STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 22, 2004)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S8691-S8768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 2716. A bill to provide for the acquisition of land for 
administrative and visitor facilities for Death Valley National Park, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Death Valley 
National Park Administrative and Visitor Facilities Act of 2004.
  This is a simple common sense bill. It allows the Death Valley 
National Park to accept a donation of about 15 acres of land and 
buildings near Beatty, NV.
  This small parcel of land and the buildings on it will be used by the 
park as a maintenance and administrative station. These facilities are 
needed to consolidate and improve maintenance operations and other 
administrative functions of the park.
  The station would be donated by the Barrick Gold Corporation to the 
Park Service at no cost and is superior to the Park Service's current 
facilities in the area. This is an easy way for us to improve 
maintenance and administrative functions at Death Valley National park 
at absolutely no cost to the government. This legislation has long been 
advocated by Nye County and would benefit the nearby community of 
Beatty, NV.
  The current owners have already completed a Phase One Environmental 
Assessment that concluded there were no ``hazardous substances'' or 
``pollutant or contaminants'' associated with the land parcels or the 
structures. We should take advantage of this opportunity to improve 
park operations while we can.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as an easy, 
efficient way to improve one of America's great national parks.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2716

       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 ``Death Valley National Park 
     Administrative and Visitor Facilities Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Death Valley 
     National Park.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL PARK ADMINISTRATIVE AND VISITOR 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary 
     may acquire by donation all right, title, and interest in and 
     to the parcel of land (including improvements to the land) 
     described in subsection (b) for inclusion in the Park.
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the parcel of land in Nye County, Nevada--
       (1) consisting of not more than 15 acres;
       (2) comprising a portion of Tract 37 located north of the 
     center line of Nevada State Highway 374; and
       (3) located in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\ sec. 22, 
     T. 12 S., R. 46 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

[[Page S8692]]

       (c) Conditions.--Before accepting a donation of land under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall obtain a phase I 
     environmental assessment prepared by an independent party 
     that--
       (1) evaluates the condition of the land (including any 
     structures on the land); and
       (2) determines that the land or structure, or a portion of 
     the land or structure, is not contaminated with--
       (A) hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, as 
     defined in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601); or
       (B) any petroleum substance, fraction, or derivative.
       (d) Boundary Revision.--On acquisition of the land under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall revise the boundary of 
     the Park to reflect the acquisition.
       (e) Administration.--Any land acquired under subsection (a) 
     shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the Park.
       (f) Use of Land.--The parcel of land acquired under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary for the 
     development, operation, and maintenance of administrative and 
     visitor facilities for the Park.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2718. A bill to provide for programs and activities with respect 
to the prevention of underage drinking; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend 
and colleague Senator Dodd, to introduce the Sober Truth on Preventing 
Underage Drinking Act--also known as the STOP Underage Drinking Act. I 
thank Senator Dodd for his commitment to this issue, as well as our 
colleagues on the House side--Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, 
Osborne, DeLauro, and Wamp for working so diligently with us over the 
past few months on this bill. It is a good bill--a carefully crafted, 
bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation.
  As we discussed at the HELP Subcommittee hearing I chaired in 
September on underage drinking, it is well known that underage drinking 
is a significant problem for youth in this country. We've known that 
for a very long time.
  We know that underage drinking often contributes to the four leading 
causes of deaths among 15 to 20 year olds--that 69 percent of youths 
who died in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the year 2000 
involved young drinking drivers--that in 1999, nearly 40 percent of 
people under the age of 21 who were victims of drownings, burns, and 
falls tested positive for alcohol.
  We've known that alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 
percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of 
female suicides involving people under 21.
  How did we get here, how did our Nation reach this point--a point 
where today, 12 percent of eighth graders--13 and 14 year olds--binge 
drink? Add to that, the 22 percent of tenth graders--15 and 16 year 
olds--who binge drink. The National Institute of Drug Abuse also 
reported that 95 percent of 12th graders perceive alcohol as readily 
available to them. Tragically, most children and young adults that 
drink underage obtain the alcohol from their parents or another adult.
  These statistics are frightening. Too many American kids are drinking 
regularly, and they are drinking in quantities that can be of great, 
long-term harm to themselves. Again I ask--how did we get here? As a 
Nation, we clearly haven't done enough to address this problem. We 
haven't done  enough to acknowledge how prevalent and widespread 
teenage drinking is in this country. We haven't done enough to let 
parents know that they, too, are a part of this problem and can be a 
part of the solution.

