[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8064-8087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Kaufman):
  S. 638. A bill to provide grants to promote financial and economic 
literacy; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there are a number of factors that caused 
the economic recession we are faced with today. All of us know that.
  We can blame executives on Wall Street, who made reckless choices and 
ignored long-term consequences to make a quick profit.
  We can blame the financial industry regulators, whose lax oversight 
failed to see the potential risks posed by the new, complex financial 
products that Wall Street was selling, and we can point a finger at 
those in the mortgage industry, who ignored that all bubbles eventually 
burst and that--in the case of housing bubble--the American taxpayers 
would be left to clean up the mess.
  But we also need to look a little closer to home as well. The reality 
is that one of the contributing causes of this recession is the fact 
that too many Americans made poor and very often uninformed financial 
choices when they bought homes in the last several years.
  Too many overestimated their own resources, didn't read the fine 
print, and didn't grasp the terms of their mortgages before signing on 
the dotted line.
  In fact, we need to recognize that too many Americans, from college 
students to senior citizens, are financially illiterate.
  The problem is not limited to mortgage holders. Too many Americans 
don't know how to budget their household expenses, manage their credit 
card debt, or even pay their bills on time.
  We need to ensure that we don't get into this situation again, by 
giving all Americans the skills to make sound financial decisions.
  We used to say the 3 R's of school are reading, writing, and 
arithmetic. Well, I think we need to add a fourth R--resource 
management.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation that will help ensure 
that all Americans get the skills they need to make financial decisions 
that will protect them and their families.
  The Financial and Economic Literacy Improvement Act of 2009 will 
require the Federal Government to step to the plate and become a real 
partner in helping Americans manage their finances and make good 
decisions about housing, employment, and education.
  This bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Cochran, is 
aimed at helping people of all ages. Our goal is to ensure that high 
school and college students know the pitfalls of signing up for credit 
cards and can make informed decisions about student loans.
  All young people understand the importance of saving and making smart 
decisions to ensure a comfortable and dignified retirement and, most 
important, that we are taking steps to ensure we do not repeat the 
misguided and uninformed decisions that have contributed to the 
recession that we find ourselves in today.
  Under our bill, the Federal Government will become a strong supporter 
of making financial literacy education a core part of K-12 education.
  I believe that focusing this effort on young people is critical for 
two reasons:
  One, if we are going to avoid another crisis such as this one, we 
must begin by teaching the next generation to make smart financial 
decisions; two, because all signs point to another generation that is 
coming of age already saddled with debt, and we need to help them 
before it is too late.
  This past Sunday, this article ran on the front page of the Olympian 
newspaper from my State of Washington. I ask unanimous consent to have 
this article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  [From the Olympian, Mar. 15, 2009]

                    Teens Awash in Credit Card Debt

                          (By Les Blumenthal)

       The numbers are startling. More than half of all high 
     school seniors have debit cards and nearly one-third have 
     credit cards.
       One-third of college students have four credit cards apiece 
     when they graduate, and more than half of graduates have 
     piled up $5,000 each in high-interest debt. The number of 18- 
     to 24-year-olds who have declared bankruptcy has increased 96 
     percent in 10 years.
       Surveys show that many of these young people also are 
     financially illiterate: They don't understand such things as 
     interest, minimum payments, credit reports, identity theft or 
     that they might be paying off their school loans for years.
       The problem isn't just with the young, however. One in five 
     Americans thinks that the most practical way to become rich 
     is to win the lottery.
       Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., remembers that her kids started 
     receiving credit card applications when they were 16. She 
     said that she repeatedly heard from people, young and old, 
     who wished they knew more about financial matters.
       Murray will introduce legislation this week that would 
     authorize $1.2 billion in grants over five years to promote 
     financial-literacy education beginning in grade school and 
     stretching into adulthood.
       ``It's a perfect time to be doing this,'' Murray said.
       Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, agrees.
       ``In light of the problems that have arisen in the subprime 
     mortgage market, we are reminded how critically important it 
     is for individuals to become financially literate at an early 
     age so they are better prepared to make decisions and 
     navigate an increasingly complex financial marketplace,'' he 
     said nearly a year ago.
       Kerry Eickmeyer, 17, a senior at Richland High School in 
     Richland gave up her debit card after about a year when she 
     kept overdrawing her account.
       ``My mother was getting frustrated,'' she said.
       She and other students at Richland High must take a class 
     in consumer economics before they can graduate. Eickmeyer 
     said she received credit card offers all the time and 
     shredded them.
       ``I don't need 10 credit cards,'' she said.
       Jesus Pedraza, 19, wished he'd been prepared to handle his 
     personal finances when he entered Washington's Tacoma 
     Community College, even though he doesn't have a credit card.

[[Page 8065]]

       ``I thought I was ready, but money is running out faster 
     than I thought,'' Pedraza said.
       As part of its Human Development 101 class for freshman, 
     Tacoma Community College devotes a section to personal 
     finance. Students track their weekly spending and learn about 
     credit cards, minimum payments, savings plans and 
     investments. James Mendoza, who teaches the class, said he 
     focused on the nuts and bolts of finance.
       ``We don't expect them to be Warren Buffett, George Soros 
     or any of the big dogs,'' Mendoza said. ``But they need to 
     understand whether a venti mocha is a need or a want.''
       In the past five years, 17 states added personal finance 
     requirements to their curricula. Last year, former President 
     George W. Bush appointed an Advisory Council on Financial 
     Literacy to work with the private and public sectors to 
     promote financial education. The council is part of the 
     Treasury Department. Its members range from the chairman of 
     Charles Schwab to the leader of Junior Achievement USA.
       Murray's bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., 
     would provide grants to state education agencies that agreed 
     to establish financial literacy standards and assess how well 
     students were doing in elementary, middle and high school. 
     Nonprofit organizations also would be eligible for grants. In 
     addition, grants would be available to community and four-
     year colleges to offer financial literacy classes for their 
     students and for older adults.
       In addition to financial literacy classes offered by school 
     districts, Junior Achievement operates programs in many 
     districts. About 4.5 million young people participate in 
     Junior Achievement programs nationwide.
       Other programs also are operating in the schools. Founded 
     by a bankruptcy judge in New York, the Credit Abuse 
     Resistance Education program sends bankruptcy judges around 
     the country to high schools to talk about personal finances.
       Pat Williams, a bankruptcy Judge in Spokane, said that when 
     she walked into a class of 25 or so 10th- or 11th-graders, it 
     wasn't hard for her to spot the five that would end up in 
     bankruptcy in three years.
       ``They are dealing with so much--cell phones, car 
     insurance, credit cards, debit cards,'' she said. ``It was 
     stunning to them to learn there were late charges on a credit 
     card bill.''
       High school and college students can end up paying for 
     their lack of financial knowledge, said Pam Whalley, the 
     director of the Center for Economic Education at Western 
     Washington University. One survey of high school students 
     found that they expected to earn an average of $143,000 a 
     year and were confident they could handle the money but that 
     few knew how to do a budget. College students know little 
     about savings, insurance and retirement, and are lured to 
     credit card deals too easily, she said.
       ``College kids will do anything for a T-shirt,'' Whalley 
     said.
       In the middle of a recession, she said, educating students 
     about financial matters is crucial.
       ``If you make a mistake during a recession, you have less 
     to fall back on,'' she said. ``If you make a mistake when 
     your job isn't safe, you could lose your house or your car. 
     When you have financial literacy, you have more control over 
     your life.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the article discusses the legislation I 
am introducing today. It also talks about the financial path that the 
next generation is currently on. The article pointed out that, right 
now, one-third of our college students have four credit cards when they 
graduate. More than half of our graduates have piled up $5,000 each in 
high interest debt. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds who have declared 
bankruptcy has almost doubled in 10 years.
  That article also points out that many of our young people are 
financially illiterate. They understand very little about concepts such 
as interest or minimum payments or credit reports and the financial 
reality of having to pay off their student loans for years to come.
  Today, with many of our schools struggling to pay teachers and 
maintain their current programs, a lot of our State and local 
governments cannot afford to ramp up financial literacy education right 
now. That is exactly where I believe the Federal Government needs to 
step up. We cannot afford for our young people to not understand their 
own finances.
  Our bill will authorize $125 million annually to go to State and 
local education agencies and their partnerships with organizations 
experienced in providing high-quality financial literacy and economic 
instruction.
  This funding we will provide will help make financial and economic 
literacy a part of core academic classes, develop financial literacy 
standards and testing benchmarks, and provide critical teacher 
training.
  This bill will also help schools weave financial concepts into basic 
classes, such as math and social studies.
  Importantly, this training will not end in high school. Our bill 
makes the same $125 million investment in teaching financial literacy 
in our 2- and 4-year colleges.
  That is critical. My constituents often write or tell me about the 
financial trouble they are struggling with. A lot of them are very 
desperate for help. They got into situations they didn't understand, 
and they don't have the resources to fix.
  For example, one woman from Olympia, who put off credit card bills to 
pay her mortgage, wrote to me and said:

       I am educated, but was unaware that by being late on a 
     payment or by skipping a payment and trying to make it up, my 
     interest rate could skyrocket to over 26 percent, and late 
     fees could be exponential.

  Whether it is skyrocketing interest rates or credit cards or an 
adjustable rate mortgage that somebody can no longer afford or a 
retirement plan that they don't understand, I often hear the same thing 
from people: I wish someone had taught this to me in high school.
  This bill we are introducing ensures that we are teaching it in our 
schools, and it will help people learn the basic skills that will give 
them a leg up when they are dealing with their bankers.
  This crisis we are in cost us dearly. Every weekend when I go home I 
hear about another business that is closing or another family who 
cannot pay their bills. But we know if we make changes and smart 
investments, we can move our country forward. I believe this is one of 
those smart investments. In January, after President Obama took office, 
he called for an era of personal responsibility. I believe our bill 
helps Americans to usher in that era.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the bill and cosponsor it 
and help us move it forward so we can make sure that we have a 
financially literate country.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 641. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to prevent the 
abuse of dehydroepiandrosterone, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I remain very concerned about the 
continuing prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. The 
ongoing reports of the vast use of performance-enhancing drugs in 
professional sports, especially Major League Baseball, illustrate the 
presence of a disturbing culture throughout all sports. It is becoming 
all too common to read not only about professional athletes using 
performance-enhancing drugs, but also college and high school athletes 
turning to these substances to gain a competitive edge. Although 
Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act to disrupt this cycle 
of abuse in 2004, we cannot relent in our efforts to keep performance-
enhancing drugs out of our society and away from our children.
  The dietary supplement, Dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA, is readily 
available online and on the shelves of nutritional stores, but can be 
used as a performance-enhancing substance. In response to the growing 
use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports, Congress 
passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act in 2004. When this bill was 
being considered, DHEA was among 23 anabolic steroids that are now 
schedule III controlled substances. Some of my colleagues objected to 
DHEA being included on this list, because they believed DHEA was 
harmless and did not have the same anabolic effects as the other 
steroids on the list. DHEA was subsequently removed from the bill, but 
the facts do not back up the claims that DHEA is not a performance-
enhancing drug or harmless.
  According to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, DHEA is a pre-cursor 
hormone to androstenedione and testosterone. These substances became 
illegal anabolic steroids as a result of the Anabolic Steroid Control 
Act of 2004. Although the body naturally produces DHEA, the natural 
production of the hormone ceases around the age of 35.

[[Page 8066]]

Many people over this age use DHEA, in low doses, as part of an ``anti-
aging'' regimen. However, when taken in high doses over time, DHEA, 
like its other relatives in the steroid family, may cause liver damage 
and cancer. In fact, one study conducted by scientists at Oxford 
University revealed DHEA use to be strongly associated with breast 
cancer development. The truth is there are few studies about the long 
term effects DHEA has on the body. According to Dr. F. Clark Holmes, 
Director of Sports Medicine at Georgetown University, many proposed 
studies involving high doses of DHEA are denied approval out of concern 
that the product may cause irreversible harm to human subjects. Because 
DHEA is marketed as a dietary supplement, companies are not required to 
prove their safety to the Food and Drug Administration. However, nearly 
all the professional sports leagues, the Olympics and the NCAA have 
banned their athletes from using it for good reason.
  What is even more disturbing is the fact that DHEA is being marketed 
online to younger athletes. One bodybuilding website, directed towards 
teenagers, features a teen bodybuilder of the week to promote 
performance-enhancing supplements. A 19-year-old Junior National 
Champion bodybuilder is one of the bodybuilders on this website. When 
asked what supplement gave him the greatest gains for his competition 
this teenager replied, ``DHEA.'' In another website, DHEA is advertized 
as follows, ``If you're a bodybuilder, and want to increase lean body 
mass at the expense of body fat, actual studies show this supplement 
may significantly alter body composition, favoring lean mass accrual.'' 
Another example on another website describes DHEA in this way, ``DHEA 
is HOT, and you will see why. As a pre-cursor hormone, it leads to the 
production of other hormones. When this compound is supplemented, it 
has shown to have awesome effects.'' These advertisements are geared to 
the younger crowd, even though DHEA has no legitimate use for 
teenagers.
  These DHEA advertisements, and others like it, are having some impact 
on young athletes, especially in my state of Iowa. The Iowa Orthopaedic 
Journal published a study on nutritional supplement use in 20 Northwest 
Iowa high schools. In this study, 495 male football players and 407 
female volleyball players were asked if they used nutritional 
supplements. The results of this anonymous survey revealed that 8 
percent of football players and 2 percent of Volleyball players used 
supplements. These students identified DHEA as one of the supplements 
that they used. The students were then asked to give the reason why 
they used DHEA and the general response was ``for performance 
enhancement.''
  We have to find a way to keep young people from using a substance 
that can do them harm. Three states currently prohibit the sale of DHEA 
to minors. There are also various supplement stores like GNC and 
Walgreens that have policies in place that prohibit the sale of DHEA to 
anyone under 18. If we cannot place DHEA behind the counter, then we 
should at least make it difficult for teens to walk out of a store with 
a potentially harmful substance in hand. This is why I'm pleased to 
introduce the DHEA Abuse Reduction Act of 2009. This bill will place a 
nationwide restriction on the sale of DHEA for those under 18 years of 
age. It will also allow those who use DHEA, legitimately, to not have 
to obtain a prescription to do so. The Coalition for Anabolic Steroid 
Precursor and Ephedra Regulation, which is comprised of the Nation's 
leading medical, public health and sports organizations support this 
legislation. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency also supports this legislation 
to keep DHEA away from our children. I urge my colleagues to pass this 
legislation.
  In the highly competitive world of sports, the pressure to use 
performance-enhancing drugs can be overwhelming. Even though we, as a 
society, demand excellence from our favorite teams and athletes, we 
cannot accept this excellence to be falsely aided by a drug. 
Furthermore, we cannot allow harmful drugs to destroy the health of so 
many young and promising athletes. We have to continue to curb the use 
of performance-enhancing drugs for the health of our country and 
children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 647. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve the transparency of information on skilled nursing 
facilities and nursing facilities and to clarify and improve the 
targeting of the enforcement of requirements with respect to such 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home 
Transparency and Improvement Act of 2009.
  My colleague, Senator Grassley, and I have worked on this legislation 
together. He is on the floor now and will speak of the bill when I 
finish my comments.
  As chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, the quality of care 
that is provided to nursing home residents is of great concern to me, 
and I am proud to introduce this bill with Senator Grassley today.
  I have worked with Senator Grassley on nursing home policy for 
several years. We have commissioned GAO reports, sought input from both 
industry and reform advocates, and collaborated with the executive 
branch on various initiatives. This work has generated some positive 
results, such as the government's new five-star nursing home rating 
system.
  But we must do more. We believe the bill we introduce today will 
raise the bar for nursing home quality and oversight nationwide, by 
strengthening the Federal Government's ability to monitor and advance 
the level of care provided in nursing domes. for up to five minutes.
  First, our bill would give the Government better tools for enforcing 
high quality standards. For instance, nursing homes would be required 
to disclose information about all the principal business partners who 
play a role in the financing and management of the facility, so that 
the Government can hold them accountable in the case of poor care or 
neglect. It would also create a national independent monitor pilot 
program to tackle tough quality and safety issues that must be 
addressed at the level of corporate management.
  Second, our bill would give consumers more information about 
individual nursing homes and their track record of care. Our bill would 
grant consumers access to a facility's most recent health and safety 
report online, and would develop a simple, standardized online 
complaint form for residents and their families to ensure that their 
concerns are addressed swiftly. And it would require the Government to 
collect staffing information from nursing homes on a real-time basis, 
and make this information available to the public.
  Finally, our bill would encourage homes to improve on their own. 
Under this legislation, facilities would develop compliance and ethics 
programs to decrease the risk of financial fraud, and quality assurance 
standards to internally monitor the quality of care provided to 
residents. We also authorize funds for a national demonstration project 
on ``culture change,'' a new management style in nursing home care that 
rethinks relationships between management and frontline workers by 
empowering nursing aides to take charge of the personalized care of 
residents. Finally, our bill makes an investment in nursing home staff 
by offering training on how to handle residents with dementia.
  Twenty-two years have passed since Congress last addressed the safety 
and quality of America's nursing homes in a comprehensive way. As we 
prepare to debate reforms across our health care system, there has 
never been a better time to implement these critical improvements to 
our nation's system of nursing homes. We ask our colleagues for their 
support.
  Madam President, I turn now to Senator Grassley, with whom I worked 
diligently with a great effort and with tremendous results. He is a man 
I have enjoyed working with across the aisle

