     stewardship commissions and P-16 education data systems;
       (C) a description of the actions and incentives planned by 
     the States' P-16 education stewardship commissions--
       (i) to help States align academic standards, courses, and 
     academic assessments with postsecondary academic 
     expectations, courses, and assessments;
       (ii) to help States increase the percentage of minority and 
     low-income students prepared to enter and succeed at the 
     postsecondary level; and
       (iii) to reduce postsecondary developmental coursework 
     enrollment rates of minority and low-income students;
       (D) a description of the actions and incentives planned to 
     help States reduce postsecondary developmental coursework 
     enrollment rates;
       (E) an assessment of the effectiveness of P-16 education 
     stewardship commissions in improving college readiness and 
     eliminating the need for developmental coursework; and
       (F) recommendations regarding how to make the P-16 
     education stewardship commissions more effective, and whether 
     the establishment of such commissions should be encouraged 
     throughout the United States.
       (2) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the annual 
     report described in paragraph (1) available to the public and 
     to each State and institution of higher education.
       (c) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide, 
     upon request, technical assistance to States and institutions 
     of higher education seeking technical assistance under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill that will 
improve college access by creating a framework to ensure that high 
school graduates amass the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in 
college--the College Pathway Act. My colleague, Senator Lieberman, and 
I have been working hand-in-hand to identify the degree to which high 
school students are unsuccessfully prepared for college and develop 
practical solutions to this issue. The bill we introduce today is the 
product of our combined efforts.
  Today, 97 percent of secondary school students expect to attend 
college, however, high school students are not prepared academically 
for the rigors of college coursework. Although States around the 
country have developed high school standards, there is often a 
disconnect that exists between high school standards and college 
expectations. Today, 53 percent of post-secondary students require 
remedial English or mathematics. Graduation rates for those requiring 
remedial classes are less then 40 percent. And that is why Senator 
Leiberman and I are working together in response to the concerns that 
too many students start college without the proper tools.
  Part of the problem is that colleges and high schools generally have 
separate statewide governing boards for their pre-kindergarten through 
12th grade and higher education systems. The College Pathway Act awards 
grants enabling States the opportunity of a voluntary establishment of 
pre-

[[Page 2190]]