   We talk about drugs and the dangers of drug use, as we should, but 
the reality is that we, as a society, have become complacent about the 
problem of underage drinking. This has to change. The culture has to 
change.
   The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act, or STOP 
Underage Drinking Act, has four major areas of Policy development: 
First, there is a Federal coordination and reporting provision. This 
title would create an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate 
the efforts and expertise of various Federal agencies to combat 
underage drinking. It would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services and would include other agencies and departments, such 
as the Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, and the Federal Trade Commission. This title 
also would mandate an annual report to Congress from the Interagency 
Committee on their efforts to combat underage drinking, as well as an 
annual report card on State efforts to combat the problem. Two million 
dollars, annually, would be appropriated under this section.
   Second, the bill contains an authorization for the a national media 
campaign against underage drinking. This title would provide $1 million 
annually to authorize a national media campaign for which the Ad 
Council received $800,000 last year to begin implementation. It would 
continue funding for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
   Third, the bill would support new intervention programs to prevent 
underage drinking. This section of the bill would provide $5 million 
for enhancement grants to the Drug Free Communities program to be 
directed at the problem of underage drinking. This title also would 
create a new program which would provide competitive grants to States, 
non-profit entities, and institutions of higher education to create 
State-wide coalitions to prevent underage drinking. This program would 
be funded at $5 million.
   Finally, our bill contains a section devoted to research. This title 
would provide $6 million for increased Federal research and data 
collection on underage drinking, including reporting on the types and 
brands of alcohol that kids use and the short-term and long-term 
impacts of underage drinking upon adolescent brain development.

  Again, I thank Senator Dodd for working with me on this issue here in 
the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues 
in the House and Senate to pass this very important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2718

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Sober 
     Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act'', or the ``STOP 
     Underage Drinking Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents
Sec. 2. Findings
Sec. 3. Definitions

                       TITLE I--SENSE OF CONGRESS

Sec. 101. Sense of Congress

    TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE; ANNUAL REPORT CARD

Sec. 201. Establishment of interagency coordinating committee to 
              prevent underage drinking
Sec. 202. Annual report card
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations

                   TITLE III--NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN

Sec. 301. National media campaign to prevent underage drinking

                        TITLE IV--INTERVENTIONS

Sec. 401. Community-based coalition enhancement grants to prevent 
              underage drinking
Sec. 402. Grants directed at reducing higher-education alcohol abuse

                      TITLE V--ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Sec. 501. Additional research on underage drinking
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriations

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Drinking alcohol under the age of 21 is illegal in each 
     of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Enforcement of 
     current laws and regulations in States and communities, such 
     as minimum age drinking laws, zero tolerance laws, and laws 
     and regulations which restrict availability of alcohol, must 
     supplement other efforts to reduce underage drinking.
       (2) Data collected annually by the Department of Health and 
     Human Services shows that alcohol is the most heavily used 
     drug by children in the United States, and that--
       (A) more youths consume alcoholic beverages than use 
     tobacco products or illegal drugs;
       (B) by the end of the eighth grade, 45.6 percent of 
     children have engaged in alcohol use, and by the end of high 
     school, 76.6 percent have done so; and
       (C) the annual societal cost of underage drinking is 
     estimated at $53 to $58 billion.
       (3) Data collected by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services and the Department of Transportation indicate that 
     alcohol use by youth has many negative consequences, such as 
     immediate risk from acute impairment; traffic fatalities; 
     violence; suicide; and unprotected sex.