[[Page 8067]]

now for many years. He is a high-quality guy. It is in that respect and 
with that regard that I turn to him now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind 
words. I have had an opportunity to work with him not only on 
legislation of this type but a lot of other pieces of legislation, and 
I enjoy working with him because he is a person of great common sense. 
I thank him for his leadership in this area, and, more importantly, I 
thank him for serving in the outstanding position as chairman of the 
Special Committee on Aging, with a lot of responsibilities in the area 
of making sure aging problems are brought to the forefront.
  This legislation we are introducing is called the Nursing Home 
Transparency and Improvement Act. It brings to the surface some very 
important issues he is watching as chairman of the Aging Committee. I 
have some interaction with it because I am a member of the Finance 
Committee.
  This is a critical piece of legislation that brings overdue 
transparency to consumers regarding nursing home quality and 
operations. It also provides long needed improvements to our 
enforcement system.
  In America today, there are well over 1.7 million elderly and 
disabled individuals in over 17,000 nursing home facilities. As the 
baby boom generation enters retirement, this number is going to rise 
dramatically. While many people are using alternatives, such as 
community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a critical 
option for elderly and disabled populations.
  As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a 
longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive 
the safe and quality care we expect for our loved ones. Why? Because 
the taxpayers put in tens of billions of dollars--I would imagine over 
$47 billion or $48 billion now, and maybe that figure is higher than 
the last time I looked, but it is billions of dollars. Our Aging 
Committee and all of Congress have a special responsibility to make 
sure that money is spent well, and one way of spending it well is to 
make sure it delivers quality care to these people who are in need.
  Unfortunately, as in many areas, with nursing homes, a few bad apples 
often spoil the barrel. Too many Americans receive poor care, often in 
a subset of nursing homes. Unfortunately, this subset of chronic 
offenders stays in business, often keeping their poor track records 
hidden from the public at large and often facing little or no oversight 
or enforcement from the Federal Government, based on laws that were 
passed in 1986 and 1987.
  There is a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and 
sometimes in our approach to nursing homes, quite simply, a lack of 
common sense--the sort of common sense the Senator from Wisconsin 
always exhibits in the legislative approach. These are things this 
legislation seeks to bring to nursing homes and their residents--
transparency, accountability, and common sense.
  Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care, as 
in all markets, consumers must often have adequate information to make 
informed choices. For years, people looking at a nursing home for 
themselves or their loved ones had no way of knowing a nursing home 
facility's record of care, inspection history, or which individuals 
were ultimately responsible for caring for their loved ones.
  This bill is intended to change that and to emphasize this point 
about why we have to be concerned about the type of facility in which a 
person is placed.
  I have never once in my life run into a single elderly or disabled 
person who said to me: I am dying to get into a nursing home. This is 
on the continuum care, the stop where people cannot be taken care of 
beforehand. We need to make sure that is right.
  This legislation requires nursing facilities to make available 
ownership information, including the individuals and entities that are 
ultimately responsible for a home's operation and management.
  Today when I am discussing this bill with people in the industry, I 
don't have anybody objecting who actually owns a nursing home. But 
early on, that seemed to be something that, for some reason or another, 
did not seem to be anybody's business. Tell me it isn't anybody's 
business who owns a nursing home if they are receiving $45 billion to 
$50 billion of taxpayer money going to that industry. That ownership is 
very important.
  How nursing homes are staffed can greatly affect the care they 
provide, especially when dealing with complex conditions, such as 
nursing homes. So you go behind who owns a nursing home, who is working 
there, and that is pretty important. If you do not have all this 
information, it leaves residents and their families without clear 
information about who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that a 
resident is consistently provided with high-quality care.
  This provides transparency, as well, concerning nursing home staffing 
and surveys. Homes differ widely in terms of the number of specialized 
staff available to residents, as well as the number of registered 
nurses and certified nursing assistants who provide much hands-on care.
  Let me say it a second time. How a nursing home is staffed can 
greatly affect the care it provides, especially when dealing with 
complex cases. This legislation requires better tracking of this 
information and requires that this information is available to 
prospective residents and their families.
  In addition, this legislation will help families have a better idea 
of a nursing home's track record in that it requires better 
transparency for nursing home inspection reports that are completed on 
a routine basis.
  The Secretary will also now be required to provide consumers with a 
summary of information on enforcement actions taken against a facility 
during the previous 3 years.
  This same transparency will also provide additional market incentives 
for poor homes to improve. If customers know about problems, that home 
is incentivized to improve or face going out of business.
  This effort also requires a strong, effective enforcement and 
monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that 
will not take the necessary steps voluntarily. But even with improved 
transparency, there are some nursing homes that will not improve on 
their own.
  In the nursing home industry, most homes provide quality care on a 
very consistent basis. So we need to give inspectors better enforcement 
tools.
  The current system provides incentives to correct problems only 
temporarily and allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while 
continuing to deliver substandard care to residents. This system must 
be fixed.
  Last year, CMS requested two things: one, statutory authority to 
collect civil monetary penalties sooner, and, two, the ability to hold 
those penalties in escrow pending appeal.
  To that end, this bill requires nursing homes that have been found in 
violation of law be given the opportunity to participate in an 
independent, informal dispute resolution process within 30 days. After 
that point, depending on the outcome of the appeal, the penalties are 
collected and held in escrow pending the exhaustion of the appeals 
process. This will ensure that nursing homes found to be violating the 
rules actually pay the penalties assessed if it is determined those 
penalties are appropriate. But we should not have to resort to 
enforcement. Problems resulting in penalties should be avoided or 
detected and fixed immediately by the nursing home in the first place. 
That is why this bill now requires all nursing homes to have compliance 
and ethics programs, as well as quality assurance and performance 
improvement programs.
  In addition to increased transparency and improved enforcement, this 
bill provides commonsense solutions to a number of other problems.
  This legislation requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a 
national independent monitoring program to tackle problems specific to 
interstate and large intrastate nursing chains.

[[Page 8068]]

  In the case of nursing homes being closed due to poor safety or 
quality of care, this bill requires that residents and their 
representatives be given sufficient notice so they can adequately plan 
a transfer to an appropriate setting.
  We need to be very sensitive--and I am very sensitive--to the fact 
that nursing home residents are often elderly and fragile. Moving them 
into a new facility is traumatic. So we have to make sure these 
residents are transferred appropriately and with adequate time and 
care.
  This bill also aims to help nursing homes that self-report their 
concerns and remedy certain deficiencies, giving those homes that are 
trying to do their best and find things wrong on their own to get 
credit for that. By doing so, nursing homes then may have any penalties 
reduced by 50 percent. This will encourage facilities to take the lead 
in finding, flagging, and fixing violations.
  This bill is also intended to strengthen training requirements for 
nursing staff by including dementia and abuse prevention training as 
part of pre-employment.
  I am proud to introduce this bill along with my friend Senator Kohl. 
The Committee on Aging and I have a long history of working together on 
elderly care issues, and I am happy to continue that work.
  I also note today the Government Accountability Office is releasing a 
report critical of CMS's funding of State oversight entities, such as 
nursing homes. This report notes that survey activity is sometimes so 
unreliable that certain homes have not even been inspected in more than 
6 years. The report makes a number of recommendations to CMS, and I 
will be looking very carefully at how CMS follows those 
recommendations. In the meantime, it is important that we improve 
transparency and accountability for the inspections that are taking 
place.
  We will continue to do everything we can to make sure that American 
nursing home residents receive the safe and quality care they deserve. 
Increasing transparency, improving enforcement tools, strengthening 
training requirements will go a long way toward achieving that goal. I 
thank, once again, Senator Kohl.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 648. a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
establish a prospective payment system instead of the reasonable cost-
based reimbursement method for Medicare-covered services provided by 
Federally qualified health centers and to expand the scope of such 
covered services to account for expansions in the scope of services 
provided by Federally qualified health centers since the inclusion of 
such services for coverage under the Medicare program; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. president, I rise today with Senators Snowe and 
Sanders to introduce the Medicare Access to Community Health Centers, 
MATCH, Act of 2009.
  This legislation addresses a long standing payment issue experienced 
by a key component of our Nation's health care safety net, community 
health centers. These centers provide high quality, comprehensive care 
and serve as the medical home to 18 millions individuals. Over one 
million of those patients are medicare beneficiaries.
  Over 15 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health 
Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not 
forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. 
Congress required that centers be paid their reasonable costs for 
providing care to their Medicare patients. The centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit payment cap in 
regulations based on a payment cap applicable to Rural Health Clinics. 
CMS applied the cap to FQHCs without much data support and with the 
promise of future reviews to guarantee that Health Centers were 
adequately reimbursed. However, these reviews have not taken place. 
Currently, over 75 percent of health centers are losing money serving 
Medicare beneficiaries, with losses totaling over $50 million annually 
according to an analysis done by the National Association of Community 
Health Centers, NACHC. In my home State of New Mexico, NACHC estimates 
that health centers lose more than a million dollars annually.
  I have repeatedly asked CMS to review this antiquated cap but I have 
had little success. So I rise today to introduce legislation to improve 
the medicare payment mechanism for FQHCs. The MATCH Act will establish 
a Prospective Payment System for FQHCs, based on the actual cost of 
providing care to health center patients. This new mechanism mirrors 
the successful Medicaid FQHC Prospective Payment System. By reforming 
the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure health centers are able 
to dedicate their Federal grant dollars for their original intent--
providing care to the uninsured. This new mechanism will also increase 
efficiency and stability in the Medicare program for health centers.
  This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
strengthening the medicare FQHC program to ensure that health centers 
can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and preventive 
care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.
  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. 648

       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 Access to Community 
     Health Centers (MATCH) Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) National importance.--Community health centers serve as 
     the medical home and family physician to over 16,000,000 
     people nationally. Patients of community health centers 
     represent 1 in 7 low-income persons, 1 in 8 uninsured 
     Americans, 1 in 9 Medicaid beneficiaries, 1 in 10 minorities, 
     and 1 in 10 rural residents.
       (2) Health care safety net.--Because Federally qualified 
     health centers (FQHCs) are generally located in medically 
     underserved areas, the patients of Federally qualified health 
     centers are disproportionately low income, uninsured or 
     publicly insured, and minorities, and they frequently have 
     poorer health and more complicated, costly medical needs than 
     patients nationally. As a chief component of the health care 
     safety net, Federally qualified health centers are required 
     by regulation to serve all patients, regardless of insurance 
     status or ability to pay.
       (3) Medicare beneficiaries.--Medicare beneficiaries are 
     typically less healthy and, therefore, costlier to treat than 
     other patients of Federally qualified health centers. 
     Medicare beneficiaries tend to have more complex health care 
     needs as--
       (A) more than half of Medicare patients have at least 2 
     chronic conditions;
       (B) 45 percent take 5 or more medications; and
       (C) over half of Medicare beneficiaries have more than 1 
     prescribing physician.
       (4) Need to improve fqhc payment.--While the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services have nearly 15 years' worth of 
     cost report data from Federally qualified health centers, 
     which would equip the agency to develop a new Medicare 
     reimbursement system, the agency has failed to update and 
     improve the Medicare FQHC payment system.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF MEDICARE-COVERED PRIMARY AND PREVENTIVE 
                   SERVICES AT FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(aa)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The term `Federally qualified health center services' 
     means--
       ``(A) services of the type described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1), and such other ambulatory 
     services furnished by a Federally qualified health center for 
     which payment may otherwise be made under this title if such 
     services were furnished by a health care provider or health 
     care professional other than a Federally qualified health 
     center; and
       ``(B) preventive primary health services that a center is 
     required to provide under section 330 of the Public Health 
     Service Act,

     when furnished to an individual as a patient of a Federally 
     qualified health center and such services when provided by a 
     health care provider or health care professional employed by 
     or under contract with a Federally qualified health center 
     and for this purpose, any reference to a rural health clinic 
     or a

[[Page 8069]]

      physician described in paragraph (2)(B) is deemed a 
     reference to a Federally qualified health center or a 
     physician at the center, respectively. Services described in 
     the previous sentence shall be treated as billable visits for 
     purposes of payment to the Federally qualified health 
     center.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment To Permit Payment for Hospital-
     Based Services.--Section 1862(a)(14) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395y(a)(14)) is amended by inserting ``Federally qualified 
     health center services,'' after ``qualified psychologist 
     services,''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a) and (b) shall apply to services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2010.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF A MEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT 
                   SYSTEM FOR FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) section 1833(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3)(A) in the case of services described in section 
     1832(a)(2)(D)(i) the costs which are reasonable and related 
     to the furnishing of such services or which are based on such 
     other tests of reasonableness as the Secretary may prescribe 
     in regulations including those authorized under section 
     1861(v)(1)(A), less the amount a provider may charge as 
     described in clause (ii) of section 1866(a)(2)(A) but in no 
     case may the payment for such services (other than for items 
     and services described in section 1861(s)(10)(A)) exceed 80 
     percent of such costs; and
       ``(B) in the case of services described in section 
     1832(a)(2)(D)(ii) furnished by a Federally qualified health 
     center--
       ``(i) subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), for services 
     furnished on and after January 1, 2010, during the center's 
     fiscal year that ends in 2010, an amount (calculated on a per 
     visit basis) that is equal to 100 percent of the average of 
     the costs of the center of furnishing such services during 
     such center's fiscal years ending during 2008 and 2009 which 
     are reasonable and related to the cost of furnishing such 
     services, or which are based on such other tests of 
     reasonableness as the Secretary prescribes in regulations 
     including those authorized under section 1861(v)(1)(A) 
     (except that in calculating such cost in a center's fiscal 
     years ending during 2008 and 2009 and applying the average of 
     such cost for a center's fiscal year ending during fiscal 
     year 2010, the Secretary shall not apply a per visit payment 
     limit or productivity screen), less the amount a provider may 
     charge as described in clause (ii) of section 1866(a)(2)(A), 
     but in no case may the payment for such services (other than 
     for items or services described in section 1861(s)(10)(A)) 
     exceed 80 percent of such average of such costs;
       ``(ii) subject to clauses (iii) and (iv), for services 
     furnished during the center's fiscal year ending during 2011 
     or a succeeding fiscal year, an amount (calculated on a per 
     visit basis and without the application of a per visit limit 
     or productivity screen) that is equal to the amount 
     determined under this subparagraph for the center's preceding 
     fiscal year (without regard to any copayment)--
       ``(I) increased for a center's fiscal year ending during 
     2011 by the percentage increase in the MEI (as defined in 
     section 1842(i)(3)) applicable to primary care services (as 
     defined in section 1842(i)(4)) for 2011 and increased for a 
     center's fiscal year ending during 2012 or any succeeding 
     fiscal year by the percentage increase for such year of a 
     market basket of Federally qualified health center costs as 
     developed and promulgated through regulations by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(II) adjusted to take into account any increase or 
     decrease in the scope of services, including a change in the 
     type, intensity, duration, or amount of services, furnished 
     by the center during the center's fiscal year,
     less the amount a provider may charge as described in clause 
     (ii) of section 1866(a)(2)(A), but in no case may the payment 
     for such services (other than for items or services described 
     in section 1861(s)(10)(A)) exceed 80 percent of the amount 
     determined under this clause (without regard to any 
     copayment);
       ``(iii) subject to clause (iv), in the case of an entity 
     that first qualifies as a Federally qualified health center 
     in a center's fiscal year ending after 2009--
       ``(I) for the first such center's fiscal year, an amount 
     (calculated on a per visit basis and without the application 
     of a per visit payment limit or productivity screen) that is 
     equal to 100 percent of the costs of furnishing such services 
     during such center's fiscal year based on the per visit 
     payment rates established under clause (i) or (ii) for a 
     comparable period for other such centers located in the same 
     or adjacent areas with a similar caseload or, in the absence 
     of such a center, in accordance with the regulations and 
     methodology referred to in clause (i) or based on such other 
     tests of reasonableness (without the application of a per 
     visit payment limit or productivity screen) as the Secretary 
     may specify, less the amount a provider may charge as 
     described in clause (ii) of section 1866 (a)(2)(A), but in no 
     case may the payment for such services (other than for items 
     and services described in section 1861(s)(10)(A)) exceed 80 
     percent of such costs; and
       ``(II) for each succeeding center's fiscal year, the amount 
     calculated in accordance with clause (ii); and
       ``(iv) with respect to Federally qualified health center 
     services that are furnished to an individual enrolled with a 
     MA plan under part C pursuant to a written agreement 
     described in section 1853(a)(4) (or, in the case of a MA 
     private fee for service plan, without such written agreement) 
     the amount (if any) by which--
       ``(I) the amount of payment that would have otherwise been 
     provided under clause (i), (ii), or (iii) (calculated as if 
     `100 percent' were substituted for `80 percent' in such 
     clauses) for such services if the individual had not been 
     enrolled; exceeds
       ``(II) the amount of the payments received under such 
     written agreement (or, in the case of MA private fee for 
     service plans, without such written agreement) for such 
     services (not including any financial incentives provided for 
     in such agreement such as risk pool payments, bonuses, or 
     withholds) less the amount the Federally qualified health 
     center may charge as described in section 1857(e)(3)(B);''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 
     2010.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bingaman to 
introduce legislation to rectify a long standing problem for community 
health centers and the millions of Americans who depend on them for 
primary care access. Health centers serve as the medical home for over 
18 million underserved patients. Annually, over 1.2 million of those 
patients are Medicare beneficiaries and 8.5 million patients are living 
below the Federal poverty level. Health centers are known for providing 
high quality, comprehensive care to some of our nation's most 
vulnerable populations.
  Over 17 years ago, Congress created the Federally Qualified Health 
Center, FQHC, Medicare benefit to ensure that health centers were not 
forced to subsidize Medicare payments with Federal grant dollars. 
Therefore, Congress required that centers be paid their reasonable 
costs for providing care to their Medicare patients. The Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, later established a per visit 
payment cap in regulations based on a payment cap applicable to rural 
health clinics. CMS applied the cap to FQHCs with the promise of future 
reviews to guarantee that health centers were adequately reimbursed. 
However, CMS has failed to update payments.
  Today, the majority of health centers are losing money serving 
Medicare beneficiaries, causing them to use their Federal grant 
dollars, intended for care for the uninsured, to supplement Medicare 
payments. These losses exceed $50 million annually according to an 
analysis completed by the National Association of Community Health 
Centers.
  We have repeatedly requested that CMS review this antiquated payment 
structure with little success. So I rise today again with Senator 
Bingaman to see that FQHCs receive payment for services they provide. 
This bill will establish a prospective payment system for FQHCs, based 
on the actual cost of providing care to health center patients. This 
new mechanism mirrors the successful Medicaid FQHC prospective payment 
system. By reforming the payment structure at FQHCs, we will ensure 
that health centers are able to dedicate their Federal grant dollars 
for their originally intended purpose--providing care to the uninsured.
  This legislation is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
strengthening the Medicare FQHC program to make certain that health 
centers can continue to provide high quality, affordable primary and 
preventive care to our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and 
        Mr. Wicker):
  S. 649. A bill to require an inventory of radio spectrum bands 
managed by the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Kerry, to 
introduce legislation that initiates the first step toward 
comprehensive spectrum policy reform, which is long overdue and 
paramount to achieving the long-term telecommunications needs of this 
nation. In addressing comprehensive spectrum reform, the first thing