kindergarten through the 16th grade commissions in States, consisting 
of representatives of the pre-kindergarten through 12th grade and 
higher education communities, the governor's office, appropriate State 
legislators and members of the business community. These partnerships 
within the commission would promote academic success in postsecondary 
education, increase the percentage of academically prepared low-income 
and minority students, and decrease the percentage of college students 
requiring remedial coursework, particularly with respect to math, 
science and engineering.
  This commission offers a framework for aligning lower, middle and 
high school curriculum and assessment standards with post-secondary 
expectations. Students who are properly prepared before entering 
college are far more likely to succeed in college. Indeed, many States 
across the Nation are looking to the pre-kindergarten through 12th 
grade concept to improve alignment. Federal funding for establishment 
of pre-kindergarten through 12th grade commissions would allow States 
to implement or expand their current programs. In addition, many States 
are attempting to improve data collection systems in order to better 
evaluate those programs that lead to success. Our bill would also offer 
support to those States which voluntarily seek to enhance and improve 
the effectiveness of their data systems. We believe that by promoting 
coordination of grades pre-kindergarten through 12th grade, States will 
better align education systems helping to ensure that all students are 
prepared to successfully engage in and complete post-secondary level 
coursework.
  Our Nation must make a solid commitment to ensuring that every 
individual has the opportunity to pursue a higher education. We should 
pursue policies that will prepare students to begin their college 
career. I believe that education is the great equalizer in our society 
that gives every citizen of our Nation the same opportunity to succeed 
in the global economy of the 21st century. That's why I will continue 
to target access to higher education for America's students. The 
College Pathway Act will help to further this goal.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to voice my strong support as 
an original cosponsor of The College Pathway Act, introduced by my 
colleagues from Connecticut and Maine, Senators Lieberman and Snowe. I 
greatly appreciate their foresight in creating legislation that will 
help Hawaii and other states bring greater links between education at 
all levels, as well as with business and industry.
  I know the field of education well, having served as a teacher, vice 
principal, principal, and school administrator in Hawaii before holding 
public office. I taught at the elementary, middle, and secondary 
levels, and continue to hold great interest in developments in these 
areas, as well as in early childhood and higher education. From these 
experiences, I have advocated that education should be an 
interconnected pathway, from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary 
levels and beyond, into the workforce.
  We need all stakeholders in education and the labor force to work 
together, seamlessly. The Lieberman-Snowe bill will help to further 
this very aim in Hawaii and other States with existing entities, and to 
assist other States in meeting similar, meaningful goals through the 
creation of similar entities. By encouraging States to establish P-16, 
or as in Hawaii's case, P-20 commissions, to align lower, middle, and 
high school curricular and assessment standards with what is expected 
in higher education, we will better assure college readiness and reach 
a fundamental goal: greater rates of college completion.
  To describe the Hawaii P-20 initiative in more detail, the initiative 
brings together public and private educators at all levels, working in 
collaboration with representatives of state government, the business 
community, labor, and educational support agencies to focus on 
improving learner achievement. Its vision statement says, all Hawaii 
residents will be educated, caring, self-sufficient, and able to 
contribute to their families, to the economy, and to the common good, 
and will be encouraged to continue learning throughout their lives.
  The initiative, which recently unveiled its strategic plan, is a 
joint commitment of the Hawaii Department of Education, the Good 
Beginnings Alliance, and the University of Hawaii, working with a 
statewide P-20 Council to develop a seamless system of educational 
delivery. I encourage anyone with interest in this effort to view 
the details of the plan at www.p20hawaii.org. A main goal of the 
initiative is to prepare my State's learners to succeed in a society 
fast becoming more global, technological and complex. Ultimately, it 
seeks to improve the quality of life for all of Hawaii.
  I am pleased to support this effort and work toward providing this 
and similar programs in other states with the resources to achieve 
their aims. The Lieberman-Snowe bill does this, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues toward its enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Isakson):
  S. 2340. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
preserve access to community cancer care by Medicare beneficiaries; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act, which will ensure 
Medicare beneficiaries' access to community-based cancer treatment and 
provide Medicare reimbursement assistance for oncologists providing 
vital cancer care services.
  Cancer takes a great toll on our friends, families, and our Nation. 
In the United States, cancer causes one out of every four deaths and 
was responsible for 570,000 deaths last year. In 2005, over 2 million 
new cases of cancer were diagnosed, the most prevalent of which were 
breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal.
  While these statistics are daunting, the rate of cancer deaths in the 
United States has decreased since 1993. This decrease is the result of 
earlier detection and diagnosis, more effective and targeted cancer 
therapies, and greater accessibility to quality care provided by 
oncologists. These vital services have allowed millions of individuals 
to lead healthy and productive lives after successfully battling 
cancer.
  In 2004, 42.7 million individuals were enrolled in Medicare; of those 
beneficiaries over 29 percent have had cancer during their lives, 12.5 
million beneficiaries. With such a large percentage of our seniors 
facing this horrible disease, the need for access to community cancer 
care is critical.
  Community cancer clinics treat 84 percent of Americans with cancer. 
Community cancer centers are free-standing outpatient facilities that 
provide comprehensive cancer care in the physician's office setting 
located in patients' communities. These clinics are especially critical 
in rural areas where access to larger cancer clinics is not available. 
They provide patients with earlier diagnosis, more effective cancer 
therapies, and innovative supportive care that reduces fatigue, nausea/
vomiting, and pain. The accessibility of treatment in the hands of 
skilled community oncologists has decreased the cancer mortality rate.
  On December 8, 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and 
Modernization Act was signed into law by President Bush. This 
legislation contained numerous provisions that were beneficial to 
America's seniors and medical facilities; however, it also provided a 
reduction to Medicare's reimbursement for oncology treatment. The 
provisions sought to bring a balance to the reimbursement for the cost 
of cancer drugs and services. Previous to the implementation of the 
law, CMS reimbursed the cost of cancer treatment drugs at a very high 
level. This level provided sufficient funding to supplement the costs 
of care, storage of the prescription drugs, and the costs of cancer 
care services, which were not being provided adequate funding. The law 
enacted reimbursement reductions for the cost of prescription drugs 
while increasing the funding provided for