[[Page S8693]]

       (4) Research confirms that the harm caused by underage 
     drinking lasts beyond the underage years. Compared to persons 
     who wait until age 21 or older to start drinking, those who 
     start to drink before age 14 are, as adults, four times more 
     likely to become alcohol dependent; seven times more likely 
     to be in a motor vehicle crash because of drinking; and more 
     likely to suffer mental and physical damage from alcohol 
     abuse.
       (5) Alcohol abuse creates long-term risk developmentally 
     and is associated with negative physical impacts on the 
     brain.
       (6) Research indicates that adults greatly underestimate 
     the extent of alcohol use by youths, its negative 
     consequences, and its use by their own children. The IOM 
     report concluded that underage drinking cannot be 
     successfully addressed by focusing on youth alone. 
     Ultimately, adults are responsible for young people obtaining 
     alcohol by selling, providing, or otherwise making it 
     available to them. Parents are the most important channel of 
     influence on their children's underage drinking, according to 
     the IOM report, which also recommends a national adult-
     oriented media campaign.
       (7) Research shows that public service health messages, in 
     combination with community-based efforts, can reduce health-
     damaging behavior. The Department of Health and Human 
     Services and the Ad Council have undertaken a public health 
     campaign targeted at parents to combat underage alcohol 
     consumption. The Ad Council estimates that, for a typical 
     public health campaign, it receives an average of $28 million 
     per year in free media through its 28,000 media outlets 
     nationwide.
       (8) A significant percentage of the total alcohol 
     consumption in the United States each year is by underage 
     youth. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration reports that the percentage is over 11 
     percent.
       (9) Youth are exposed to a significant amount of alcohol 
     advertising through a variety of media. Some studies indicate 
     that youth awareness of alcohol advertising correlates to 
     their drinking behavior and beliefs.
       (10) According to the Center on Alcohol Marketing and 
     Youth, in 2002, the alcoholic beverage industry spent $990.2 
     million on product advertising on television, and $10 million 
     on television advertising designed to promote the responsible 
     use of alcohol. For every one television ad discouraging 
     underage alcohol use, there were 609 product ads.
       (11) Alcohol use occurs in 76 percent of movies rated G or 
     PG and 97 percent of movies rated PG-13. The Federal Trade 
     Commission has recommended restricting paid alcohol beverage 
     promotional placements to films rated R or NC-17.
       (12) Youth spend 9 to 11 hours per week listening to music, 
     and 17 percent of all lyrics contain alcohol references; 30 
     percent of those songs include brand-name mentions.
       (13) Studies show that adolescents watch 20 to 27 hours of 
     television each week, and 71 percent of prime-time television 
     episodes depict alcohol use and 77 percent contain some 
     reference to alcohol.
       (14) College and university presidents have cited alcohol 
     abuse as the number one health problem on college and 
     university campuses.
       (15) According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
     and Alcoholism, two of five college students are binge 
     drinkers; 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-
     related injuries, a majority of which involve motor vehicle 
     crashes; more than 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-
     related sexual assault; and 500,000 students are injured 
     under the influence of alcohol each year.
       (16) According to the Center on Alcohol Marketing and 
     Youth, in 2002, alcohol producers spent a total of $58 
     million to place 6,251 commercials in college sports 
     programs, and spent $27.7 million advertising during the NCAA 
     men's basketball tournament, which had as many alcohol ads 
     (939) as the Super Bowl, World Series, College Bowl Games and 
     the National Football League's Monday Night Football 
     broadcasts combined (925).
       (17) The IOM report recommended that colleges and 
     universities ban alcohol advertising and promotion on campus 
     in order to demonstrate their commitment to discouraging 
     alcohol use among underage students.
       (18) According to the Government Accountability Office 
     (``GAO''), the Federal Government spends $1.8 billion 
     annually to combat youth drug use and $71 million to prevent 
     underage alcohol use.
       (19) The GAO concluded that there is a lack of reporting 
     about how these funds are specifically expended, inadequate 
     collaboration among the agencies, and no central coordinating 
     group or office to oversee how the funds are expended or to 
     determine the effectiveness of these efforts.
       (20) There are at least three major, annual, government 
     funded national surveys in the United States that include 
     underage drinking data: the National Household Survey on Drug 
     Use and Health, Monitoring the Future, and the Youth Risk 
     Behavior Survey. These surveys do not use common indicators 
     to allow for direct comparison of youth alcohol consumption 
     patterns. Analyses of recent years' data do, however, show 
     similar results.
       (21) Research shows that school-based and community-based 
     interventions can reduce underage drinking and associated 
     problems, and that positive outcomes can be achieved by 
     combining environmental and institutional change with theory-
     based health education--a comprehensive, community-based 
     approach.
       (22) Studies show that a minority of youth who need 
     treatment for their alcohol problems receive such services. 
     Further, insufficient information exists to properly assist 
     clinicians and other providers in their youth treatment 
     efforts.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``binge drinking'' means a pattern of drinking 
     alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 
     gm percent or above. For the typical adult, this pattern 
     corresponds to consuming 5 or more drinks (male), or 4 or 
     more drinks (female), in about 2 hours.
       (2) The term ``heavy drinking'' means five or more drinks 
     on the same occasion in the past 30 days.
       (3) The term ``frequent heavy drinking'' means five or more 
     drinks on at least five occasions in the last 30 days.
       (4) The term ``alcoholic beverage industry'' means the 
     brewers, vintners, distillers, importers, distributors, and 
     retail outlets that sell and serve beer, wine, and distilled 
     spirits.
       (5) The term ``school-based prevention'' means programs, 
     which are institutionalized, and run by staff members or 
     school-designated persons or organizations in every grade of 
     school, kindergarten through 12th grade.
       (6) The term ``youth'' means persons under the age of 21.
       (7) The term ``IOM report'' means the report released in 
     September 2003 by the National Research Council, Institute of 
     Medicine, and entitled ``Reducing Underage Drinking: A 
     Collective Responsibility''.