[[Page 8070]]

we must do is to have a clear understanding of how the spectrum is 
currently being utilized, which is called for by the Radio Spectrum 
Inventory Act.
  Specifically, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act directs the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal 
Communications Commission, with assistance from the Office of Science 
and Technology, to create a comprehensive and accurate inventory of 
each spectrum band between 300 Megahertz to 3.5 Gigahertz. The 
information collected would include the licenses assigned in that band, 
the number and type of end-user devices deployed, the amount of 
deployed infrastructure, as well as any relevant unlicensed end user 
devices operating in the band. This information is fundamental to 
constructing a comprehensive framework for spectrum policy.
  The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act also provides more transparency 
related to spectrum use by creating a centralized website or portal 
that would include relevant spectrum and license information accessible 
by the public. Given that radio spectrum is a public good, we are 
obligated to provide the public more clarity and accountability on how 
it is being utilized by both federal and non-federal licensees. It 
should be noted that this bill does make certain disclosure exceptions 
for spectrum being used or reserved for national security.
  The ultimate goals this legislation sets the path towards achieving 
are to implement more efficient use of spectrum and to locate 
additional spectrum that could be auctioned and used for advanced 
communications and data services in order to meet the growing demand.
  Currently, there are more than 270 million wireless subscribers in 
the US, and consumers used more than 2.2 trillion minutes of use from 
July 2007 to June 2008--that is more than 6 billion minutes of use a 
day! While voice communications is the foundation for wireless 
services, more and more subscribers are utilizing it for broadband due 
to new emerging wireless technologies.
  More specifically, the FCC reported that from December 2005 to 
December 2007, mobile wireless high-speed subscribership grew 
nationwide by more than 1,500 percent, and added 15.6 million 
subscribers in the second half of 2007 alone. The report also shows 
that new wireless broadband subscribers accounted for 78 percent of the 
total growth in broadband during that same time.
  So it is clear this once nascent service, which was initially thought 
of as a luxury, has blossomed into a tool that millions of consumers 
and countless businesses use on a daily basis. Increased mobility, 
access, and productivity are all tangible results of wireless 
technology. It is estimated that the productivity value of all mobile 
wireless services was worth $185 billion in 2005.
  But with all this growth, we are seeing constraints--spectrum is 
already a scarce resource--there is no new spectrum to allocate, only 
redistribute. This problem is also compounded by issues such as 
Shannon's Law, which defines the maximum possible data speed that can 
be obtained in a data channel of a communications network. So with 
wireless, in order to achieve greater bandwidth speeds and capacity, 
more channels have to be assigned, which means more spectrum has to be 
allocated. Therefore, finding additional spectrum is essential to 
meeting the growing demands and needs of consumers and businesses 
alike.
  Just as with the Internet, we have only scratched the surface on what 
the future of wireless will bring to all areas of life. That is why we 
must be proactive in advancing supportive spectrum policy and spectrum 
availability. And this begins with the first step--complete an accurate 
inventory of what is out there and how it is being used. Once we have 
that information, we can then perform the necessary analysis of where 
additional spectrum could be found and allocated toward broadband and 
advanced communications services. That is why I sincerely hope that my 
colleagues join Senators Kerry, Nelson, Wicker, and me in supporting 
this critical legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 650. A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Death 
Penalty Abolition Act of 2009. This bill would abolish the death 
penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to Federal 
executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence 
for violations of Federal law.
  Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme 
Court, there have been 1,130 executions across the country, including 
three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 130 people on 
death row have been exonerated and released from death row. Consider 
those numbers: 1,130 executions and 130 exonerations in the modern 
death penalty era. Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 
130 people been executed, those executions would have represented an 
error rate of nearly eleven percent. That is more than an embarrassing 
statistic; it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all 
questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. In fact, 
since 1999 when I first introduced this bill, 54 death row inmates have 
been exonerated throughout the country.
  In the face of these numbers, the national debate on the death 
penalty has intensified. The country experienced a nationwide 
moratorium on executions from September 2007 to May 2008 while the U.S. 
Supreme Court considered whether the lethal injection method of 
execution complied with the Constitution. From 2004 to 2007 the number 
of executions and the number of death sentences imposed decreased as 
more and more voices joined to express doubt about the use of capital 
punishment in America. The voices of those questioning the fairness of 
the death penalty have been heard from college campuses and courtrooms 
and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee 
hearing room, to the United States Supreme Court. The American public 
understands that the death penalty raises serious and complex issues. 
In fact, for the first time, a May 2006 Gallup poll reported that more 
Americans prefer a sentence of life without parole over the death 
penalty when given a choice. The same poll indicates that 63 percent of 
Americans think that within the past 5 years an innocent person has 
been executed. And a 2008 Gallop shows a 5 percent drop in support for 
the death penalty from October 2007 to October 2008. If anything, the 
consensus is that it is time for a change. We must not ignore these 
voices.
  The United States Supreme Court also has limited the constitutionally 
permissible scope of the death penalty in recent years. In 2008 the 
Court held in Kennedy vs. Louisiana that with respect to ``crimes 
against individuals the death penalty should not be expanded to 
instances where the victim's life was not taken.'' This decision is 
consistent with other recent cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has 
held that the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded 
is unconstitutional.
  On the state level, there have been some encouraging developments. 
Most significantly, just last night, Governor Bill Richardson of New 
Mexico signed legislation into law that repeals the death penalty in 
his state. I commend Governor Richardson for his leadership and courage 
in signing this bill. Governor Richardson issued a statement after he 
signed the bill that gets to the heart of this issue. His statement 
read, in part:

       The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in 
     this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries 
     with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate 
     confidence I would say certitude that the system is without 
     flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not 
     the case . . .

  Last year New Jersey to legislatively repealed its death penalty 
statute after a state commission reported that the death penalty ``is 
inconsistent with evolving standards of decency'' and recommended 
abolition. In New York,

[[Page 8071]]

the death penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has 
not been reinstated by the legislature. While Kansas and New Hampshire 
still technically have the death penalty on their books, they have not 
executed anyone since 1976.
  Other States have created commissions that have identified serious 
problems with their capital punishment systems. In Maryland, a 23-
member commission tasked with studying all aspects of the State's 
capital punishment system voted on November 12, 2008, to recommend 
abolition of the State's death penalty. The Commission cited as reasons 
the possibility that an innocent person could be mistakenly executed, 
as well as geographical and racial disparities in its application. The 
chair of the commission, a former United States Attorney General, 
stated simply, ``It's haphazard in how it's applied, and that's 
terribly unfair.''
  This past June, the California Commission on the Fair Administration 
of Justice completed its review of the California capital punishment 
system. It found, unanimously and not surprisingly, that the death 
penalty system in California is broken and in need of repair. North 
Carolina and Tennessee are also in the midst of studies of their 
respective death penalty systems.
  Of course the state that started it all was Illinois, where on 
January 31, 2000, then-Governor George Ryan took the historic step of 
placing a moratorium on executions and creating an independent, blue 
ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. That 
commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in 
Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform. The 
commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and 
that the risk of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor 
Ryan later pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences 
of all remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he 
left office in January 2003. Illinois has not executed anyone since.
  In addition, in 2007, the American Bar Association issued a series of 
reports on the fairness and accuracy of capital punishment systems in 
eight states, and concluded there were serious problems in every state 
it reviewed.
  So while detailed reviews have not been conducted in every state, the 
studies that have been done have revealed major problems. And these 
problems whether they be racial disparities, inconsistent application 
of the death penalty, inadequate indigent defense, or other 
shortcomings cannot be brushed aside as atypical or as revealing state-
specific anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. Years of study have 
shown that the death penalty does little to deter crime, and that 
defendants' likelihood of being sentenced to death depends heavily on 
illegitimate factors such as whether they are rich or poor.
  Racial disparities also have been documented again and again. Since 
reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 80 percent of murder victims 
in cases where death sentences were handed down were white, even though 
only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half 
of death row inmates nationwide are African Americans or Hispanic 
Americans. Since 1976, cases that had a white defendant and a black 
victim have resulted in 15 executions; in cases involving a black 
defendant and a white victim, there have been 229 executions.
  There is also evidence that seeking capital punishment comes at great 
monetary cost to taxpayers. The Urban Institute in Maryland examined 
162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999. It found 
that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more 
than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been 
sought. In California, according to the California Commission on the 
Fair Administration of Justice, ``the additional cost of confining an 
inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where 
those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve 
their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's 
current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million 
annually.'' A report in Washington state indicates that ``at the trial 
level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 
in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of 
trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty 
and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.'' Similar reports 
detailing the extraordinary financial costs of the death penalty have 
been generated for States across the Nation.
  There are also enormous problems with the right to counsel in death 
penalty cases. I held a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee last year to examine the State of capital 
defense in this country, and the results were shocking. The witnesses 
provided sobering testimony about over-worked and under-paid court-
appointed lawyers in capital cases, and the lack of investigative and 
other resources available to them. Just to take a couple of specific 
examples, Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative testified 
that in Alabama, 60 percent of people on death row were defended by 
lawyers appointed by courts who, by statute, could not be paid more 
than $1,000 for their out of court time to prepare the case for trial. 
In Texas, hundreds of death row inmates are awaiting execution after 
being represented by lawyers who could not receive more then $500 for 
experts or mitigation evidence. Across the country there are hundreds 
of death row inmates whose lawyers had their compensation capped at 
levels that make effective assistance impossible.
  We also heard more about the American Bar Association State 
Assessment Project, which found that ineffective defense representation 
was a serious problem in each of the eight states that the ABA 
reviewed--and is a major reason why the ABA continues to advocate for a 
moratorium on capital punishment.
  The Federal death penalty, too, has had its share of problems. 
Capital punishment at the Federal level was reinstated in 1988 in a 
Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the 
course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. It was then expanded significantly 
in 1994, when an omnibus crime bill expanded its use to a total of some 
60 Federal offenses. Despite my best efforts to halt the expansion of 
the Federal death penalty, more and more provisions have been added 
over the years. Three individuals have now been executed under the 
Federal system, and there are 55 inmates on Federal death row.
  In 2007, I held a hearing on oversight of the Federal death penalty 
the first such oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee in 6 
years. Once again, the results were disturbing. The hearing focused on 
a range of issues, including the lack of information the Justice 
Department maintains about the application and cost of the death 
penalty, the lack of transparency in the DOJ decision-making process, 
concerns about the politicization of the federal death penalty, and the 
continuing problem of racial disparities in the Federal system.
  I was alarmed to learn at the hearing that the Department of Justice 
from 2001 to 2006 kept virtually no statistics about its implementation 
of the Federal death penalty. Prior to the hearing, I requested basic 
statistics for that time period, such as the rate at which the Attorney 
General overruled U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death 
penalty, and the race of defendants and victims in Federal capital 
cases. Before I asked for this information, the Department had not 
tracked it. Further, the DOJ does not track the monetary costs of the 
Federal death penalty in any way at all.
  We are still lacking basic information about racial disparities in 
the application of the Federal death penalty. After putting off for 
years a National Institute of Justice study report ordered by Attorney 
General Reno at the end of the Clinton Administration to examine this 
question, DOJ finally released a RAND study in 2006. But the long 
anticipated report did not address the root question about the 
application

[[Page 8072]]

of the Federal death penalty; it did not study the decision-making 
process for bringing defendants into the Federal system in the first 
place. Of course, this study only covers 1995-2000. So we still have 
very little information about racial disparities from 2001 forward.
  I was particularly concerned about information the hearing uncovered 
about the Attorney General overrule rates. In the Federal system, the 
Attorney General makes the final decision whether to seek the death 
penalty in federal cases. Between 2001 and 2006, the Attorney General 
overruled local U.S. Attorney recommendations not to seek the death 
penalty in one out of every three Federal capital cases. This number is 
substantially higher than the 16 percent of recommendations not to seek 
death that were overruled by Attorney General Reno from 1995 to 2000. 
Not only was the Bush administration far more willing to overrule local 
U.S. Attorney recommendations, but when it did so, the Government was 
less likely to actually obtain a death sentence in the case. The 
Government secured a death sentence in 33 percent of cases where the 
Attorney General approved a U.S. Attorney recommendation to seek death, 
but in only 20 percent of cases where the Attorney General overruled 
the U.S. Attorney recommendation not to seek death.
  And at least one U.S. Attorney who objected when his recommendation 
not to seek death was overruled by Main Justice learned the hard way 
that dissent was not acceptable. Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, 
who testified at the hearing I chaired, was fired at least in part 
because he had the audacity to ask to speak with the Attorney General 
directly after the Attorney General ordered him to pursue the death 
penalty in a case where he had recommended against seeking the death 
penalty.
  There is every reason to be optimistic that the new administration 
will take the significant problems in our federal death penalty system 
much more seriously. But while we examine the flaws in our death 
penalty system at both the State and Federal level, we cannot help but 
note that any use of the death penalty in the United States stands in 
stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the 
death penalty in law or practice. There are now 123 countries that have 
done so. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed 
more people than we did in the United States. These countries, and 
others on the list of nations that actively use capital punishment, are 
countries that we often criticize for human rights abuses. The European 
Union denies membership to nations that use the death penalty. In fact, 
it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional 
global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on 
all states within the United States to abolish the death penalty. 
Moreover, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on 
December 18, 2007, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death 
penalty.
  We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of 
justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that 
scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We should hold 
our own system of justice to the highest standard.
  As a matter of justice, this is an issue that transcends political 
allegiances. A range of prominent voices in our country is raising 
serious questions about the death penalty, and these are not just 
voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of 
former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, commentator George Will, 
former Mississippi warden Donald Cabana, and former Baltimore City 
police officer Michael May. And notably, the editorial boards of the 
Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News each finally came out in 
opposition to the death penalty in 2007. The voices of those 
questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, 
and they are growing louder.
  As we begin a new year and a new Congress, I believe the continued 
use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death 
penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is 
ineffective. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right'' applies here 
in the most fundamental way. It is time to abolish the death penalty as 
we seek to spread peace and justice both here and overseas. And it is 
not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal 
justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our 
own people and the world requires that we take this step. Our Nation's 
goal to remain the world's leading defender of freedom, liberty and 
equality demands that we do so.
  Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take 
patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a 
rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great Nation by enacting this legislation to 
do away with the Federal death penalty. I also call on each State that 
authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us 
together reject violence and restore fairness and integrity to our 
criminal justice system.
  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. 650

       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 ``Federal Death Penalty 
     Abolition Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH 
                   PENALTY.

       (a) Homicide-Related Offenses.--
       (1) Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.--Section 
     274(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``punished 
     by death or''.
       (2) Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related 
     facilities resulting in death.--Section 34 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death 
     penalty or''.
       (3) Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by 
     shooting.--Section 36(b)(2)(A) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (4) Murder committed at an airport serving international 
     civil aviation.--Section 37(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended, in the matter following paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``punished by death or''.
       (5) Murder committed using chemical weapons.--Section 
     229A(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Death penalty'' 
     and inserting ``Causing death''; and
       (B) by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (6) Civil rights offenses resulting in death.--Chapter 13 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 241, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (B) in section 242, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (C) in section 245(b), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (D) in section 247(d)(1), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (7) Murder of a member of congress, an important executive 
     official, or a supreme court justice.--Section 351 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (8) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation 
     of explosives, destruction of government property, or 
     destruction of property related to foreign or interstate 
     commerce.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``subject to the 
     death penalty, or'';
       (C) in subsection (i), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty''; and
       (D) in subsection (n), by striking ``(other than the 
     penalty of death)''.
       (9) Murder committed by use of a firearm or armor piercing 
     ammunition during commission of a crime of violence or a drug 
     trafficking crime.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(5)(B)(i), by striking ``punished by 
     death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (j)(1), by striking ``by death or''.