[[Page 2191]]

cancer care services; however, that increase did not sufficiently 
offset oncologists' losses from the reduction in cancer drug 
reimbursement.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare 
reimbursements to oncologists would be reduced by 
$4.2 billion from 2004-2013. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that 
reductions will reach $15.7 billion over that time. This increased 
reduction will have a debilitating effect on oncologists' ability to 
provide cancer treatment to Medicare beneficiaries, especially those in 
the community setting.
  For 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 
estimates that the beneficiary reimbursement for services provided by 
community cancer care will be cut by 6.6 percent, a $200 to $300 
million reduction. However, this reimbursement reduction may be larger 
than estimated. CMS did not factor in the delay in drug manufacturer 
price increases for cancer therapies and the bad debt of beneficiaries 
who may not pay their Medicare 20 percent co-insurance payment. When 
accounting for these reductions, the overall cut to cancer care will 
likely exceed $300 million.
  The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act mandated a 
transitional increase of 32 percent in service fees in 2004, falling to 
3 percent in 2005, and 0 percent in 2006. This was done to provide time 
for CMS to pay for essential unpaid medical services, such as pharmacy 
facilities and treatment planning. In 2005, CMS created a cancer care 
demonstration project as a quality enhancement initiative to examine 
the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This demonstration project 
also provided $300 million in critical funding because CMS had not 
increased the reimbursement for essential unpaid medical services. On 
June 29, 2005, I sent a letter with 38 other Senators to President Bush 
requesting an extension to the demonstration project through 2006. CMS, 
however, announced a new oncology demonstration project for 2006 that 
examines the quality of cancer care in relation to treatment 
guidelines, but at $180-$210 million less than the previous funding 
level.
  Accordingly, I am introducing legislation to provide community on-
cologists with the tools to withstand the CMS reforms brought forth 
under the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. The bill's 
$1.7 billion price tag, over the next 5 years, is a relatively small 
cost in the face of the vast reductions in CMS's reimbursement to 
oncologists. Let me briefly summarize the provisions of this 
legislation.
  1. Sales Price Updates: Currently, CMS updates the prices for cancer 
treatment drugs quarterly. This delay in price updating forces 
community cancer clinics to often pay increased prices for prescription 
drugs for up to six months without increased reimbursement. This 
legislation requires the sales price for oncology drug reimbursement be 
updated as changes occur in the price to provide a more accurate 
reimbursement to oncologists for the cost of drugs. This will provide a 
reimbursement to oncologists that is fair and reflective of market 
costs.
  2. Removal of the Prompt Pay Discount: The prompt pay discount is a 
discount from the wholesaler to the physician for prompt payment on 
prescription drugs. This is a benefit for physicians that operate an 
efficient and organized practice and allows them to gain extra revenue 
as an incentive for conducting business in that manner. The current 
average sales price for prescription drugs from CMS takes into account 
the prompt pay discount provided by wholesalers. The inclusion of these 
funds, which are not guaranteed unless the practice operates in a very 
efficient way, decreases the amount of reimbursement from CMS. My 
legislation would remove the discount from the CMS average sales price 
requiring CMS to reimburse oncol-
ogists at the price they pay for drugs without the inclusion of 
discounts.
  3. Quality Care Demonstration Project Extension: The quality care 
demonstration project provided information to CMS that was gathered by 
oncologists about the effects of oncology drugs on patients. This 