                       TITLE I--SENSE OF CONGRESS

     SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that:
       (1) A multi-faceted effort is needed to more successfully 
     address the problem of underage drinking in the United 
     States. A coordinated approach to prevention, intervention, 
     treatment, and research is key to making progress. This Act 
     recognizes the need for a focused national effort, and 
     addresses particulars of the Federal portion of that effort.
       (2) States and communities, including colleges and 
     universities, are encouraged to adopt comprehensive 
     prevention approaches, including--
       (A) evidence-based screening, programs and curricula;
       (B) brief intervention strategies;
       (C) consistent policy enforcement; and
       (D) environmental changes that limit underage access to 
     alcohol.
       (3) Public health and consumer groups have played an 
     important role in drawing the Nation's attention to the 
     health crisis of underage drinking. Working at the Federal, 
     State, and community levels, and motivated by grass-roots 
     support, they have initiated effective prevention programs 
     that have made significant progress in the battle against 
     underage drinking.
       (4) The alcohol beverage industry has developed and paid 
     for national education and awareness messages on illegal 
     underage drinking directed to parents as well as consumers 
     generally. According to the industry, it has also supported 
     the training of more than 1.6 million retail employees, 
     community-based prevention programs, point of sale education, 
     and enforcement programs. All of these efforts are aimed at 
     further reducing illegal underage drinking and preventing 
     sales of alcohol to persons under the age of 21. All sectors 
     of the alcohol beverage industry have also voluntarily 
     committed to placing advertisements in broadcast and 
     magazines where at least 70 percent of the audiences are 
     expected to be 21 years of age or older. The industry should 
     continue to monitor and tailor its advertising practices to 
     further limit underage exposure, including the use of 
     independent third party review. The industry should continue 
     and expand evidence-based efforts to prevent underage 
     drinking.
       (5) Public health and consumer groups, in collaboration 
     with the alcohol beverage industry, should explore 
     opportunities to reduce underage drinking.
       (6) The entertainment industries have a powerful impact on 
     youth, and they should use rating systems and marketing codes 
     to reduce the likelihood that underage audiences will be 
     exposed to movies, recordings, or television programs with 
     unsuitable alcohol content, even if adults are expected to 
     predominate in the viewing or listening audiences.
       (7) Objective scientific evidence and data should be 
     generated and made available to the general public and policy 
     makers at the local, state, and national levels to help them 
     make informed decisions, implement judicious policies, and 
     monitor progress in preventing childhood/adolescent alcohol 
     use.
       (8) The National Collegiate Athletic Association, its 
     member colleges and universities, and athletic conferences 
     should affirm a commitment to a policy of discouraging 
     alcohol use among underage students and other young fans by 
     ending all alcohol advertising during radio and television 
     broadcasts of collegiate sporting events.