[[Page 8073]]

       (10) Genocide.--Section 1091(b)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (11) First degree murder.--Section 1111(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (12) Murder by a federal prisoner.--Section 1118 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the third undesignated 
     paragraph--
       (i) by inserting ``or'' before ``an indeterminate''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or an unexecuted sentence of death''.
       (13) Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or 
     other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a 
     state correctional officer.--Section 1121 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by sentence of death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or death''.
       (14) Murder during a kidnaping.--Section 1201(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (15) Murder during a hostage-taking.--Section 1203(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death 
     or''.
       (16) Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a 
     witness, victim, or informant.--Section 1512(a)(2)(A) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     death penalty or''.
       (17) Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or 
     resulting in death.--Section 1716(j)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death penalty 
     or''.
       (18) Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of 
     the president or vice president.--Section 1751 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (19) Murder for hire.--Section 1958(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (20) Murder involved in a racketeering offense.--Section 
     1959(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (21) Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.--
     Section 1992 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (10), by striking ``or subject to death,''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the matter following paragraph 
     (3), by striking ``, and if the offense resulted in the death 
     of any person, the person may be sentenced to death''.
       (22) Bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping.--Section 
     2113(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (23) Murder related to a carjacking.--Section 2119(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or 
     sentenced to death''.
       (24) Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse.--
     Section 2241(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``unless the death penalty is imposed,''.
       (25) Murder related to sexual abuse.--Section 2245 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (26) Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.--
     Section 2251(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (27) Murder committed during an offense against maritime 
     navigation.--Section 2280(a)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (28) Murder committed during an offense against a maritime 
     fixed platform.--Section 2281(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (29) Murder using devices or dangerous substances in waters 
     of the united states.--Section 2282A of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively.
       (30) Murder involving the transportation of explosive, 
     biological, chemical, or radioactive or nuclear materials.--
     Section 2283 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
       (31) Murder involving the destruction of vessel or maritime 
     facility.--Section 2291(d) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``to the death penalty or''.
       (32) Murder of a united states national in another 
     country.--Section 2332(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (33) Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.--
     Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (4), by striking ``, and if death results shall be punished 
     by death'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``, and if death results 
     shall be punished by death'' and all that follows through the 
     end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (34) Murder by act of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries.--Section 2332b(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``by death, or''.
       (35) Murder involving torture.--Section 2340A(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (36) Murder involving a war crime.--Section 2441(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, and 
     if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the 
     penalty of death''.
       (37) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or 
     related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement 
     officer.--Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 848(e)) is amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Death 
     Penalty'' and inserting ``Intentional Killing''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) subparagraph (A), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (38) Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.--Section 
     46502 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''.
       (b) Non-Homicide Related Offenses.--
       (1) Espionage.--Section 794(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or'' and all 
     that follows before the period and inserting ``imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life''.
       (2) Treason.--Section 2381 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``shall suffer death, or''.
       (c) Title 10.--
       (1) In general.--Section 856 of title 10 is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     except that the punishment may not include death''.
       (2) Offenses.--
       (A) Conspiracy.--Section 881(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 81(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), 
     is amended by striking ``, if death results'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``as a court-martial or 
     military commission may direct.''.
       (B) Desertion.--Section 885(c) of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 85(c)), is amended by striking ``, if the 
     offense is committed in time of war'' and all that follows 
     through the end and inserting ``as a court-martial may 
     direct.''.
       (C) Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior 
     commissioned officer.--Section 890 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 90), is amended by striking ``, if the offense 
     is committed in time of war'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``as a court-martial may direct.''.
       (D) Mutiny or sedition.--Section 894(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 94(b)), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (E) Misbehavior before the enemy.--Section 899 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 99), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (F) Subordinate compelling surrender.--Section 900 of title 
     10, United States Code (article 100), is amended by striking 
     ``by death or such other punishment''.
       (G) Improper use of countersign.--Section 901 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 101), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (H) Forcing a safeguard.--Section 902 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 102), is amended by striking ``suffer 
     death'' and all that follows and inserting ``be punished as a 
     court-martial may direct.''.
       (I) Aiding the enemy.--Section 904 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 104), is amended by striking ``suffer 
     death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military 
     commission may direct'' and inserting ``be punished as a 
     court-martial or military commission may direct''.
       (J) Spies.--Section 906 of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 106), is amended by striking ``by death'' and 
     inserting ``by imprisonment for life''.
       (K) Espionage.--Section 906a of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 106a), is amended--
       (i) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 
     (a) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively;
       (iii) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``(1)'';
       (II) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)'';
       (III) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)''; and
       (IV) by striking ``as a court-martial may direct,'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``as a court-martial may 
     direct.'';

[[Page 8074]]

       (iv) in subsection (b), as so redesignated--

       (I) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and

       (v) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
       (L) Improper hazarding of vessel.--The text of section 910 
     of title 10, United States Code (article 110), is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and 
     wrongfully, or negligently, hazards or suffers to be hazarded 
     any vessel of the Armed Forces shall be punished as a court-
     martial may direct.''.
       (M) Misbehavior of sentinel.--Section 913 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 113), is amended by striking ``, 
     if the offense is committed in time of war'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``as a court-martial may direct.''.
       (N) Murder.--Section 918 of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 118), is amended by striking ``death or imprisonment 
     for life as a court-martial may direct'' and inserting 
     ``imprisonment for life''.
       (O) Death or injury of an unborn child.--Section 919a(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, other than death,''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (4).
       (P) Crimes triable by military commission.--Section 950v(b) 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``by death or such other 
     punishment'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (iii) in paragraph (7), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (iv) in paragraph (8), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (v) in paragraph (9), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (vi) in paragraph (11)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (vii) in paragraph (12)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (viii) in paragraph (13)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (ix) in paragraph (14), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (x) in paragraph (15), by striking ``by death or such other 
     punishment'';
       (xi) in paragraph (17), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xii) in paragraph (23), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xiii) in paragraph (24), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xiv) in paragraph (27), by striking ``by death or such 
     other punishment''; and
       (xv) in paragraph (28), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.''.
       (3) Jurisdictional and procedural matters.--
       (A) Dismissed officer's right to trial by court-martial.--
     Section 804(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 4(a) 
     of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by 
     striking ``or death''.
       (B) Courts-martial classified.--Section 816(1)(A) of title 
     10, United States Code (article 10(1)(A)), is amended by 
     striking ``or, in a case in which the accused may be 
     sentenced to a penalty of death'' and all that follows 
     through ``(article 25a)''.
       (C) Jurisdiction of general courts-martial.--Section 818 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 18), is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence by striking ``including the 
     penalty of death when specifically authorized by this 
     chapter'' and inserting ``except death''; and
       (ii) by striking the third sentence.
       (D) Jurisdiction of special courts-martial.--Section 819 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 19), is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``for any noncapital offense'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``for any offense made 
     punishable by this chapter.''.
       (E) Jurisdiction of summary courts-martial.--Section 820 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 20), is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``noncapital''.
       (F) Number of members in capital cases.--
       (i) In general.--Section 825a of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 25a), is repealed.
       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter V of chapter 47 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 825a (article 25a).
       (G) Absent and additional members.--Section 829(b)(2) of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 29(b)(2)), is amended 
     by striking ``or, in a case in which the death penalty may be 
     adjudged'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (H) Statute of limitations.--Subsection (a) of section 843 
     of title 10, United States Code (article 43), is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) A person charged with an offense described in 
     paragraph (2) may be tried and punished at any time without 
     limitation.
       ``(2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Absence without leave or missing movement in time of 
     war.
       ``(B) Murder.
       ``(C) Rape.
       ``(D) A violation of section 881 of this title (article 81) 
     that results in death to one or more of the victims.
       ``(E) Desertion or attempt to desert in time of war.
       ``(F) A violation of section 890 of this title (article 90) 
     committed in time of war.
       ``(G) Attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to 
     suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
       ``(H) A violation of section 899 of this title (article 
     99).
       ``(I) A violation of section 900 of this title (article 
     100).
       ``(J) A violation of section 901 of this title (article 
     101).
       ``(K) A violation of section 902 of this title (article 
     102).
       ``(L) A violation of section 904 of this title (article 
     104).
       ``(M) A violation of section 906 of this title (article 
     106).
       ``(N) A violation of section 906a of this title (article 
     106a).
       ``(O) A violation of section 910 of this title (article 
     110) in which the person subject to this chapter willfully 
     and wrongfully hazarded or suffered to be hazarded any vessel 
     of the Armed Forces.
       ``(P) A violation of section 913 of this title (article 
     113) committed in time of war.''.
       (I) Pleas of accused.--Section 845(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 45(b)), is amended--
       (i) by striking the first sentence; and
       (ii) by striking ``With respect to any other charge'' and 
     inserting ``With respect to any charge''.
       (J) Depositions.--Section 849 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 49), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (d), by striking ``in any case not 
     capital''; and
       (ii) by striking subsections (e) and (f).
       (K) Admissibility of records of courts of inquiry.--Section 
     850 of title 10, United States Code (article 50), is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``not capital and''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``capital cases or''.
       (L) Number of votes required for conviction and sentencing 
     by court-martial.--Section 852 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 52), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1);
       (II) by redesignating paragraph (2) as subsection (a); and
       (III) by striking ``any other offense'' and inserting ``any 
     offense''; and

       (ii) in subsection (b)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (II) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.

       (M) Record of trial.--Section 854(c)(1)(A) of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 54(c)(1)(A)), is amended by 
     striking ``death,''.
       (N) Forfeiture of pay and allowances during confinement.--
     Section 858b(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 58b(a)(2)(A)), is amended by striking ``or death''.
       (O) Waiver or withdrawal of appeal.--Section 861 of title 
     10, United States Code (article 61), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``except a case in which 
     the sentence as approved under section 860(c) of this title 
     (article 60(c)) includes death,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``Except in a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 860(c) of this 
     title (article 60(c)) includes death, the accused'' and 
     inserting ``The accused''.
       (P) Review by court of criminal appeals.--Section 866(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 66(b)), is amended--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``in which'' after ``court-martial'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``in which the sentence, 
     as approved, extends to death,'' and inserting ``the 
     sentence, as approved, extends to''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``except in the case of 
     a sentence extending to death,''.
       (Q) Review by court of appeals for the armed forces.--
     Section 867(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 
     67(a)), is amended--

[[Page 8075]]

       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.
       (R) Execution of sentence.--Section 871 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 71), is amended--
       (i) by striking subsection (a);
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (a);
       (iii) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1) If a sentence extends to dismissal or a 
     dishonorable or bad conduct discharge and if the right of the 
     accused to appellate review is not waived, and an appeal is 
     not withdrawn, under section 861 of this title (article 61), 
     that part of the sentence extending to dismissal or a 
     dishonorable or bad conduct discharge may not be executed 
     until there is a final judgment as to the legality of the 
     proceedings (and with respect to dismissal, approval under 
     subsection (a)). A judgment as to legality of the proceedings 
     is final in such cases when review is completed by a Court of 
     Criminal Appeals and--
       ``(A) the time for the accused to file a petition for 
     review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has 
     expired and the accused has not filed a timely petition for 
     such review and the case is not otherwise under review by 
     that Court;
       ``(B) such a petition is rejected by the Court of Appeals 
     for the Armed Forces; or
       ``(C) review is completed in accordance with the judgment 
     of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and--
       ``(i) a petition for a writ of certiorari is not filed 
     within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court;
       ``(ii) such a petition is rejected by the Supreme Court; or
       ``(iii) review is otherwise completed in accordance with 
     the judgment of the Supreme Court.
       ``(2) If a sentence extends to dismissal or a dishonorable 
     or bad conduct discharge and if the right of the accused to 
     appellate review is waived, or an appeal is withdrawn, under 
     section 861 of this title (article 61), that part of the 
     sentence extending to dismissal or a bad conduct or 
     dishonorable discharge may not be executed until review of 
     the case by a judge advocate (and any action on that review) 
     under section 864 of this title (article 64) is completed. 
     Any other part of a court-martial sentence may be ordered 
     executed by the convening authority or other person acting on 
     the case under section 860 of this title (article 60) when 
     approved by him under that section.'';
       (iv) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c); and
       (v) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking ``, 
     except a sentence of death''.
       (S) General article.--Section 934 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 134), is amended by striking ``crimes 
     and offenses not capital'' and inserting ``crimes and 
     offenses''
       (T) Jurisdiction of military commissions.--Section 948d(d) 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``including the penalty of death'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``except death.''.
       (U) Number of members of military commissions.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 948m of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Number of Members.--A military commission under this 
     chapter shall have at least 5 members.''.
       (V) Number of votes required for sentencing by military 
     commission.--Section 949m of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (II) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and

       (ii) by striking subsection (c).
       (W) Appellate referral for military commissions.--Section 
     950c of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``except a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 950b of this 
     title extends to death,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``Except in a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 950b of this 
     title extends to death, the accused'' and inserting ``The 
     accused''.
       (X) Execution of sentence by military commissions.--
       (i) In general.--Section 950i of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--

       (I) in the section heading, by striking ``; procedures for 
     execution of sentence of death'';
       (II) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (III) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b); 
     and
       (IV) in subsection (b), as so redesignated, by striking ``, 
     except a sentence of death''.

       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter VI of chapter 47A of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 950i and inserting the following new item:

``950i. Execution of sentence.''.

       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal of criminal procedures relating to imposition of 
     death sentence.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters for part II 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to chapter 228.
       (2) Other provisions.--
       (A) Interception of wire, oral, or electronic 
     communications.--Section 2516(1)(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (B) Release and detention pending judicial proceedings.--
     Chapter 207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in section 3142(f)(1)(B), by striking ``or death''; and
       (ii) in section 3146(b)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``death, life 
     imprisonment,'' and inserting ``life imprisonment''.
       (C) Venue in capital cases.--Chapter 221 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (i) by striking section 3235; and
       (ii) in the table of sections, by striking the item 
     relating to section 3235.
       (D) Period of limitations.--
       (i) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking section 3281 and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3281. Offenses with no period of limitations

       ``An indictment may be found at any time without limitation 
     for the following offenses:
       ``(1) A violation of section 274(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)) 
     resulting in the death of any person.
       ``(2) A violation of section 34 of this title.
       ``(3) A violation of section 36(b)(2)(A) of this title.
       ``(4) A violation of section 37(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(5) A violation of section 229A(a)(2) of this title.
       ``(6) A violation of section 241, 242, 245(b), or 247(a) of 
     this title that--
       ``(A) results in death; or
       ``(B) involved kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, 
     aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated 
     sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(7) A violation of subsection (b) or (d) of section 351 
     of this title.
       ``(8) A violation of section 794(a) of this title.
       ``(9) A violation of subsection (d), (f), or (i) of section 
     844 of this title that results in the death of any person 
     (including any public safety officer performing duties as a 
     direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by such 
     subsection).
       ``(10) An offense punishable under subsection (c)(5)(B)(i) 
     or (j)(1) of section 924 of this title.
       ``(11) An offense punishable under section 1091(b)(1) of 
     this title.
       ``(12) A violation of section 1111 of this title that is 
     murder in the first degree.
       ``(13) A violation of section 1118 of this title.
       ``(14) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 1121 
     of this title.
       ``(15) A violation of section 1201(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(16) A violation of section 1203(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(17) An offense punishable under section 1512(a)(3) of 
     this title that is murder (as that term is defined in section 
     1111 of this title).
       ``(18) An offense punishable under section 1716(j)(3) of 
     this title.
       ``(19) A violation of subsection (b) or (d) of section 1751 
     of this title.
       ``(20) A violation of section 1958(a) of this title that 
     results in death.
       ``(21) A violation of section 1959(a) of this title that is 
     murder.
       ``(22) A violation of subsection (a) (except for a 
     violation of paragraph (8), (9) or (10) of such subsection) 
     or (b) of section 1992 of this title that results in the 
     death of any person.
       ``(23) A violation of section 2113(e) of this title that 
     results in death.
       ``(24) An offense punishable under section 2119(3) of this 
     title.
       ``(25) An offense punishable under section 2245(a) of this 
     title.
       ``(26) A violation of section 2251 of this title that 
     results in the death of a person.
       ``(27) A violation of section 2280(a)(1) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(28) A violation of section 2281(a)(1) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(29) A violation of section 2282A(a) of this title that 
     causes the death of any person.
       ``(30) A violation of section 2283(a) of this title that 
     causes the death of any person.
       ``(31) An offense punishable under section 2291(d) of this 
     title.
       ``(32) An offense punishable under section 2332(a)(1) of 
     this title.
       ``(33) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 
     2332a of this title that results in death.
       ``(34) An offense punishable under section 2332b(c)(1)(A) 
     of this title.
       ``(35) A violation of section 2340A(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(36) A violation of section 2381 of this title.
       ``(37) A violation of section 2441(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of the victim.
       ``(38) A violation of section 408(e) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
       ``(39) An offense punishable under subsection (a)(2)(B) or 
     (b)(1)(B) of section 46502 of title 49.''
       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item

[[Page 8076]]

     relating to section 3281 and inserting the following:

``3281. Offenses with no period of limitations.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation 
     of Federal law.
       (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person 
     sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act 
     for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of 
     life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 651. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 
an excise tax on excessive bonuses paid by, and received from, 
companies receiving Federal emergency economic assistance, to limit the 
amount of nonqualified deferred compensation that employees of such 
companies may defer from taxation, and for other purposes; read the 
first time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, over the past week, we have heard a lot 
about AIG paying out $165 million in bonuses to employees of its 
financial products unit. This is the same company that took $170 
billion in taxpayer money just to stay afloat.
  The Government owns 80 percent of AIG. Yet some people in the 
Government say that they were not able to do anything to stop these 
bonuses from being paid.
  The country is angry, and I am angry.
  President Obama ordered Secretary Geithner to use all available legal 
means to recover these bonuses. But that may not be enough. We may 
never be able to recover these payments.
  The truth is we should not have to be in this position in the first 
place. When we first passed the TARP funding, Senator Grassley and I 
fought hard to include strong provisions in the bill on executive 
compensation. Unfortunately, the TARP program was not run as originally 
intended.
  Even as we discuss this issue, reports are coming out that Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac are planning on paying retention bonuses to their 
executives.
  This type of behavior has to stop, and it has to stop now.
  Companies should not be taking taxpayer money for a bailout with one 
hand, and then paying out big bonuses with the other. Across the 
country, Americans are losing their jobs. They are stretching every 
dollar to cover the basic costs of living. Meanwhile, executives and 
employees at financial institutions are receiving big bonuses--bonuses 
that are being paid with taxpayer dollars.
  I think that almost all of us can agree that companies receiving 
taxpayer money should not be paying these big bonuses. Unfortunately, 
it seems that this type of behavior is not going stop, unless we take 
action. Using Congress's power to tax appears to be the best option 
available to us to address these excessive bonuses.
  So today, I join with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Wyden, and 
Snowe, as well as others, to introduce a bill to do just that.
  This bill makes sure that if a large institution receives government 
funds, and it then wants to pay out big bonuses, then it is going to 
face significant tax consequences. This bill would impose a 35 percent 
excise tax on each of the employer and the employee. It would apply to 
bonuses earned or paid after January 1 of this year.
  For retention bonuses, the excise tax would be imposed on the full 
amount of the bonus. For all other bonuses, the excise tax would be 
imposed on all amounts over $50,000. The bill includes regulatory 
safeguards that would help to prevent companies from characterizing 
bonus payments as salaries to avoid the taxes.
  This bill would also prevent companies from just deferring these 
bonuses to avoid paying this excise tax. This bill would prevent 
taxpayers from deferring more than $1 million in a 12 month period. If 
a taxpayer deferred more than $1 million, then the bill would impose a 
20 percent penalty and interest.
  Some have concerns about the small banks that want to take Federal 
money through the new SBA program that the President announced. Others 
have concerns about the larger banks that did not take much in TARP 
funds. The restrictions in this bill would not apply to small banks as 
defined in the tax code. And the restrictions would not apply to banks 
that receive less than $100 million of TARP funds or other Government 
assistance. And if those institutions wanted to pay back their TARP 
funds, they would no longer be subject to these restrictions.
  The way that these companies are doing business must stop. This bill 
would change the way that TARP recipients and recipients of other 
similar Government aid operate. These companies would no longer be able 
to pay out big bonuses or give out huge amounts of deferred 
compensation without facing significant tax consequences.
  The country is going through difficult times. Americans are scrimping 
and saving just to get by. We owe it to the American taxpayer to do all 
that we can to ensure that banks do not use taxpayer dollars to pay out 
big bonuses. I urge all of my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 653. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins 
in commemoration of the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-
Spangled Banner, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Star-
Spangled Banner Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased that my colleague, 
the senior Senator from Maryland, is a co-sponsor. This legislation 
will honor our National Anthem and the Battle for Baltimore, which was 
a key turning point of the War of 1812, by creating two commemorative 
U.S. Mint coins.
  The War of 1812 confirmed American independence from Great Britain in 
the eyes of the world. Before the war, the British had been routinely 
imposing on American sovereignty. They had impressed American merchant 
seamen into the British Royal Navy, enforced illegal and unfair trade 
rules with the United States, and allegedly offered assistance to 
American Indian tribes which were attacking frontier settlements. In 
response, the United States declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 
1812, to protest these violations of ``free trade and sailors rights''.
  After 2\1/2\ years of conflict, the British Royal Navy sailed up the 
Chesapeake Bay with combined military and naval forces, and in August 
1814 attacked Washington, DC, burning to the ground the U.S. Capitol, 
the White House, and much of the rest of the capital city. After 
finishing with Washington, DC, the British moved to capture Baltimore, 
which in 1814 was a larger city.
  As the British Royal Navy sailed up the Patapsco River on its way to 
Baltimore, American forces held the British fleet at Fort McHenry, 
located just outside of the city. After 25 hours of bombardment, the 
British failed to take the Fort and were forced to depart. American 
lawyer Francis Scott Key, who was being held on board an American flag-
of-truce vessel, beheld at dawn's early light an American flag still 
flying atop Fort McHenry. He immortalized the event in a song which 
later became known as the Star-Spangled Banner.
  The flag to which Key referred was a 30' x 42' foot flag made 
specifically for Fort McHenry. The commanding officer desired a flag so 
large that the British would have no trouble seeing it from a distance. 
This proved to be the case as Key visited the British fleet on 
September 7, 1814, to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes. Dr. 
Beanes was released, but Key and Beanes were detained on an American 
flag-of-truce vessel until the end of the bombardment. It was on 
September 14, 1814, that Key saw the great banner that inspired him to 
write the song that ultimately became our National Anthem.

[[Page 8077]]

  The Star-Spangled Banner Commemorative Coins will honor this symbol 
of our nation and our National Anthem. Under this Act, the U.S. 
Treasury would mint up to 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver 
coins in 2012, in coordination with the 200th Anniversary of the War of 
1812. Proceeds from surcharges for the coins will be paid to the 
Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission, for bicentennial 
activities, educational outreach, and preservation and improvement 
activities pertaining to the sites and structures relating to the War 
of 1812. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure 
in a fitting tribute to a seminal chapter in American history.
  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. 653

       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 ``Star-Spangled Banner 
     Commemorative Coin Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) During the Battle for Baltimore of the War of 1812, 
     Francis Scott Key visited the British fleet in the Chesapeake 
     Bay on September 7, 1814, to secure the release of Dr. 
     William Beanes, who had been captured after the British 
     burned Washington, D.C.
       (2) The release of Dr. Beanes was secured, but Key and 
     Beanes were held by the British during the shelling of Fort 
     McHenry, one of the forts defending Baltimore.
       (3) On the morning of September 14, 1814, after the 25-hour 
     British bombardment of Fort McHenry, Key peered through the 
     clearing smoke to see a 42-foot by 30-foot American flag 
     flying proudly atop the Fort.
       (4) He was so inspired to see the enormous flag still 
     flying over the Fort that he began penning a song, which he 
     named The Defence of Fort McHenry, to commemorate the 
     occasion and he included a note that it should be sung to the 
     tune of the popular British melody To Anacreon in Heaven.
       (5) In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered that the 
     anthem, which had been popularly renamed the Star-Spangled 
     Banner, be played at military and naval occasions.
       (6) On March 3, 1931, President Herbert Hoover signed a 
     resolution of Congress that officially designated the Star-
     Spangled Banner as the National Anthem of the United States.

     SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall mint and issue the following coins in commemoration of 
     the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner:
       (1) $5 gold coins.--Not more than 100,000 $5 coins, which 
     shall--
       (A) weigh 8.359 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 0.850 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
       (2) $1 silver coins.--Not more than 500,000 $1 coins, which 
     shall--
       (A) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and 
     5136 of title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under 
     this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of the War of 1812 and particularly 
     the Battle for Baltimore that formed the basis for the Star-
     Spangled Banner.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act, there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2012''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission and the 
     Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only one facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the 
     coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins 
     under this Act only during the calendar year beginning on 
     January 1, 2012.

     SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in section 7 with respect to 
     such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.

     SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--All sales of coins issued under this Act 
     shall include a surcharge of--
       (1) $35 per coin for the $5 coin; and
       (2) $10 per coin for the $1 coin.
       (b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, 
     United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary 
     from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be paid to 
     the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission for the 
     purpose of supporting bicentennial activities, educational 
     outreach activities (including supporting scholarly research 
     and the development of exhibits), and preservation and 
     improvement activities pertaining to the sites and structures 
     relating to the War of 1812.
       (c) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall have the right to examine such books, records, 
     documents, and other data of the Maryland War of 1812 
     Bicentennial Commission as may be related to the expenditures 
     of amounts paid under subsection (b).
       (d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), no 
     surcharge may be included with respect to the issuance under 
     this Act of any coin during a calendar year if, as of the 
     time of such issuance, the issuance of such coin would result 
     in the number of commemorative coin programs issued during 
     such year to exceed the annual 2 commemorative coin program 
     issuance limitation under section 5112(m)(1) of title 31, 
     United States Code (as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act). The Secretary of the Treasury may issue 
     guidance to carry out this subsection.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 654. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to cover 
physician services delivered by podiatric physicians to ensure access 
by Medicaid beneficiaries to appropriate quality foot and ankle care; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing an important 
piece of legislation that I have worked on for several years with 
Senator Mikulski from Maryland. I am pleased that she is joining me in 
introducing this bill today, and I look forward to working with her to 
get it passed.
  The bill we are introducing today, the Equity and Access for 
Podiatric Physicians Under Medicaid Act, will ensure that Medicaid 
beneficiaries in all States have access to the services of top-quality 
podiatric physicians.
  Having healthy feet and ankles is critical to keeping individuals 
mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly 
true for individuals with diabetes.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
over 23 million Americans have diabetes, which amounts to over seven 
percent of the total population. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause 
of death in this country.
  If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health 
problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart 
disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including 
foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that in 
2004, about 71,000 people underwent an amputation of a leg, foot or toe 
because of complications with diabetes.
  Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations.
  The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role 
podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among 
diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to 
include podiatric

[[Page 8078]]

physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to 
foot care from those most qualified to provide it.
  Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However, 
just because it is optional, does not mean that podiatric services are 
not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to 
perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to 
receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained 
as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities.
  Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered 
physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and 
disabled individuals to receive appropriate care.
  I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important 
bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have 
access to podiatrists that they need.
  Finally, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me 
reintroduce this legislation today. I hope that by working together we 
can see this important change made.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bunning to 
introduce the Equity and Access for Podiatric Physicians Under Medicaid 
Act. I am proud to introduce this legislation that will ensure Medicaid 
patients have access to care provided by podiatric physicians.
  This bill adds podiatric physicians to Medicaid's definition of 
physicians. Currently, podiatric physicians are defined as physicians 
under Medicare but not under Medicaid. Medicaid treats podiatric 
physicians as optional providers. This is a simple, commonsense bill 
that will treat podiatric physicians the same in Medicare and Medicaid. 
In this economic tsunami, with shrinking budgets and less to go around 
for Medicaid with more people in need, states are looking for ways to 
trim budgets and cut costs--one way to do that could be ending 
reimbursements to providers on Medicaid's ``optional list.'' That means 
diabetics who need foot and ankle care but cannot afford to pay out of 
pocket will not get preventive care from a podiatrist that literally 
can save life and limb.
  In fact, covering podiatric physicians may be a cost-effective 
measure. Ensuring Medicaid patients access to podiatric physicians will 
save Medicaid funds in the long term. Seventy-five percent of Americans 
will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives and 
foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to 
hospitalization. Foot care programs with regular examinations could 
prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. We must focus more on 
prevention on our health care system, and podiatrists are important 
providers of this preventive care.
  Podiatric physicians are the only health professionals specially 
trained to prevent wounds and amputations in the lower limbs in people 
with chronic conditions like diabetes. Conditions that can devastate 
feet and ankles. With obesity and diabetes reaching epidemic 
proportions in the U.S., the work of podiatrists is more important now 
than ever before. Over 23 million people in this country have diabetes, 
that is 8 percent of the U.S. populations. Approximately 82,000 people 
have diabetes-related Leg-,foot or toe amputations each year. Both the 
CDC and American Diabetes Association recommend that podiatric 
physicians are a part of the care plan for people with diabetes. 
Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle services, so the program 
should allow podiatric physicians who provide these services to get 
reimbursed for them. I want Medicaid patients around the country, and 
the over 600,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland, to have access to these 
services.
  I know how important the care provided by podiatric physicians can be 
from my own personal experience. Dr. Vince Martorana, a podiatrist 
practicing in Baltimore did great things for my mother. He handled 
everything from health maintenance to unique challenges facing my 
mother, who lived for many years with adult onset diabetes. My severely 
diabetic mother could walk on her own two feet until she passed away 
because of Dr. Martorana. My Uncle Tony was also a podiatric physician 
who practiced in Baltimore for more than 40 years. He was there helping 
Rosie the Riveters stay on the job during World War II. These were 
hardworking people who had to stand on their own two feet to make a 
living and Uncle Tony was going to make sure it happened.
  Podiatric physicians need to be recognized for the important role 
they play in health care and be reimbursed for their services. This 
bill makes sure that happens and ensures Medicaid patients have access 
to essential medical and surgical foot and ankle care. The bill is 
strongly supported by the American Podiatric Medical Association and I 
urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, and Mr. 
        Thune):
  S. 655. A bill to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration 
Act to ensure adequate funding for conservation and restoration of 
wildlife, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I introduced legislation, along 
with Senators Stabenow and Tester, that establishes a first-of-its-kind 
program to dedicate funds to advance important state wildlife recovery 
and restoration programs.
  For many years, Congress has authorized a portion of the fees hunters 
and anglers pay on fishing and hunting gear to go to the States to 
support hunting and fishing. This program is a success and is part of 
the reason why we continue to have such a strong sportsman tradition in 
our country.
  However, a critical need has gone unmet; a need that this bill will 
fill. The Teaming With Wildlife Act of 2009 leverages a share of the 
fees that oil and gas companies pay to the Federal government for the 
right to drill for oil and gas on federal land, to fund programs 
administrated by the States to conserve the habitats of nongame 
species. This bill is a partnership between the States and Federal 
Government. Each State and territory developed a wildlife action plan 
that guides how the funds authorized under this act will be spent. The 
plans ensure that State wildlife agencies take a comprehensive approach 
to conservation, focusing on efforts to support nongame species that 
are not threatened or endangered. States will match the Federal funds, 
leveraging the success of these on-the-ground conservation projects.
  A rich and diverse environment is important to support our strong 
outdoor and sportsman tradition. All species are linked together. A 
successful pheasant hunt or landing a trophy walleye is connected to 
how we enhance the habitat of many other species. Enacting the Teaming 
With Wildlife Act will build on the tremendously successful programs of 
the 20th century and move us forward in broadening how we enhance all 
wildlife resources.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 656. A bill to provide for the adjustment of status of certain 
nationals of Liberia to that of lawful permanent residents; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. 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 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 656

       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 ``Liberian Refugee Immigration 
     Fairness Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) Adjustment of Status.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Eligibility.--Except as provided under subparagraph 
     (B), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall adjust the 
     status of an alien described in subsection (b) to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the 
     alien--
       (i) applies for adjustment before April 1, 2011; and

[[Page 8079]]

       (ii) is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa and 
     admissible to the United States for permanent residence, 
     except that, in determining such admissibility, the grounds 
     for inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (4), (5), (6)(A), 
     and (7)(A) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall not apply.
       (B) Ineligible aliens.--An alien shall not be eligible for 
     adjustment of status under this section if the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security determines that the alien has been 
     convicted of--
       (i) any aggravated felony (as defined in section 101(a)(43) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(43)); or
       (ii) 2 or more crimes involving moral turpitude.
       (2) Relationship of application to certain orders.--
       (A) In general.--An alien present in the United States who 
     has been subject to an order of exclusion, deportation, or 
     removal, or has been ordered to depart voluntarily from the 
     United States under any provision of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act may, notwithstanding such order, apply for 
     adjustment of status under paragraph (1) if otherwise 
     qualified under such paragraph.
       (B) Separate motion not required.--An alien described in 
     subparagraph (A) may not be required, as a condition of 
     submitting or granting such application, to file a separate 
     motion to reopen, reconsider, or vacate the order described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (C) Effect of decision by secretary.--If the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security grants an application under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall cancel the order described in 
     subparagraph (A). If the Secretary of Homeland Security makes 
     a final decision to deny the application, the order shall be 
     effective and enforceable to the same extent as if the 
     application had not been made.
       (b) Aliens Eligible for Adjustment of Status.--
       (1) In general.--The benefits provided under subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any alien--
       (A) who is--
       (i) a national of Liberia; and
       (ii) has been continuously present in the United States 
     from January 1, 2009, through the date of application under 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) who is the spouse, child, or unmarried son or daughter 
     of an alien described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Determination of continuous physical presence.--For 
     purposes of establishing the period of continuous physical 
     presence referred to in paragraph (1), an alien shall not be 
     considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical 
     presence by reasons of an absence, or absences, from the 
     United States for any period or periods amounting in the 
     aggregate to not more than 180 days.
       (c) Stay of Removal.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     provide by regulation for an alien who is subject to a final 
     order of deportation or removal or exclusion to seek a stay 
     of such order based on the filing of an application under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) During certain proceedings.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall not order an alien to be 
     removed from the United States if the alien is in exclusion, 
     deportation, or removal proceedings under any provision of 
     such Act and has applied for adjustment of status under 
     subsection (a), except where the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security has made a final determination to deny the 
     application.
       (3) Work authorization.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may--
       (i) authorize an alien who has applied for adjustment of 
     status under subsection (a) to engage in employment in the 
     United States during the pendency of such application; and
       (ii) provide the alien with an ``employment authorized'' 
     endorsement or other appropriate document signifying 
     authorization of employment.
       (B) Pending applications.--If an application for adjustment 
     of status under subsection (a) is pending for a period 
     exceeding 180 days and has not been denied, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall authorize such employment.
       (d) Record of Permanent Residence.--Upon the approval of an 
     alien's application for adjustment of status under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a 
     record of the alien's admission for permanent record as of 
     the date of the alien's arrival in the United States.
       (e) Availability of Administrative Review.--The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall provide to applicants for 
     adjustment of status under subsection (a) the same right to, 
     and procedures for, administrative review as are provided 
     to--
       (1) applicants for adjustment of status under section 245 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255); and
       (2) aliens subject to removal proceedings under section 240 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a).
       (f) Limitation on Judicial Review.--A determination by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the adjustment of 
     status of any alien under this section is final and shall not 
     be subject to review by any court.
       (g) No Offset in Number of Visas Available.--If an alien is 
     granted the status of having been lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence pursuant to this section, the Secretary 
     of State shall not be required to reduce the number of 
     immigrant visas authorized to be issued under any provision 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.).
       (h) Application of Immigration and Nationality Act 
     Provisions.--
       (1) Definitions.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     in this Act, the definitions contained in the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) shall apply in this 
     section.
       (2) Savings provision.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to repeal, amend, alter, modify, effect, or 
     restrict the powers, duties, function, or authority of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security in the administration and 
     enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any 
     other law relating to immigration, nationality, or 
     naturalization.
       (3) Effect of eligibility for adjustment of status.--
     Eligibility to be granted the status of having been lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence under this section shall not 
     preclude an alien from seeking any status under any other 
     provision of law for which the alien may otherwise be 
     eligible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Graham, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 657. A bill to provide for media coverage of Federal court 
proceedings; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, the Nation celebrates the fifth 
annual Sunshine Week--a time when open Government advocates raise their 
voices to renew the call for open and transparent Government. Our 
democracy works best when citizens know what their Government is doing. 
There is no more appropriate time to recommit ourselves to defending 
the public's right to know.
  Today, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and Schumer to 
reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009. This bipartisan 
bill will improve access to Federal court proceedings for members of 
the public who are unable to travel to the courthouse. In the 
information age, providing the American people access to Federal courts 
is possible like never before. Not all Americans are able to invest the 
time and money in travelling to witness public courtroom proceedings.
  I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership over the last decade to 
expand access to the courts. A bipartisan majority of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee voted to report this legislation in the last 
Congress, but further consideration stalled on the Senate floor. I hope 
our efforts to pass this legislation will be successful this year.
  The Federal courts serve as a bulwark for the protection of 
individual rights and liberties, and the Supreme Court is often the 
final arbiter of Constitutional questions that have a profound effect 
on all Americans. Allowing the public greater access to Federal courts 
will deepen Americans' understanding of the work that goes on in the 
courts. As a result, Americans can be better informed about how 
important judicial decisions are made.
  I have continually supported efforts in Congress to make our 
Government more transparent and accessible. During my more than 3 
decades in the Senate, I have worked to make Federal agencies more open 
and accountable to the public through a reinvigorated Freedom of 
Information Act, FOIA, and last year, the first major reforms to FOIA 
were enacted with the passage of the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act. 
I have also supported efforts to make the work of Congress more open to 
the American people. Just this week, I introduced the OPEN FOIA Act, 
which would require Congress to openly and clearly state its intention 
to provide for statutory exemptions to FOIA in proposed legislation. 
The freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. 
For more than 4 decades, FOIA has been among the most important Federal 
laws that protect the public's right to know.
  The work of the Federal judiciary is also open to the public. 
Proceedings in Federal courtrooms around this country are open to the 
public, and jurists publish extensive opinions explaining the reasons 
for their judgments and decisions. Nevertheless, more can and must be 
done to increase access to the