project was altered and funds were reduced provided to conduct the 
informational interviews to oncologists. The bill would extend the 2005 
quality cancer care demonstration project through 2006. The project 
collects information from cancer patients on the effects of cancer 
treatment including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and the treatment of 
these symptoms.
  4. Increase in Payments for Oncological Drug Storage: The CMS 
reimbursement for oncology prescription drugs does not provide adequate 
funding for storage and care needs. The prescription drugs for cancer 
care often require special provisions including refrigeration and 
handling as some drugs that are highly toxic. These special provisions 
result in an increased cost, which is why my legislation provides a two 
percent increase in payments to account for the storage and care of 
oncology drugs.
  5. Reports Regarding Cancer Care: The legislation would also require 
a report from the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a plan to 
increase the number of cancer patients in clinical trails and a 
Congressional Budget Office Report on the effects of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 on cancer 
care. These reports will assist Congress and the Administration in its 
future decisions impacting cancer care.
  As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
(LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee, I have sought to increase funding 
for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer 
Institute (NCI). Since becoming Chairman of the LHHS Subcommittee, the 
funding for NIH has increased from $11.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to 
$29.4 billion in 2006, an increase of 147 percent, while funding for 
the NCI increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1996 to $4.9 billion 
in 2006, an increase of 113 percent.
  On February 16, 2005, I was diagnosed with stage IVB Hodgkin's 
lymphoma and had my first chemotherapy treatment two days later. I had 
a total of 12 treatments, my last on July 22, 2005, and tests following 
that final treatment concluded that I am cancer free. As a recipient of 
cancer treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer, I have an acute 
understanding of the problems that confront patients as well as 
physicians that administer their care.
  This legislation provides Medicare reimbursement assistance for 
community oncologists and ensures Medicare beneficiaries' access to 
community-based cancer treatment. I encourage my colleagues to work 
with Senators Coleman, Isakson and me to move this legislation forward 
promptly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 2341. A bill to prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of 
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Commerce Committee is having a hearing 
this afternoon--and I have been at a portion of that hearing--dealing 
with the question of Dubai Ports World, which is a company largely 
owned by the United Arab Emirates. This is a company that has been 
given the green light by this administration to manage six of America's 
largest seaports.
  This has caused a substantial amount of controversy and discussion. 
In the last couple of days some of that controversy has been resolved, 
at least in the minds of some, because the company owned by the United 
Arab Emirates has asked the administration for a 45-day review of the 
circumstances of this deal, and they will not take control of the 
management of the American ports for these 45 days.
  It is rather unusual for a company to be asking that the United 
States Government do a 45-day review of the circumstances of whether a 
United Arab Emirates company should be managing America's ports. 
Speaking for myself, I don't need 45 days to understand this. I don't 
need 45 minutes to understand it. I know a bad idea when I see one.
  The President has made up his mind. President Bush has said he will 
veto any legislation that is offered here in the Congress that would 
upset this deal which would allow the company owned