    TITLE II--INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE; ANNUAL REPORT CARD

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE 
                   TO PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in collaboration with the Federal officials 
     specified in subsection

[[Page S8694]]

     (b), shall establish an interagency coordinating committee 
     focusing on underage drinking (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Committee'').
       (b) Other Agencies.--The officials referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the Secretary of Education, the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Surgeon General, 
     the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol 
     Abuse and Alcoholism, the Administrator of the Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Director 
     of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Assistant 
     Secretary for Children and Families, the Director of the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Administrator of 
     the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention, the Chairman of the Federal Trade 
     Commission, and such other Federal officials as the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall serve as the chair of the Committee.
       (d) Duties.--The Committee shall guide policy and program 
     development across the Federal Government with respect to 
     underage drinking.
       (e) Consultations.--The Committee shall actively seek the 
     input of and shall consult with all appropriate and 
     interested parties, including public health research and 
     interest groups, foundations, and alcohol beverage industry 
     trade associations and companies.
       (f) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, on behalf of the Committee, shall annually submit 
     to the Congress a report that summarizes--
       (A) all programs and policies of Federal agencies designed 
     to prevent underage drinking;
       (B) the extent of progress in reducing underage drinking 
     nationally;
       (C) data that the Secretary shall collect with respect to 
     the information specified in paragraph (2); and
       (D) such other information regarding underage drinking as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (2) Certain information.--The report under paragraph (1) 
     shall include information on the following:
       (A) Patterns and consequences of underage drinking.
       (B) Measures of the availability of alcohol to underage 
     populations and the exposure of this population to messages 
     regarding alcohol in advertising and the entertainment media.
       (C) Surveillance data, including information on the onset 
     and prevalence of underage drinking.
       (D) Any additional findings resulting from research 
     conducted or supported under section 501.
       (E) Evidence-based best practices to both prevent underage 
     drinking and provide treatment services to those youth who 
     need them.

     SEC. 202. ANNUAL REPORT CARD.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall, 
     with input and collaboration from other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, States, Indian tribes, territories, and public 
     health, consumer, and alcohol beverage industry groups, 
     annually issue a ``report card'' to accurately rate the 
     performance of each state in enacting, enforcing, and 
     creating laws, regulations, and programs to prevent or reduce 
     underage drinking. The report card shall include ratings on 
     outcome measures for categories related to the prevalence of 
     underage drinking in each State.
       (b) Outcome Measures.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop, in 
     consultation with the Committee established in section 201, a 
     set of outcome measures to be used in preparing the report 
     card.
       (2) Categories.--In developing the outcome measures, the 
     Secretary shall develop measures for categories related to 
     the following:
       (A) The degree of strictness of the minimum drinking age 
     laws and dram shop liability statutes in each State.
       (B) The number of compliance checks within alcohol retail 
     outlets conducted measured against the number of total 
     alcohol retail outlets in each State, and the results of such 
     checks.
       (C) Whether or not the State mandates or otherwise provides 
     training on the proper selling and serving of alcohol for all 
     sellers and servers of alcohol as a condition of employment.
       (D) Whether or not the State has policies and regulations 
     with regard to Internet sales and home delivery of alcoholic 
     beverages.
       (E) The number of adults in the State targeted by State 
     programs to deter adults from purchasing alcohol for minors.
       (F) The number of youths, parents, and caregivers who are 
     targeted by State programs designed to deter underage 
     drinking.
       (G) Whether or not the State has enacted graduated drivers 
     licenses and the extent of those provisions.
       (H) The amount that the State invests, per youth capita, on 
     the prevention of underage drinking, further broken down by 
     the amount spent on--
       (i) compliance check programs in retail outlets, including 
     providing technology to prevent and detect the use of false 
     identification by minors to make alcohol purchases;
       (ii) checkpoints;
       (iii) community-based, school-based, and higher-education-
     based programs to prevent underage drinking;
       (iv) underage drinking prevention programs that target 
     youth within the juvenile justice and child welfare systems; 
     and
       (v) other State efforts or programs as deemed appropriate.