[[Page 8080]]

Federal courts. All 50 States currently allow some form of audio or 
video coverage of court proceedings, but the Federal courts lag behind. 
The legislation we introduce today simply extends this tradition of 
openness to the Federal level.
  Although this bill permits presiding appellate and district court 
judges to allow cameras in most public Federal court proceedings, it 
does not require that they do so. An exception is carved out for 
instances where a camera would violate the due process rights of an 
involved party. At the same time, the bill protects non-party witnesses 
by giving them the right to have their voices and images obscured 
during their testimony. I believe these protections strike the proper 
balance between security needs and the protection of personal privacy, 
while at the same time ensuring the public will always have a right to 
know what their Government is doing.
  Finally, the bill authorizes the Judicial conference of the U.S. to 
issue advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in determining 
the management and administration of photographing, recording, 
broadcasting, or televising the proceedings.
  In 1994, the Judicial conference concluded that it was not the right 
time to permit cameras in the Federal courts, and rejected a 
recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management 
Committee to authorize the use of cameras in Federal civil trial and 
appellate courts. A majority of the Conference was concerned about the 
intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors.
  I understand that the Judicial conference remains opposed to cameras 
in the Federal courts, and I am sensitive to the conference's concerns. 
But this legislation grants the presiding judge the authority to 
evaluate the effect of a camera on particular proceedings and 
witnesses, and decide accordingly on whether to permit the camera into 
the courtroom. A blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary 
limitation on the discretion of the presiding judge.
  This legislation is an important step towards making the work of the 
Federal judiciary more widely available for public scrutiny. I hope all 
Senators will join us in bringing more transparency to the Federal 
courts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER:
  S. 659. A bill to improve the teaching and learning of American 
histroy and civics; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on a day in a week when there is a lot 
of news where people are hurting in a serious economy, I have some good 
news to report, and it will just take me a few minutes to do it. Our 
senior Senator, Mr. Byrd, Senator Ted Kennedy, who is chairman of the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and I introduced 
legislation today that will help push the teaching of U.S. history in 
our classrooms. The way I like to describe it is by saying this: that 
it will help to put the teaching of American history and civics back in 
its rightful place, in our classrooms, so our children can grow up 
learning what it means to be an American.
  The legislation which we have introduced would expand summer 
academies for outstanding teachers, authorize new teacher programs, 
require States to set standards for the teaching and learning of U.S. 
History, and create new opportunities to compare the tests that 
students take on U.S. history.
  Specifically, the legislation would, No. 1, authorize 100 new summer 
academies for outstanding students and teachers of U.S. history and 
align those academies with locations in our national park system, such 
as the John Adams' House in Massachusetts or the Independence Hall in 
Philadelphia. I see the pages sitting here today. They are real 
students of U.S. history because they live it and learn it each day 
they are here. I don't know what their scores are on the advanced 
placement tests for U.S. history, but I know one fact, which the Chair 
may be interested in learning: The highest scores in any high school in 
America on the advanced placement test for U.S. history is not from a 
New England prep school or a Tennessee prep school or an elite school 
in some rich part of America; it is from the page school of the House 
of Representatives. They had better scores on U.S. history than any 
other high school. I don't know what the Senate page scores were, so I 
won't compare them.
  The point is--and this is an idea David McCullough, a well-known 
author, had: We would expand the number of presidential and 
congressional academies for outstanding students and teachers and have 
them placed in the National Park Service initiative.
  Second, the bill we've introduced today would double the 
authorization of funding for the teaching of American history programs 
in local school districts, which today involve 20,000 students as a 
part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Third, it would require States to develop and implement standards for 
student assessments in U.S. history, although there would be no Federal 
reporting requirement, as there is now for reading and mathematics.
  Finally, it would allow States to compare history and civics student 
test scores in the 8th and 12th grades by establishing a 10-State pilot 
program expanding the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), 
which is also called the ``Nation's Report Card.'' We have a tradition 
in the Senate where each of us, when we first arrive, make a maiden 
speech. We still call it that. Most of us pick a subject that is 
important to us. I made mine almost exactly 6 years ago, on March 4, 
2003. The subject was something I cared about then and care about today 
and on which we have made some progress.
  I argued, as I mentioned earlier, it was time to put the teaching of 
American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools 
so as our children grow, they can learn what it means to be an 
American. On the ``Nation's Report Card,'' our worst scores for our 
seniors in high school are not in math or science but in U.S. history. 
It will be very difficult for us as a country to succeed if we don't 
learn where we came from.
  I ask unanimous consent that the speech I made 6 years ago be printed 
in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if Senator 
Byrd and Senator Kennedy make statements today on this legislation, as 
I believe they will, that our statements be put in the Record in about 
the same place, with Senator Byrd's first, then Senator Kennedy's, and 
mine third.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in the speech I made 6 years ago, I 
called it the American History and Civics Education Act. I suggested we 
create summer academies for outstanding students and teachers of 
American history. The idea was to create one of those academies focused 
on American history and civics for teachers and one for students and to 
see how they worked and to gradually expand them.
  These presidential academies for students and teachers were modeled 
after the Tennessee Governors School, which I began when I was Governor 
of Tennessee, which still continue today, after 20 years. They are 
relatively inexpensive. They are 2-, 3-, or 4-week schools for 
students, and one for teachers. They held students in a variety of 
subjects, such as mathematics, science, the arts, international 
studies. They come together for a while and inspire one another, and 
then they go back to their schools and inspire their fellow students. 
They have been a great success in Tennessee and in other States.
  Senator Reid, the majority leader, was the whip at that time. He was 
on the floor when I made my remarks and he asked to be the prime 
cosponsor of the legislation, and he was. Senator Kennedy, who has had 
a long interest in U.S. history, takes his family once a year to some 
an historical part of the United States. A couple years ago, they

[[Page 8081]]

went into Virginia and saw where Patrick Henry made his famous speech. 
I kid him and say he cares so much about history because he is a part 
of it in such a big way. Senator Kennedy heard about the proposal, and 
he went along the Democratic side and rounded up 20 cosponsors of the 
legislation. So, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reid and I and several 
Republican Senators introduced a bill. We had a hearing during which 
Senator Byrd testified on behalf of my proposal for summer academies. 
It passed the Senate and the House, and we have had those summer 
academies now for three summers. One of those is at the Ashland 
University in Ashland, OH, which has been a great success. I see the 
students and teachers every summer. I bring them on the Senate floor, 
and it has been proven that it is good for teachers and good for our 
country. So that is the reason we want to expand those programs. We 
also felt we would meet as a group--those of us who have something to 
do with U.S. history here--and we met with the Library of Congress and 
with other parts of the Federal Government and many of us are involved 
in helping Americans learn more about our country's history, especially 
young people. As part of that, we thought it would be wise to try to 
consolidate in one section of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act--which we call No Child Left Behind--the various programs we 
already have for U.S. history and then to expand those that seemed 
worthwhile.
  That is what this legislation does. There is a great need for it. I 
mentioned earlier that it is our worst subject for high school, even 
though some of our pages seem to do pretty well. Very few students 
score at or above the proficient level on the American history exam 
conducted by the National Assessment for Education Progress. Twenty 
percent of fourth graders were proficient in U.S. history, 17 percent 
of eighth graders were proficient in U.S. history, and 12 percent of 
high school seniors were proficient in U.S. history.
  In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act may have had the 
unintentional effect of reducing the focus on U.S. history, as some 
school districts have concentrated their efforts on reading and 
mathematics. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary to improve and 
expand State and local efforts to increase the understanding and 
awareness of American history and to do it, of course, in a way that 
doesn't preempt State and local responsibility and authority for 
elementary and secondary education.
  Therefore, what the legislation we are doing today will do is expand 
the summer academies. We call them presidential academies for teachers 
and congressional academies for students. Those academies were created 
in 2004 to the number of 100 in the summer gradually over the years. 
The priority would be to place those academies in the National Park 
Service's national centennial parks initiative so the Library of 
Congress, the Smithsonian, and other museums that have innovative 
programs in U.S. history can be aligned with these academies. David 
McCullough, for example, suggested we have the academies at locations 
such as Andrew Jackson's home in Heritage. I think an even better idea 
would be to have a week for U.S. teachers at John Adams' home in 
Massachusetts, with Mr. McCullough as the teacher. That is the idea.
  Secondly, we would expand the Nation's report card--we call that 
NAEP--so there could be a 10-State pilot program for American history 
and civics student assessment in grades 8 and 12. Today, our Nation's 
report card doesn't measure State performance in American history. It 
gives us a picture of how 8th to 12th graders do nationally. This would 
permit Colorado, Tennessee, Alaska, and California to compare the 
seniors and, in doing so, call attention to improvements that might 
need to be made.
  The third thing would be to require all States to develop and 
implement standards and assessments in American history under the No 
Child Left Behind Act. But it doesn't require any Federal reporting, as 
we do in other subjects.
  Finally, it would take Senator Byrd's program--called Teaching 
American History, which he put into the No Child Left Behind Act 6 
years ago--and it would double the authorization for that program from 
$100 million to $200 million, so it can serve even more than the 20,000 
teachers it serves today.
  I thank David Cleary and Sarah Rittling of my staff, who have worked 
hard with the staffs of Senators Byrd and Kennedy to prepare this 
legislation. We intend to invite all Members of the Senate, and we hope 
the House will join us in cosponsoring this.
  Finally, I wish to tell one short story to conclude my remarks about 
some of the teachers who have participated. One of the things a Senator 
can do is to bring someone on the Senate floor who is not a Senator. It 
has to be done when the Senate is not in session and I have found it is 
a great privilege for most Americans. Early one morning last summer, I 
brought onto the Senate floor the 50 teachers who had been selected--
one from each State--for the presidential academy for outstanding 
teachers of American history. I showed them Daniel Webster's desk right 
here, and I showed them Jefferson Davis's desk, which is back there, 
and where the sword mark is where when the Union soldier came in and 
started chopping the desk, and the soldier who was stopped by a 
commander who said, ``We came to save the Union, not destroy it.'' I 
showed them where the majority and minority leaders speak. They saw ``E 
Pluribus Unum'' up there, and ``In God We Trust'' back there. They 
learned that we operate by unanimous consent, and we talked about what 
it would be like to actually try to operate a classroom by unanimous 
consent, much less the Senate.
  As you might expect, they asked a lot of good questions, being 
outstanding history teachers. I especially remember the final question. 
I believe it was from the teacher from Oregon who asked: Senator, what 
would you like for us to take back to our students? I said that what I 
hope you will take back is that I get up every day, and I believe most 
of us on either side get up hoping that by the end of the day, we will 
have done something to make our country look better. It may not look 
that way on television or read that way in the newspaper because we are 
sent here to debate great issues. That produces conflict and 
disagreement a lot of the time. I feel, and I believe all of us feel, 
we are in a very special place, in a very special country, with a very 
special tradition. We would like for the students to know that and to 
know that is how we feel about the job we have.
  I am delighted today that Senators Byrd and Kennedy, who have 
contributed so much to U.S. history over the years, both in their own 
personalities and by legislation they have introduced, have joined me 
in this effort to expand the Federal programs that focus on putting 
U.S. history and civics in a little higher place in the classroom so 
that our students learn what it means to be an American.
  I invite my colleagues to join us, and I invite all Americans to join 
us in their communities, in their schools and in their States, to make 
that a priority.

                               Exhibit 1

 Remarks of Sen. Alexander--American History and Civics Education Act 
                              Introduction

       Mr. President, from the Senate's earliest days, new members 
     have observed as we just heard a ritual of remaining silent 
     during floor debates for a period of time that ranged from 
     several weeks to two years. By waiting a respectful amount of 
     time before giving their so-called ``maiden speeches,'' 
     freshman senators hoped their senior colleagues would respect 
     them for their humility.
       This information comes from the Senate historian, Richard 
     Baker, who told me that in 1906, the former Governor of 
     Wisconsin, Robert LaFollette, arrived here ``anything but 
     humble'' (and I'm sensitive to this as a former governor). He 
     waited just three months, a brief period by the standards of 
     those days, before launching his first major address. He 
     spoke for eight hours over three days; his remarks in the 
     Congressional Record consumed 148 pages. As he began to 
     speak, most of the senators present in the chamber pointedly 
     rose from their desks and departed. LaFollete's wife, 
     observing from the gallery, wrote, ``There was no mistaking 
     that this was a polite form of hazing.''
       From our first day here, as the majority leader said, we 
     new members of this 108th

[[Page 8082]]