[[Page 2192]]

by the United Arab Emirates to manage America's ports. If the President 
feels he should veto a piece of legislation, that is his right. He has 
not vetoed any bill since he became President of the United States, but 
if his proposition is he wants to veto a piece of legislation and turn 
over America's seaports, six of America's large seaports, to management 
by the United Arab Emirates, so be it. But I think the President would 
be making a very serious mistake.
  Our country is under a terrorist threat. We get regular briefings on 
that in the Senate, and the American people know that from watching the 
news. We understand the terrorist threats take the form of threat to 
air travel because the terrorists, as we know, last used commercial jet 
airplanes to fly into the World Trade Center towers in New York City. 
We understand the threats at our airports. That is why when you go to 
the airport and try to board a plane they have you take off your belt, 
take off your shoes, and run you through a metal detector. There is 
great concern about the threat of terrorism and security at our 
airports.
  There is also great concern about security at our seaports.
  I have spoken, I am guessing, about a dozen times on the floor of 
this Senate about the security at our seaports since the time of the 9/
11 attacks.
  I recall shortly after 9/11 when a fellow from a Middle East country 
decided to ship himself in a container on a container ship. He got 
inside a container, and he got loaded on a container ship. Here was 
this man with a container. He had a cot to sleep on, he had a GPS 
device, a radio, a supply of water, and he was shipping himself, I 
believe, to Canada, and there was concern that he was a terrorist and 
he was going to enter the country by shipping himself in a container on 
a container ship.
  I have spoken here, I suppose, almost a dozen times talking about the 
danger of having anywhere from 5.7 to 5.9 million containers coming 
into this country every year, millions of containers on a container 
ship coming into this country every year, and somewhere around 4 
percent of them and perhaps as much as 5 percent are inspected; the 
rest are not.
  I went to a port facility once. We don't have ports in North Dakota. 
But I went to a port facility to visit and see what the security was. 
They were showing me a container they had taken off a ship. The 
container they opened happened to be frozen broccoli from Poland, bags 
and bags and bags of frozen broccoli. I said, How do you know what is 
in the middle of this container? I see there are bags of frozen 
broccoli. How do you know that is all that is here in the container? 
Well, we don't know. That is why we are inspecting this particular 
container. How many containers do you inspect? We know the answer to 
that. Out of every 100, 96 are not inspected.
  That is a threat to our country's seaports.
  What about a terrorist organization deciding they want to try to 
steal a nuclear weapon someplace? After all, there are tens of 
thousands of them--somewhere, we believe, between 20,000 and 30,000 
nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Steal a nuclear weapon and 
put it in a container, on a container ship and run it up to a dock, 
appear at one of America's major cities. What about the prospect of 
that happening? Then we would not see 3,000 deaths. No, we would see 
100,000 deaths or more.
  Seaport security is a very serious issue.
  Now, in the midst of all of these issues of national security, we 
hear that something called CFIUS--the Committee on Foreign Investments 
in the United States, composed of some 12 Federal agencies coming 
together as a committee, evaluating foreign investment in the United 
States--decided it is all right if this company called Dubai Ports 
World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, is allowed to 
manage six of America's largest ports, including ports in New York, New 
Jersey, Miami, Louisiana, and Maryland.
  That is not all right with me.
  I just came from a committee hearing where we had some people say, 
Well, you are going to offend somebody here. The United Arab Emirates 
is a country that has been very helpful to us in the fight on 
terrorism. The last thing we want to do is offend them.
  What about offending common sense? Should we be offending common 
sense here in the Senate? I don't think so. Common sense would say to 
us when threatened by terrorist threats, security in this country ought 
to be security provided by the United States. We can't provide for our 
own security in our management of U.S. ports?
  The United Arab Emirates is probably a perfectly wonderful country. 
It is not a democracy, I will tell you. And two of the hijackers on 9/
11/2001 were UAE citizens. And the United Arab Emirates was only one of 
three countries that recognized the Taliban Government which played 
host to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
  Let me read something from the 9/11 Commission report. On page 137:

       Early in 1999, the CIA received a recording that Osama bin 
     Laden was spending much of his time at one of several camps 
     in the Afghanistan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning 
     of February, bin Laden was reportedly located at the vicinity 
     of Sheik Ali Camp, a desert hunting camp being used by 
     visitors from a Gulf State. Public sources have stated that 
     those terrorists were from the United Arab Emirates.

  I will not read all of this.
  According to the reports, the military was doing targeting work to 
hit the camp where Osama bin Laden was thought to be, to hit it with 
cruise missiles. But no strike was launched. And Mr. bin Laden 
apparently soon moved on and the immediate strike plans became moot.
  According to the CIA and defense officials, the reason the strike was 
not launched against bin Laden was that policymakers were concerned 
about the danger that a strike would kill a prince from the United Arab 
Emirates who was visiting with bin Laden.
  The 9-11 Commission report also talks about an official airplane for 
the United Arab Emirates at a landing strip there. They believed the 
UAE officials were visiting with Mr. bin Laden. So apparently, any 
opportunity for this country to target Mr. bin Laden before 9/11 was in 
part fouled by the relationship between at least some in the Royal 
Family of the United Arab Emirates and Mr. bin Laden.
  One of our Cabinet officers said, Well, this issue is not just about 
national security, but also about trade and about commerce.
  Look, trade and commerce do not ever trump national security. If 
there are national security issues, then they have to be dealt with and 
have to be recognized.
  We are told, Well, everyone signed off on this; there is not a 
problem here. But now we find out today that not everybody did sign off 
on this. Yesterday we found out that the Coast Guard expressed 
reservations about the deal in a secret report, which had already been 
made public. The report said:

       There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential 
     for DPW or PNO assets to support terrorist operations. That 
     precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DPW 
     and PNO ports merger.