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

                   TITLE III--NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN

     SEC. 301. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT UNDERAGE 
                   DRINKING.

       (a) Scope of the Campaign.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall continue to fund and oversee the 
     production, broadcasting, and evaluation of the Ad Council's 
     national adult-oriented media public service campaign.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall provide a report to the Congress annually detailing the 
     production, broadcasting, and evaluation of the campaign 
     referred to in subsection (a), and to detail in the report 
     the effectiveness of the campaign in reducing underage 
     drinking, the need for and likely effectiveness of an 
     expanded adult-oriented media campaign, and the feasibility 
     and the likely effectiveness of a national youth-focused 
     media campaign to combat underage drinking.
       (c) Consultation Requirement.--In carrying out the media 
     campaign, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     direct the Ad Council to consult with interested parties 
     including both the alcohol beverage industry and public 
     health and consumer groups. The progress of this consultative 
     process is to be covered in the report under subsection (b).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $1,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.

                        TITLE IV--INTERVENTIONS

     SEC. 401. COMMUNITY-BASED COALITION ENHANCEMENT GRANTS TO 
                   PREVENT UNDERAGE DRINKING.

       (a) Authorization of Program.--The Director of the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall award ``enhancement 
     grants'' to eligible entities to design, test, evaluate and 
     disseminate strategies to maximize the effectiveness of 
     community-wide approaches to preventing and reducing underage 
     drinking.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are, in 
     conjunction with the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 (21 
     U.S.C. 1521 et seq.), to--
       (1) reduce alcohol use among youth in communities 
     throughout the United States;
       (2) strengthen collaboration among communities, the Federal 
     Government, and State, local, and tribal governments;
       (3) enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination 
     on the issue of alcohol use among youth;
       (4) serve as a catalyst for increased citizen participation 
     and greater collaboration among all sectors and organizations 
     of a community that first demonstrates a long-term commitment 
     to reducing alcohol use among youth;
       (5) disseminate to communities timely information regarding 
     state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that have proven 
     to be effective in reducing alcohol use among youth; and
       (6) enhance, not supplant, local community initiatives for 
     reducing alcohol use among youth.
       (c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring an 
     enhancement grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Director at such time, and in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Director may 
     require. Each application shall include--
       (1) a complete description of the entity's current underage 
     alcohol use prevention initiatives and how the grant will 
     appropriately enhance the focus on underage drinking issues; 
     or
       (2) a complete description of the entity's current 
     initiatives, and how it will use this grant to enhance those 
     initiatives by adding a focus on underage drinking 
     prevention.
       (d) Uses of Funds.--Each eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds to carry 
     out the activities described in such entity's application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (c). Grants under this 
     section shall not exceed $50,000 per year, and may be awarded 
     for each year the entity is funded as per subsection (f).
       (e) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, 
     Federal and non-Federal funds available for carrying out the 
     activities described in this section.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``eligible entity'' means an organization that is currently 
     eligible to receive grant funds under the Drug-Free 
     Communities Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.).
       (g) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 6 percent of a 
     grant under this section may be expended for administrative 
     expenses.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to

[[Page S8695]]

     carry out this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009.

     SEC. 402. GRANTS DIRECTED AT REDUCING HIGHER-EDUCATION 
                   ALCOHOL ABUSE.