     Congress have been encouraged to speak up, and most of us 
     have. But, with the encouragement of the majority leader, 
     several of us intend also to revive the tradition of the 
     maiden address by making a signature speech on an issue that 
     is important both to the country and to each of us. I want to 
     thank my colleagues who are here, and I want to assure all of 
     you that I will not speak for three days--as former Governor 
     LaFollette did.
       Mr. President, I rise to address the intersection of two 
     urgent concerns that will determine our country's future. 
     These are also the two topics I care about the most: the 
     education of our children and the principles that unite us as 
     Americans.
       It is time that we put the teaching of American history and 
     civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our 
     children can grow up learning what it means to be an 
     American.
       Especially during such serious times when our values and 
     way of life are being attacked, we need to understand clearly 
     just what those values are.
       In this, most Americans would agree. For example, in 
     Thanksgiving remarks in 2001, President Bush praised our 
     nation's response to September 11. ``I call it,'' he said, 
     ``the American character.'' At about the same time, while 
     speaking at Harvard, former Vice-President Al Gore said, ``We 
     should [fight] for the values that bind us together as a 
     country.''
       Both men were invoking a creed of ideas and values in which 
     most Americans believe. ``It has been our fate as a nation,'' 
     the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote, ``not to have 
     ideologies but to be one.'' This value based identity has 
     inspired both patriotism and division at home, as well as 
     emulation and hatred abroad. For terrorists, as well as for 
     those who admire America, at issue is the United States 
     itself--not what we do, but who we are.
       Yet our children do not know what makes America 
     exceptional. National exams show that three-quarters of the 
     nation's 4th, 8th and 12th graders are not proficient in 
     civics knowledge and one-third does not even have basic 
     knowledge, making them ``civic illiterates.''
       Children are not learning about American history and civics 
     because they are not being taught it. American history has 
     been watered down, and civics is too often dropped from the 
     curriculum entirely.
       Until the 1960s, civics education, which teaches the duties 
     of citizenship, was a regular part of the high school 
     curriculum, but today's college graduates probably have less 
     civics knowledge than high school graduates of 50 years ago. 
     Reforms, so-called, in the '60s and '70s resulted in the 
     widespread elimination of required classes and curriculum in 
     civics education. Today, more than half the states have no 
     requirement for students to take a course--even for one 
     semester--in American government.
       To help put the teaching of American history and civics in 
     its rightful place, today I introduce legislation along with 
     several distinguished co-sponsors including: Senators Reid, 
     Gregg, Santorum, Inhofe and Nickles. We call it the 
     ``American History and Civics Act.'' This act creates 
     Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and 
     Civics and Congressional Academies for Students of American 
     History and Civics. These residential academies would operate 
     for two weeks (in the case of teachers) and four weeks (for 
     students) during the summer.
       Their purpose would be to inspire better teaching and more 
     learning of the key events, persons and ideas that shape the 
     institutions and democratic heritage of the United States.
       I have had some experience with such residential summer 
     academies, when I was Governor of Tennessee. In 1984, we 
     began creating Governor's schools for students and teachers. 
     For example, there was the Governor's School for the Arts at 
     Middle Tennessee State University and the Governor's School 
     of International Studies at the University of Memphis as well 
     as the Governor's School for Teachers of Writing at the 
     University of Tennessee at Knoxville, which was especially 
     successful. Eventually there were eight Governor's Schools 
     helping thousands of Tennessee teachers improve their skills 
     and inspiring outstanding students to learn more about core 
     curriculum subjects. When these teachers and students 
     returned to their schools for the next school year, they 
     brought with them a new enthusiasm for teaching and learning 
     that infected their peers. Dollar for dollar, the Governor's 
     Schools were one of the most effective and popular 
     educational initiatives in our state's history.
       States other than Tennessee have had similar success with 
     summer residential academies. The first Governor's school was 
     started in North Carolina in 1963 when Governor Terry Sanford 
     established it at Salem College in Winston-Salem. Upon the 
     establishment of the first school, several states, including 
     Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee 
     established similar schools.
       For example, in 1973 Pennsylvania established Governor's 
     Schools of Excellence, which has 14 different programs of 
     study. As in Tennessee, students participating in the 
     Pennsylvania Governor's School program attend academies at 8 
     different colleges to study everything from international 
     studies, to health care and teaching. Also established in 
     1973, Virginia's Governor's School is a summer residential 
     program for 7500 of the Commonwealth's most gifted students. 
     Mississippi established its Governor's School in 1981. The 
     Mississippi University for Women hosts the program, which is 
     designed to give students academic, creative, and leadership 
     experiences. Every year West Virginia brings 80 of its most 
     talented high school performing and visual arts students to 
     West Liberty State College for a three-week residential 
     program.
       These are just a few of the more than 100 Governors' 
     schools in 28 states--clearly the model is a good one. The 
     legislation I propose today applies that successful model to 
     American history and civics education at the national level 
     by establishing Presidential and Congressional academies for 
     students and teachers of those subjects.
       Additionally, this proposed legislation authorizes the 
     creation of a national alliance of American history and 
     civics teachers who would be connected by the internet. The 
     alliance would facilitate sharing of best practices in the 
     teaching of American history and civics. It is modeled after 
     an alliance I helped the National Geographic Society begin 
     during the 1980's to put geography back into the American 
     school curriculum. Tennessee and the University of Tennessee 
     were among the first sponsors of the alliance.
       This legislation creates a pilot program. Up to 12 
     Presidential academies for teachers and 12 Congressional 
     Academies for students would be sponsored by educational 
     institutions. The National Endowment for the Humanities would 
     award 2-year renewable grants to those institutions after a 
     peer review process. Each grant would be subject to rigorous 
     review after three years to determine whether the overall 
     program should continue, expand or end. The legislation 
     authorizes $25 million annually for the four year pilot 
     program.
       There is a broad basis of renewed support for and interest 
     in American history and civics in our country.
       David Gordon noted in a recent issue of the Harvard 
     Education Letter: ``A 1998 survey by the nonpartisan research 
     organization Public Agenda showed that 84 percent of parents 
     with school-aged children said they believe that the United 
     States is a special country and they want schools to convey 
     that belief to their children by teaching about its heroes 
     and traditions. Similar numbers identified the American ideal 
     as including equal opportunity, individual freedom, and 
     tolerance and respect for others. Those findings were 
     consistent across racial and ethnic groups.''
       Our national leadership has responded to this renewed 
     interest. In 2000, at the initiative of my distinguished 
     colleague Senator Byrd, Congress created grants for schools 
     that teach American history as a separate subject within 
     school curricula. We appropriated $100 million for those 
     grants in the recent Omnibus appropriations bill, and 
     rightfully so. They encourage schools and teachers to focus 
     on the teaching of traditional American history, and provide 
     important financial support.
       Last September, with historian David McCullough at his 
     side, President Bush announced a new initiative to encourage 
     the teaching of American history and civics. He established 
     the ``We the People'' program at the NEH, which will develop 
     curricula and sponsor lectures on American history and 
     civics. He announced the ``Our Documents'' project, run by 
     the National Archives. This would take one hundred of 
     America's most important documents from the National Archives 
     to classrooms and communities across the country. This year, 
     he will convene a White House forum on American history, 
     civics, and service. There, we will discuss new policies to 
     improve the teaching of history and civics in elementary and 
     secondary schools.
       This proposed legislation takes the next step by training 
     teachers and encouraging outstanding students. We need to 
     foster a love of this subject and arm teachers with the 
     skills to impart that love to their students.
       I am pleased that today one of the leading members of the 
     House of Representatives, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, along 
     with a number of his colleagues, are introducing the same 
     legislation in the House.
       I want to thank Senator Gregg, Chairman of the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, who has agreed that 
     the committee will hold hearings on this legislation so that 
     we can determine how it might supplement and work with 
     recently enacted legislation and the President's various 
     initiatives.
       Mr. President, in 1988, at a meeting of educators in 
     Rochester, the President of Notre Dame University, Monk 
     Malloy, asked this question: ``What is the rationale for the 
     public school?'' There was an unexpected silence around the 
     room until Al Shanker, the president of the American 
     Federation of Teachers, answered in this way: ``The public 
     school was created to teach immigrant children the three R's 
     and what it means to be an American with the hope that they 
     would then go home and teach their parents.''

[[Page 8083]]

       From the founding of America, we have always understood how 
     important it is for citizens to understand the principles 
     that unite us as a country. Other countries are united by 
     their ethnicity. If you move to Japan for example, you can't 
     become Japanese. Americans, on the other hand, are united by 
     a few things in which we believe. To become an American 
     citizen, you subscribe to those principles. If there were no 
     agreement on those principles, as Samuel Huntington has 
     noted, we would be the United Nations instead of the United 
     States of America.
       There has therefore been a continuous education process to 
     remind Americans just what those principles are. Thomas 
     Jefferson, in his retirement at Monticello, would spend 
     evenings explaining to overnight guests what he had in mind 
     when he helped create what we call America. By the mid-19th 
     century it was just assumed that everybody knew what it meant 
     to be an American. In his letter from the Alamo, Col. William 
     Barrett Travis pleaded for help simply ``in the name of 
     liberty, patriotism and everything dear to the American 
     character.''
       There were new waves of immigration in the late 19th 
     century that brought to our country a record number of new 
     people from other lands whose view of what it means to be an 
     American was indistinct--and Americans responded by teaching 
     them. In Wisconsin, for example, the Kohler Company actually 
     housed German immigrants together so that they might be 
     ``Americanized'' during non-working hours.
       But the most important Americanizing institution, as Mr. 
     Shanker reminded us in Rochester in 1988, was the new common 
     school. McGuffey's Reader, which was used in many classrooms, 
     sold more than 120 million copies introducing a common 
     culture of literature, patriotic speeches and historical 
     references.
       In the 20th century it was war that made Americans stop and 
     think about what we were defending. President Roosevelt made 
     certain that those who charged the beaches of Normandy knew 
     they were defending for freedoms.
       But after World War II, the emphasis on teaching and 
     defining the principles that unite us has waned. Unpleasant 
     experiences with McCarthyism in the 1950's, discouragement 
     after the Vietnam War, and history books that left out or 
     distorted the history of African-Americans made some skittish 
     about discussing ``Americanism.'' The end of the Cold War 
     removed a preoccupation with who we were not, making it less 
     important to consider who we are. The Immigration law changes 
     in 1965 brought to our shores many new Americans and many 
     cultural changes. As a result, the American Way became much 
     more often praised than defined.
       Changes in community attitudes, as they always are, were 
     reflected in our schools. According to historian Diane 
     Ravitch, the public school virtually abandoned its role as 
     the chief Americanizing Institution. We have gone, she 
     explains, from one extreme (simplistic patriotism and 
     incomplete history) to the other--``public schools with an 
     adversary culture that emphasize the nation's warts and 
     diminish its genuine accomplishments. There is no literary 
     canon. There are no common readings, no agreed upon lists of 
     books, poems and stories from which students and parents 
     might be taught a common culture and be reminded of what it 
     means to be an American.''
       During this time many of our national leaders contributed 
     to this drift toward agnostic Americanism. These leaders 
     celebrated multiculturalism and bilingualism and diversity at 
     a time when there should have been more emphasis on a common 
     culture and learning English and unity.
       America's variety and diversity is a great strength, but it 
     is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. The 
     Balkans are diverse. America's greatest accomplishment is not 
     its variety and diversity but that we have found a way to 
     take all that variety and diversity and unite ourselves as 
     one country. E pluribus unum: out of many, one. That is what 
     makes America truly exceptional.
       Since 9/11 the national conversation about what it means to 
     be an American has been different. The terrorists focused 
     their cross-hairs on the creed that unites Americans as one 
     country--forcing us to remind ourselves of those principles, 
     to examine and define them, and to celebrate them. The 
     President himself has been the lead teacher. President Bush 
     has literally taken us back to school on what it means to be 
     an American. When he took the country to church on television 
     after the attacks he reminded us that no country is more 
     religious than we are. When he walked across the street to 
     the mosque he reminded the world that we separate church and 
     state and that there is freedom here to believe in whatever 
     one wants to believe. When he attacked and defeated the 
     Taliban, he honored life. When we put planes back in the air 
     and opened financial markets and began going to football 
     games again we celebrated liberty. The President called on us 
     to make those magnificent images of courage and charity and 
     leadership and selflessness more permanent in our every day 
     lives through Freedom Corps. And with his optimism, he warded 
     off doomsayers who tried to diminish the real gift of 
     Americans to civilization, our cockeyed optimism that 
     anything is possible.
       Just after 9/11, I proposed an idea I called ``Pledge Plus 
     Three.'' Why not start each school day with the Pledge of 
     Allegiance--as we do here in the Senate--followed by a 
     faculty member or student sharing for three minutes ``what it 
     means to be an American.'' The Pledge embodies many of the 
     ideals of our National Creed: ``one nation, under God, 
     indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' It speaks to 
     our unity, to our faith, to our value of freedom, and to our 
     belief in the fair treatment of all Americans. If more future 
     federal judges took more classes in American history and 
     civics and learned more about those values, we might have 
     fewer mind-boggling decisions like the one issued recently by 
     the Ninth Circuit.
       Before I was elected to the Senate, I taught some of our 
     future judges and legislators a course at Harvard's John F. 
     Kennedy School of Government entitled ``The American 
     Character and America's Government.'' The purpose of the 
     course was to help policy makers, civil servants and 
     journalists analyze the American creed and character and 
     apply it in the solving of public policy problems. We tried 
     to figure out, if you will, what would be ``the American 
     way'' to solve a given problem.
       The students and I did not have much trouble deciding that 
     America is truly exceptional (not always better, but truly 
     exceptional) or in identifying the major principles of the 
     American Creed or the distinct characteristics of our 
     country. Such principles as: liberty, equal opportunity, rule 
     of law, laissez faire, individualism, e pluribus unum, the 
     separation of church and state.
       But what we also found as we find in this body was that 
     applying those principles to today's issues was hard work. 
     This was because the principles of the creed often 
     conflicted. For example, when discussing President Bush's 
     faith-based charity legislation, we know that ``In God We 
     Trust'' but we also know that we don't trust government with 
     God.
       When considering whether the federal government should pay 
     for scholarships which middle and low income families might 
     use at any accredited school--public, private or religious--
     we find that the principle of equal opportunity conflicted 
     with the separation of church and state.
       And we find there are great disappointments when we try to 
     live up to our greatest dreams, for example, President 
     Kennedy's pledge that we will ``pay any price or bear any 
     burden'' to defend freedom, or Thomas Jefferson's assertion 
     that ``all men are created equal,'' or the American dream 
     that for anyone who works hard, tomorrow will always be 
     better than today. We are often disappointed when we try to 
     live up to those dreams.
       We learned that, as Samuel Huntington has written, 
     balancing these conflicts and disappointments is what most of 
     American politics and government is about.
       Mr. President, if most of our politics and government is 
     about applying to our most urgent problems the principles and 
     characteristics that make us the exceptional United States of 
     America, then we had better get about the teaching and 
     learning of those principles and characteristics.
       The legislation I propose today with several co-sponsors 
     will help our schools do what they were established to do in 
     the first place. At a time when there are record numbers of 
     new Americans, and at a time when our values are under 
     attack, at a time when we are considering going to war to 
     defend those values, there can be no more urgent task than 
     putting the teaching of American history and civics back in 
     its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up 
     learning what it means to be an American.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 660. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
pain care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain 
Care Policy Act of 2009. I am pleased to have worked with my good 
friend, Senator Chris Dodd, on this legislation that will create a 
comprehensive framework for addressing coordinated research, public 
education and training in pain and pain management. I also want to 
acknowledge the work of my colleagues in the House, Representatives 
Lois Capps and Mike Rogers, for their efforts in that body to highlight 
this important health issue.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
more than 25 percent of Americans over age 20 report having suffered 
pain. Of the older people reporting pain, more than half say their pain 
lasted for an entire year or longer. But many older people do not 
report their pain because they believe nothing can be done or they are 
unaware that effective treatments may exist.
  Health care professionals are often not adequately trained to manage 
their

[[Page 8084]]

patients' pain. They may be unfamiliar with the latest research and 
guidelines, or they might hesitate to prescribe medication for pain 
management due to concerns about dosing or dependency. A widely 
acknowledged barrier to patient care includes misconceptions and 
concerns by health care providers regarding laws and policies on the 
use of controlled substances. Some patients do not tell their doctors 
they are experiencing pain because they do not want to bother them or 
appear to be a complainer.
  The National Pain Care Act of 2009 will help researchers, patients 
and health care providers better understand and manage pain care. It 
will coordinate federal research activities by establishing an 
Interagency Pain Coordinating Committee. The legislation also 
authorizes funds for pain research at the National Institutes of 
Health, NIH, and requires a report to Congress on the progress made in 
this area. The Coordinating Committee will summarize in their report 
the advances in pain care research supported or conducted by federal 
agencies and identify the research gaps that, if filled, could shed 
light on the symptoms and causes of pain.
  The bill will establish a public awareness campaign highlighting pain 
as a serious public health issue. The campaign will provide messages to 
the public on the need to appropriately assess, diagnose, treat and 
manage pain, and will alert the public to available treatments options 
for pain care management. It will also help patients weigh the risks 
and benefits of these options so that they may make better informed 
decisions with their health care providers.
  The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009 also creates greater 
training capacity in health-professions schools, hospices and other 
health care professional training facilities. This training will ensure 
that more health professionals have the capacity to manage their 
patients' pain using the most recent findings and improvements in the 
provision of pain care. Health professionals in a variety of settings 
will learn better means for assessing, diagnosing, treating and 
managing pain signs and symptoms and, as a result, will become more 
knowledgeable about applicable policies on the use of controlled 
substances.
  This bill contains provisions that will help the many Americans who 
suffer from joint pain, one of the most common types of pain reported. 
One-third of adults reported joint pain, aching or stiffness, according 
to a CDC report on the nation's health. It will also reduce 
hospitalization costs that are associated with hip and knee 
replacements that may be unnecessary if the underlying pain can be 
adequately controlled.
  Finally, the National Pain Care Act of 2009 will also help migraine 
sufferers, cancer patients and those experiencing lower back pain. 
Cancer patients should not have to spend their final days in pain. 
Lower back pain is the most common cause of job-related disability and 
relieving that complaint could increase worker productivity and 
alleviate many lost days of work.
  This is an important piece of legislation; it is one that, if passed, 
will improve the lives of many. Quite frankly, I believe it is long 
overdue. Similar legislation was introduced last year in both chambers 
of Congress--the House passed its legislation late in the year, but, 
unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the bill before the 110th 
Congress adjourned. The legislation we introduce today is identical to 
that which the House passed last year. I thank Senator Dodd for his 
leadership on this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support 
the prompt passage of our bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Utah, 
Senator Orrin Hatch, in introducing the National Pain Care Policy Act 
of 2009. This important legislation would make significant strides in 
the understanding and treatment of pain as a medical condition. Pain is 
the most common symptom leading to medical care and a leading health 
issue. Yet people suffering through pain often struggle to get relief 
because of a variety of issues. This is why we are introducing this 
important legislation.
  Each year pain results in more than 50 million lost workdays 
estimated to cost the United States $100 billion. Beyond the economic 
impact, pain is a leading cause of disability, with back pain alone 
causing chronic disability in 1 percent of the population of this 
country. In the U.S. 40 million people suffer from arthritis, more than 
26 million, ages 20 to 64, experience frequent back pain, more than 25 
million experience migraine headaches, and 20 million have jaw and 
lower facial pain each year. It is estimated that 70 percent of cancer 
patients have significant pain as they fight the disease. Half of all 
patients in hospitals suffer through moderate to severe pain in their 
last days. As with many medical conditions, this is a problem that is 
likely to become worse as the baby boom generation approaches 
retirement and the population ages.
  Sadly, though most pain can be relieved, it often is not. Many 
suffering patients are reluctant to tell their medical provider about 
the pain they are experiencing, for fear of being identified as a ``bad 
patient,'' and concern about addiction often leads patients to avoid 
seeking or using medications to treat their pain. But even if patients 
were more forthcoming about their condition, few medical providers are 
equipped to do something about it. Often they have not been trained in 
assessment techniques or pain management, and are unaware of the latest 
research, guidelines, and standards for treatment. There is also 
concern among most providers that prescribing treatment for pain will 
lead to greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies and insurers.
  But we can do something about these barriers and help individuals 
suffering from pain. The National Pain Care Policy Act would lead to 
improvements in pain care across the country. The legislation would 
call for an Institute of Medicine conference on pain care to increase 
awareness of this issue as a public health problem, identify barriers 
to pain care and determine action for overcoming those barriers. A 
number of years ago, my good friend Sen. Hatch helped establish a Pain 
Consortium at the National Institutes of Health to establish a 
coordinated pain research agenda. This legislation will codify that 
consortium and update its mission. The bill addresses the training and 
education of health care professionals through new grant programs at 
the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, and the Health 
Resources and Services Administration, HRSA. And finally this 
legislation creates a national outreach and awareness campaign at the 
Department of Health and Human Services to educate patients, families, 
and caregivers about the significance of pain and the importance of 
treatment.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this issue and 
urge my colleagues to join us on this important effort to help the 
millions of Americans suffering from severe pain.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 661. A bill to strengthen American manufacturing through improved 
industrial energy efficiency, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with 
Senators Susan Collins, Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Evan Bayh, 
Sherrod Brown, and Mark Pryor that would enable the retooling and 
transformation of our industrial sector by using less energy, reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions, and producing the technologies that will help 
the U.S. and the world break its dependence on fossil fuel.
  Today our country is facing some of the toughest economic hurdles 
that many of us have ever seen. In our manufacturing sector, we have 
lost nearly a million, high quality jobs in the last year, with over 
200,000 jobs lost in just the last month. These are not just jobs that 
we are losing--the industrial foundation upon which our Nation's wealth 
has been built is eroding. We are losing technical expertise and the 
skilled and