  So don't tell me that the Coast Guard signed off on this. They raised 
questions about it, as they should have.
  I have a GAO report that I showed a few moments ago in the Commerce 
Committee. This is the title of the July 2005 GAO report: ``The DOD 
Cannot Ensure its Oversight of Contractors Under Foreign Influence is 
Sufficient.''
  If the Department of Defense cannot ensure proper oversight of 
foreign contractors, the Department of Homeland Security can? I don't 
think so. The Department of Homeland Security, after all, responded to 
Hurricane Katrina. Look at the mess they made with that. Now they are 
saying, even though the Department of Defense cannot ensure oversight 
of foreign contractors, Homeland Security is going to be able to do 
that with respect to the security of our ports? I don't think so.
  So national security is an issue. And saying so is not a slap in the 
face at any country. It is just recognizing the obvious.
  Something else that has not been talked about should be talked about.

[[Page 2193]]

We have moved at a full gallop toward globalization. We are in a global 
economy, we are told. Well, the fact that we are in a global economy 
should not persuade us not to think. One of the questions ought to be 
raised by all is--aside from the national security interests, which are 
significant interests--one of the other questions is, why would our 
country not have the capability to provide its own port management, its 
own port security?
  There are certain things we do that we know we must do. Again, go to 
the airport and see what they tell you about your shoes and belt and 
see a little 6-year-old boy spread-eagle against the wall being 
``wanded'' and ask yourself: Why is that happening? Because we have 
decided there is a security threat at airports. Terrorists use a 
commercial airliner as a guided missile to destroy buildings in our 
country and to murder Americans. So we have issues of national security 
to respond to a threat with airport screening.
  What about our seaports? Does anyone think there is any less danger 
with somewhere around 5.7 to 5.9 million containers coming into our 
country, with 96 percent of them not having been screened? Does anyone 
think there is less danger to America to have just one of those 
containers be pulled up slowly at an American pier or port or dock that 
has a weapon of mass destruction?
  We are spending billions and billions of dollars building an 
antiballistic missile defense system that does not work, regrettably. 
We have spent billions of dollars and are spending billions more trying 
to hit a bullet with a bullet because we are concerned that a rogue 
nation or a terrorist will get hold of a ballistic missile, put on its 
tip a nuclear weapon, and send it to us somewhere around 15,000 miles 
per hour. By far, the more significant threat is for a ship to pull up 
at one of our docks at about 5 miles per hour, leaded with containers, 
most of which have never been inspected, containing in one circumstance 
a weapon of mass destruction. That is by far a more significant threat 
to our country.
  I have spoken, I suppose, a dozen times over the years since 2001 
about port security. Not because we have any ports in North Dakota, 
because we do not. But it is obvious to me that if you are going to 
begin to provide security for this country, we do not just do it by 
metal detectors at airports; we do it at seaports and rail security, as 
well. And with respect to seaports, it seems completely illogical to me 
from a national security standpoint that we would decide to turn over 
to foreign countries the management of our ports, our seaports.
  People have said today: Are you kidding? This is done all the time, 
for God's sake. Get a life. This is going on everywhere. You do not 
understand the global economy. We have had other countries managing our 
seaports.
  This has become an issue that most American people recognize is a 
problem. But a number of Members in the Congress do not recognize it as 
a problem. Some do. But I heard opening statements at a committee 
hearing suggesting this debate is about racial profiling, it is about 
offending a good neighbor. Well, that is all nonsense. This is about 
demanding at least some level of common sense be used in establishing 
public policy.
  The President says: We did the right thing. I have already made up my 
mind, he says, and we approved it. And I will veto anything that would 
overturn that approval.
  Then he says, when asked by the company that is owned by the United 
Arab Emirates to review it for 45 more days, the President says: Yes, 
we will review it for 45 more days. But, again, he put out a statement 
today saying: I've already made up my mind.
  At a committee hearing this afternoon, others on the committee said: 
Well, some of you have already made up your mind. Shame on you.
  As I said, it would not take me 45 days to figure it out. It does not 
take 45 minutes to figure it out. We ought to, as a country, be able to 
find ways to manage our seaports. And we ought to, as a country, take 