[[Page 8085]]

inventive workforce that go with these jobs. We are losing the 
opportunity to grow our economy and the ability to compete on a global 
scale.
  With this current economic downturn, and the energy, climate, and 
global competitiveness challenges lying before us, we have come to a 
critical juncture in our Nation's industrial history--we must make a 
choice as to what the future of manufacturing will be for this country. 
At this moment, while the rest of the world is at a pause, this nation 
has the opportunity to re-invent and transform our industrial base to 
compete globally through technical innovation and product superiority, 
all while, reducing our dependence on carbon-based fuels, reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing productivity.
  The Restoring America's Manufacturing Leadership through Energy 
Efficiency Act of 2009 establishes the financing mechanisms for both 
small and large manufactures to adopt the advanced energy efficient 
production technologies and processes that will allow them to be more 
productive and less fuel dependent, cutting costs, not jobs.
  Second, this bill provides for public/private partnerships with 
industry to map out the future of advanced American manufacturing and 
to develop and deploy the breakthrough technologies that will take us 
there. By spurring innovation in our manufacturing sector to decrease 
energy intensity and environmental impacts, while increasing 
productivity, we can create the high tech, high-value manufacturing 
processes and jobs for the 21st century that will allow the U.S. to 
compete against anyone, anywhere.
  Third, this legislation supports the domestic production of advanced 
energy technologies to fuel the growth of renewables and efficiency and 
capture the clean energy market, creating millions of American jobs.
  These steps, combined with the manufacturing tax credit that I 
included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, a national 
renewable portfolio standard, and the President's commitment to 
doubling renewable energy production in just 3 years will serve as a 
strong base and commitment on which to build the New American 
Manufacturing. I look forward to the impact that this legislation will 
have on increasing our industrial competitiveness and hope that we can 
incorporate additional ideas as the legislative process proceeds.
  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. 661

       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 ``Restoring America's 
     Manufacturing Leadership through Energy Efficiency Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 399A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6371h-1) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND INDUSTRY'' 
     before the period at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Industrial Energy Efficiency Grant Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program 
     under which the Secretary shall provide grants to eligible 
     lenders to pay the Federal share of creating a revolving loan 
     program under which loans are provided to commercial and 
     industrial manufacturers to implement commercially available 
     technologies or processes that significantly--
       ``(A) reduce systems energy intensity, including the use of 
     energy intensive feedstocks; and
       ``(B) improve the industrial competitiveness of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Eligible lenders.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, a lender shall--
       ``(A) be a community and economic development lender that 
     the Secretary certifies meets the requirements of this 
     subsection;
       ``(B) lead a partnership that includes participation by, at 
     a minimum--
       ``(i) a State government agency; and
       ``(ii) a private financial institution or other provider of 
     loan capital;
       ``(C) submit an application to the Secretary, and receive 
     the approval of the Secretary, for a grant to carry out a 
     loan program described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(D) ensure that non-Federal funds are provided to match, 
     on at least a dollar-for-dollar basis, the amount of Federal 
     funds that are provided to carry out a revolving loan program 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Priority.--In making grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall provide a priority to partnerships that 
     include a power producer or distributor.
       ``(4) Award.--The amount of a grant provided to an eligible 
     lender shall not exceed $100,000,000 for any fiscal year.
       ``(5) Eligible projects.--A program for which a grant is 
     provided under this subsection shall be designed to 
     accelerate the implementation of industrial and commercial 
     applications of technologies or processes that--
       ``(A) improve energy efficiency;
       ``(B) enhance the industrial competitiveness of the United 
     States; and
       ``(C) achieve such other goals as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate.
       ``(6) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     applications for grants under this subsection on the basis 
     of--
       ``(A) the description of the program to be carried out with 
     the grant;
       ``(B) the commitment to provide non-Federal funds in 
     accordance with paragraph (2)(D);
       ``(C) program sustainability over a 10-year period;
       ``(D) the capability of the applicant;
       ``(E) the quantity of energy savings or energy feedstock 
     minimization;
       ``(F) the advancement of the goal under this Act of 25-
     percent energy avoidance;
       ``(G) the ability to fund energy efficient projects not 
     later than 120 days after the date of the grant award; and
       ``(H) such other factors as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $500,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012.''.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR INDUSTRY.

       As part of the research and development activities of the 
     Industrial Technologies Program of the Department of Energy, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall establish, as appropriate, 
     collaborative research and development partnerships with 
     other programs within the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy, including the Building Technologies 
     Program, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
     Reliability, and programs of the Office of Science--
       (1) to leverage the research and development expertise of 
     those programs to promote early stage energy efficiency 
     technology development; and
       (2) to apply the knowledge and expertise of the Industrial 
     Technologies Program to help achieve the program goals of the 
     other programs.

     SEC. 4. ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall commence 
     an assessment of commercially available, cost competitive 
     energy efficiency technologies that are not widely 
     implemented within the United States for the energy intensive 
     industries of--
       (1) steel;
       (2) aluminum;
       (3) forest and paper products;
       (4) food processing;
       (5) metal casting;
       (6) glass;
       (7) chemicals; and
       (8) other industries that (as determined by the 
     Secretary)--
       (A) use large quantities of energy;
       (B) emit large quantities of greenhouse gas; or
       (C) use a rapidly increasing quantity of energy.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a report, 
     based on the assessment conducted under subsection (a), that 
     contains--
       (1) a detailed inventory describing the cost, energy, and 
     greenhouse gas emission savings of each technology described 
     in subsection (a);
       (2) for each technology, the total cost, energy, and 
     greenhouse gas emissions savings if the technology is 
     implemented throughout the industry of the United States;
       (3) for each industry, an assessment of total possible 
     cost, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions savings possible 
     if state-of-the art, cost-competitive, commercial energy 
     efficiency technologies were adopted; and
       (4) for each industry, a comparison to the European Union, 
     Japan, and other appropriate countries of energy efficiency 
     technology adoption rates, as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 5. FUTURE OF INDUSTRY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 452(c)(2) of the Energy 
     Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17111(c)(2)) 
     is amended by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following: ``future of industry program''.

[[Page 8086]]

       (b) Industry-Specific Road Maps.--Section 452(c)(2) of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
     17111(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) research to establish (through the Industrial 
     Technologies Program and in collaboration with energy-
     intensive industries) a road map process under which--
       ``(i) industry-specific studies are conducted to determine 
     the intensity of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and 
     waste and operating costs, by process and subprocess;
       ``(ii) near-, mid-, and long-term targets of opportunity 
     are established for synergistic improvements in efficiency, 
     sustainability, and resilience; and
       ``(iii) public/private actionable plans are created to 
     achieve roadmap goals; and''.
       (c) Industrial Research and Assessment Centers.--
       (1) In general.--Section 452(e) of the Energy Independence 
     and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17111(e)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively, and indenting 
     appropriately;
       (B) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (C) in subparagraph (A) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A)), by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, including assessments of sustainable 
     manufacturing goals and the implementation of information 
     technology advancements for supply chain analysis, logistics, 
     industrial and manufacturing processes, and other purposes''; 
     and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Centers of excellence.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Center 
     of Excellence at up to 10 of the highest performing 
     industrial research and assessment centers, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(B) Duties.--A Center of Excellence shall coordinate with 
     and advise the industrial research and assessment centers 
     located in the region of the Center of Excellence.
       ``(C) Funding.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, of the funds made available under subsection 
     (f), the Secretary shall use to support each Center of 
     Excellence not less than $500,000 for fiscal year 2010 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Expansion of centers.--The Secretary shall provide 
     funding to establish additional industrial research and 
     assessment centers at institutions of higher education that 
     do not have industrial research and assessment centers 
     established under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Coordination.--
       ``(A) In general.--To increase the value and capabilities 
     of the industrial research and assessment centers, the 
     centers shall--
       ``(i) coordinate with Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     Centers of the National Institute of Science and Technology;
       ``(ii) coordinate with the Building Technologies Program of 
     the Department of Energy to provide building assessment 
     services to manufacturers;
       ``(iii) increase partnerships with the National 
     Laboratories of the Department of Energy to leverage the 
     expertise and technologies of the National Laboratories for 
     national industrial and manufacturing needs;
       ``(iv) identify opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas 
     emissions; and
       ``(v) promote sustainable manufacturing practices for 
     small- and medium-sized manufacturers.
       ``(5) Outreach.--The Secretary shall provide funding for--
       ``(A) outreach activities by the industrial research and 
     assessment centers to inform small- and medium-sized 
     manufacturers of the information, technologies, and services 
     available; and
       ``(B) a full-time equivalent employee at each center of 
     excellence whose primary mission shall be to coordinate and 
     leverage the efforts of the center with--
       ``(i) Federal and State efforts;
       ``(ii) the efforts of utilities; and
       ``(iii) the efforts of other centers in the region of the 
     center of excellence.
       ``(6) Workforce training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall pay the Federal 
     share of associated internship programs under which students 
     work with industries and manufactures to implement the 
     recommendations of industrial research and assessment 
     centers.
       ``(B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out internship programs described in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be 50 percent.
       ``(C) Funding.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations of appropriations, of the funds made available 
     under subsection (f), the Secretary shall use to carry out 
     this paragraph not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 
     and each fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(7) Small business loans.--The Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall, to the maximum practicable, 
     expedite consideration of applications from eligible small 
     business concerns for loans under the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.) for loans to implement recommendations of 
     industrial research and assessment centers established under 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Future of Industry Program.--Section 452(f) of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
     17111(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$196,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$216,000,000'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``$202,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$232,000,000''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``$208,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$248,000,000''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Industrial research and assessment centers.--Of the 
     amounts made available under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall use to provide funding to industrial research and 
     assessment centers under subsection (e) not less than--
       ``(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(C) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.''.

     SEC. 6. SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--Part E of title III of the Energy Policy 
     and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6341) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 376. SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--As part of the Industrial Technologies 
     Program of the Department of Energy, the Secretary shall 
     carry out a sustainable manufacturing initiative under which 
     the Secretary shall conduct onsite technical reviews and 
     followup implementation--
       ``(1) to maximize the energy efficiency of systems;
       ``(2) to identify and reduce harmful emissions and 
     hazardous waste;
       ``(3) to identify and reduce the use of water in 
     manufacturing processes;
       ``(4) to identify material substitutes that are not harmful 
     to the environment; and
       ``(5) to achieve such other goals as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(b) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     initiative in coordination with--
       ``(1) the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and
       ``(2) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       ``(c) Research and Development Program for Sustainable 
     Manufacturing and Industrial Technologies and Processes.--As 
     part of the Industrial Technologies Program of the Department 
     of Energy, the Secretary shall carry out a joint industry-
     government partnership program to conduct research and 
     development of new sustainable manufacturing and industrial 
     technologies and processes that maximize the energy 
     efficiency of systems, reduce pollution, and conserve natural 
     resources.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6201) is amended 
     by adding at the end of the items relating to part E of title 
     III the following:

``Sec. 376. Sustainable manufacturing initiative.''.

     SEC. 7. INNOVATION IN INDUSTRY GRANTS.

       Section 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     16396) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Innovation in Industry Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--As part of the program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall carry out a program to pay the 
     Federal share of competitively awarding grants to State-
     industry partnerships in accordance with this subsection to 
     develop, demonstrate, and commercialize new technologies or 
     processes for industries that significantly--
       ``(A) reduce energy use and energy intensive feedstocks;
       ``(B) reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions;
       ``(C) reduce industrial waste; and
       ``(D) improve domestic industrial cost competitiveness.
       ``(2) Administration.--
       ``(A) Applications.--A State-industry partnership seeking a 
     grant under this subsection shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application for a grant to carry out a project to demonstrate 
     an innovative energy efficiency technology or process 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Cost sharing.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, a State-industry partnership shall 
     agree to match, on at least a dollar-for-dollar basis, the 
     amount of Federal funds that are provided to carry out the 
     project.
       ``(C) Grant.--The Secretary shall provide to a State-
     industry partnership selected under this subsection a 1-time 
     grant of not more than $500,000 to initiate the project.
       ``(3) Eligible projects.--A project for which a grant is 
     received under this subsection shall be designed to 
     demonstrate successful--
       ``(A) industrial applications of energy efficient 
     technologies or processes that reduce

[[Page 8087]]

     costs to industry and prevent pollution and greenhouse gas 
     releases; or
       ``(B) energy efficiency improvements in material inputs, 
     processes, or waste streams to enhance the industrial 
     competitiveness of the United States.
       ``(4) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     applications for grants under this subsection on the basis 
     of--
       ``(A) the description of the concept;
       ``(B) cost-efficiency;
       ``(C) the capability of the applicant;
       ``(D) the quantity of energy savings;
       ``(E) the commercialization or marketing plan; and
       ``(F) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.''.

     SEC. 8. STUDY OF ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING 
                   CAPABILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into 
     an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences under 
     which the Academy shall conduct a study of the development of 
     advanced manufacturing capabilities for various energy 
     technologies, including--
       (1) an assessment of the manufacturing supply chains of 
     established and emerging industries;
       (2) an analysis of--
       (A) the manner in which supply chains have changed over the 
     25-year period ending on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) current trends in supply chains; and
       (C) the energy intensity of each part of the supply chain 
     and opportunities for improvement;
       (3) for each technology or manufacturing sector, an 
     analysis of which sections of the supply chain are critical 
     for the United States to retain or develop to be competitive 
     in the manufacturing of the technology;
       (4) an assessment of which emerging energy technologies the 
     United States should focus on to create or enhance 
     manufacturing capabilities; and
       (5) recommendations on the leveraging the expertise of 
     energy efficiency and renewable energy user facilities so 
     that best materials and manufacturing practices are designed 
     and implemented.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the Secretary enters into the agreement with the Academy 
     described in subsection (a), the Academy shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Secretary a report describing the 
     results of the study required under this section, including 
     any findings and recommendations.

     SEC. 9. INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES STEERING COMMITTEE.

       The Secretary of Energy shall establish an advisory 
     steering committee to provide recommendations to the 
     Secretary on planning and implementation of the Industrial 
     Technologies Program of the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 662. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for reimbursement of certified midwife services and to provide 
for more equitable reimbursement rates for certified nurse-midwife 
services; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Midwifery Care 
Access and Reimbursement Equity, M-CARE, Act of 2009 with my colleague, 
Senator Collins. For too many years, certified nurse midwives, CNMs, 
have not received adequate reimbursement under the Medicare program. 
Our legislation takes steps to improve reimbursement and ensure access 
to these important providers.
  There are approximately three million disabled women of child-bearing 
age on Medicare, and since 1988, midwives have been providing high-
quality, low cost maternity services to these women. However, given 
outdated payment policies, CNMs are only reimbursed at 65 percent of 
the physician fee schedule. This makes it impossible to make a practice 
sustainable and is threatening access to CNMs across the country.
  The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, agrees. In a 2002 
report, MedPAC recommended that CNMs' reimbursement be increased and 
acknowledged that the care provided by these individuals is comparable 
to similar providers.
  That is why we are introducing legislation that would provide payment 
equity for CNMs by reimbursing them at 100 percent of the physician fee 
schedule. CNMs provide the same care as physicians; therefore, it is 
only fair to reimburse CNMs at the same level. In fact, a majority of 
the states reimburse CNMs at 100 percent of the physician fee schedule 
for out-of-hospital services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. The 
time has come to extend this policy to Medicare.
  In addition, the M-CARE Act would establish recognition for a 
certified midwife to provide services under Medicare. Despite the fact 
that CNMs and CMs provide the same services, Medicare has yet to 
recognize CMs as eligible providers. Our bill would change this.
  A variety of national organizations have expressed their support for 
this legislation in the past. I am pleased to say that the National 
Rural Health Association, the National Perinatal Association, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, along with several 
nursing organizations, have endorsed this legislation.
  This bill will enhance access to ``well woman'' care for thousands of 
women in underserved communities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation and end this inequity once and for all.

                          ____________________