responsibility for our own national security. After all, it is not 
every country in the world where you pin a little pin on the map that 
says: Here's target one, here's the bull's eye of the target for 
terrorists. They want to attack this country. This is where they want 
to attack. We understand that.
  All of us feel fortunate we have not been attacked again since 2001. 
But we all know, as well, that there is much yet to do. Seaport 
security is one of those areas in which we have to do much better.
  My colleague who sat behind me some years, Senator Fritz Hollings 
from South Carolina, would come to the Senate and speak at great length 
about this. He would offer funding for more seaport security. It was 
routinely turned down. All of us offered this and were routinely turned 
down. We did not have the money. And we are inspecting 4 to 5 percent.
  Someday, God forbid, if something happens at a seaport, we will all 
stand and scratch our heads and say: Why didn't we try to find a way to 
do this better, more inspections? Why didn't we understand that is more 
vulnerable even than airport security? Why didn't we figure that out?
  This is an opportunity. I understand this will be controversial. I 
understand the President is going to be upset if the Congress takes 
action.
  I will offer legislation today that is very simple. It does not 
tiptoe around 45 days and all these things. It just says this should 
not happen.
  If that offends someone, I am sorry. But I do not want to offend 
common sense. And it seems to me, in this country there is a deep 
reservoir of common sense at the local cafe or down at the hardware 
store to say it would make the most sense, given the fact we are 
targeted by terrorists, it would make the most sense for our country to 
take responsibility for itself. This is not about globalism. It is not 
about the global economy. It is not about offending someone. It is 
about deciding as a country to assume responsibility for your security.
  Let me make one other point. Yes, we need friends. Yes, we need the 
United Arab Emirates to be our friend and other countries as well to 
cooperate with us. But wouldn't it have been nice, for example, if we 
had more cooperation when Dr. Kahn in Pakistan was arranging to have 
nuclear materials and nuclear plans and nuclear parts sent around to 
North Korea and to Iran and to other countries? Our children will pay 
for that, unfortunately. And most of that material went through the 
United Arab Emirates' ports.
  Wouldn't it have been nice if we had more friends? We need more 
friends. But, it seems to me, we ought not buy friendship by deciding 
that we will put a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates in 
the position of managing America's ports. Once again, this is merely 
common sense.
  The GAO report of last summer ought to be instructive to us. If the 
Department of Defense cannot ensure its oversight of contractors under 
foreign influence, how on Earth can Homeland Security ensure oversight 
of a contractor that is owned by a foreign government in the Middle 
East? How on Earth can we expect that to happen?
  I come to the Senate to talk a lot about trade. In this age of 
globalism people say: You are just a xenophobic isolationist stooge who 
does not get it. The world has changed. It is a global world. Everyone 
does everything everywhere.
  It seems to me it is not inappropriate even in a global economy to 
pursue our own interests from time to time, and that is especially true 
when it deals with the subject of terrorism. Does the global economy 
mean that you outsource or offshore everything? Is there anything you 
cannot do without?
  Some 15 years ago, I used to question Carla Hills, the trade 
ambassador, at various hearings. Managed trade was anathema to her, and 
it has been to virtually every administration. Yet virtually every 
country we do trade with has managed trade. They have managed trade 
with a set of objectives. I used to continually ask Carla Hill: Is 
there anything the loss of which would give you problems?
  For example, if, in a completely open system of trade we lost our 
entire steel

[[Page 2194]]

industry--it was gone, no steel mill and no steel produced 
domestically--would that give you a problem? The answer was, no, 
whatever happens, happens. That is nonsense. There are certain things 
that a country must hang on to to remain a strong economic power, a 
world economic power.
  Maybe this, also, in addition to the national security issues--which 
I think are very important--maybe it is also an opportunity to wake up 
and answer the question: What is appropriate in a global economy? Is 
everything on the table? Everything for sale? Everything up for trading 
and grabs? Is offshoring just fine, notwithstanding what it means to 
the American economy?
  Perhaps, if we use this opportunity to ask those questions, we will 
have done this country a favor.
  In the meantime, I will introduce the simplest piece of legislation 
introduced on this subject. It simply says: ``Just say no.''

                          ____________________