       (a) Authorization of Program.--The Secretary shall award 
     grants to eligible entities to enable the entities to reduce 
     the rate of underage alcohol use and binge drinking among 
     students at institutions of higher education.
       (b) Applications.--An eligible entity that desires to 
     receive a grant under this Act shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied 
     by such information as the Secretary may require. Each 
     application shall include--
       (1) a description of how the eligible entity will work to 
     enhance an existing, or where none exists to build a, 
     statewide coalition;
       (2) a description of how the eligible entity will target 
     underage students in the State;
       (3) a description of how the eligible entity intends to 
     ensure that the statewide coalition is actually implementing 
     the purpose of this Act and moving toward indicators 
     described in section (d);
       (4) a list of the members of the statewide coalition or 
     interested parties involved in the work of the eligible 
     entity;
       (5) a description of how the eligible entity intends to 
     work with State agencies on substance abuse prevention and 
     education;
       (6) the anticipated impact of funds provided under this Act 
     in reducing the rates of underage alcohol use;
       (7) outreach strategies, including ways in which the 
     eligible entity proposes to--
       (A) reach out to students;
       (B) promote the purpose of this Act;
       (C) address the range of needs of the students and the 
     surrounding communities; and
       (D) address community norms for underage students regarding 
     alcohol use; and
       (8) such additional information as required by the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Uses of Funds.--Each eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds to carry 
     out the activities described in such entity's application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (b).
       (d) Accountability.--On the date on which the Secretary 
     first publishes a notice in the Federal Register soliciting 
     applications for grants under this section, the Secretary 
     shall include in the notice achievement indicators for the 
     program authorized under this section. The achievement 
     indicators shall be designed--
       (1) to measure the impact that the statewide coalitions 
     assisted under this Act are having on the institutions of 
     higher education and the surrounding communities, including 
     changes in the number of alcohol incidents of any kind 
     (including violations, physical assaults, sexual assaults, 
     reports of intimidation, disruptions of school functions, 
     disruptions of student studies, mental health referrals, 
     illnesses, or deaths);
       (2) to measure the quality and accessibility of the 
     programs or information offered by the statewide coalitions; 
     and
       (3) to provide such other measures of program impact as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       (e) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this Act shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, 
     Federal and non-Federal funds available for carrying out the 
     activities described in this section.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     State, institution of higher education, or nonprofit entity.
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       (5) Statewide coalition.--The term ``statewide coalition'' 
     means a coalition that--
       (A) includes--
       (i) institutions of higher education within a State; and
       (ii) a nonprofit group, a community underage drinking 
     prevention coalition, or another substance abuse prevention 
     group within a State; and
       (B) works toward lowering the alcohol abuse rate by 
     targeting underage students at institutions of higher 
     education throughout the State and in the surrounding 
     communities.
       (6) Surrounding community.--The term ``surrounding 
     community'' means the community--
       (A) that surrounds an institution of higher education 
     participating in a statewide coalition;
       (B) where the students from the institution of higher 
     education take part in the community; and
       (C) where students from the institution of higher education 
     live in off-campus housing.
       (g) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of a 
     grant under this section may be expended for administrative 
     expenses.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

                      TITLE V--ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

     SEC. 501. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON UNDERAGE DRINKING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall collect data on, and conduct or support research on, 
     underage drinking with respect to the following:
       (1) The short and long-range impact of alcohol use and 
     abuse upon adolescent brain development and other organ 
     systems.
       (2) Comprehensive community-based programs or strategies 
     and statewide systems to prevent underage drinking, across 
     the underage years from early childhood to young adulthood, 
     including programs funded and implemented by government 
     entities, public health interest groups and foundations, and 
     alcohol beverage companies and trade associations.
       (3) Improved knowledge of the scope of the underage 
     drinking problem and progress in preventing and treating 
     underage drinking.
       (4) Annually obtain more precise information than is 
     currently collected on the type and quantity of alcoholic 
     beverages consumed by underage drinkers, as well as 
     information on brand preferences of these drinkers and their 
     exposure to alcohol advertising.
       (b) Certain Matters.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall carry out activities toward the following 
     objectives with respect to underage drinking:
       (1) Testing every unnatural death of persons ages 12 to 20 
     in the United States for alcohol involvement, including 
     suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries such as 
     falls, drownings, burns, poisonings, and motor vehicle crash 
     deaths.
       (2) Obtaining new epidemiological data within the National 
     Epidemiological Study on Alcoholism and Related Conditions 
     and other national or targeted surveys that identify alcohol 
     use and attitudes about alcohol use during pre- and early 
     adolescence, including second-hand effects of adolescent 
     alcohol use such as date rapes, violence, risky sexual 
     behavior, and prenatal alcohol exposure.
       (3) Developing or identifying successful clinical 
     treatments for youth with alcohol problems.

     SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 501 $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2009.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Mike 
DeWine, to introduce legislation designed to prevent our nation's 
children and youth from succumbing to the dangers associated with 
underage alcohol use. The legislation that we introduce today, the STOP 
(Sober Truth On Preventing) Underage Drinking Act, will greatly 
strengthen our Nation's ability to combat the too often deadly 
consequences associated with underage drinking.
  An initial examination of the problems presented by underage drinking 
is truly alarming. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug among 
America's youth. More young people drink alcohol than smoke tobacco or 
use marijuana combined. In 2002, 20 percent of eighth graders had drunk 
alcohol in the previous 30 days. Forty-nine percent of high school 
seniors are drinkers, and 29 percent report having had five or more 
drinks in a row, or binged in the past 2 weeks.
  Tragically, we know that this year underage drinking will directly 
lead to more than 3,500 deaths, more than two million injuries, 1,200 
babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome and more than 50,000 youths 
treated for alcohol dependence. We also know that the social costs 
associated with underage drinking total close to $53 billion annually, 
including $19 billion from automobile accidents and $29 billion from 
associated violent crime.
  And while no one can argue with the tragic loss of life and 
significant financial costs associated with underage drinking, too few 
of us think of the equally devastating loss of potential that occurs 
when our children begin to drink. Research indicates that children who 
begin drinking do so at only 12 years of age. We also know that 
children that begin drinking at such an early age develop a 
predisposition for alcohol dependence later in life. Such early 
experimentation can have devastating consequences and derail a child's 
potential just as she or he is starting out on the path to adulthood. 
The consumption of alcohol by our children can literally rob them of 
their future.
  The truly alarming and devastating effects of underage alcohol use 
are what initially led Senator DeWine and I to begin work to address 
this important issue. Over the last few months we have worked 
extensively with Representatives Roybal-Allard, Wolf, DeLauro, Osbourne 
and Wamp to craft the broad legislative initiative that we introduce 
today.

[[Page S8696]]

  The STOP Underage Drinking Act creates the framework for a 
multifaceted, comprehensive national campaign to prevent underage 
drinking. Specifically, the legislation includes four major areas of 
policy development. First, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $2 
million to establish an Interagency Coordinating Committee to 
coordinate all Federal agency efforts and expertise designed to prevent 
underage drinking. Chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, this committee will be required to report to the Congress on 
an annual basis the extent to which Federal efforts are addressing the 
urgent need to curb underage drinking.
  I am particularly pleased that one of the many items in this annual 
report to Congress will provide for the public health monitoring of the 
amount of alcohol advertising reaching our children. I have become 
increasingly concerned about the degree to which alcohol advertisements 
appear to target our Nation's children. It is my hope that the 
monitoring called for by this legislation will expose any unethical 
advertising practices that reach children. We must do all that we can 
to ensure that our children are not exposed to harmful and deceptive 
alcohol promotions.
  In addition to the Federal coordination of Federal underage drinking 
prevention efforts, the STOP Underage Drinking Act additionally 
authorizes $1 million to fund an adult-oriented National Media Campaign 
against Underage Drinking. Research indicates that most children who 
drink obtain the alcohol from their parents or from other adults. The 
National Media Campaign against underage drinking will specifically 
seek to educate those who provide our children with alcohol about the 
dangers inherent in underage alcohol use. This media campaign will 
build upon the valuable underage drinking prevention efforts begun last 
year by the Ad Council, whose campaigns average an estimated $28 
million in donated media from media outlets nationwide.
  The legislation additionally authorizes $10 million to provide 
States, not-for-profit groups and institutions of higher education the 
ability to create statewide coalitions to prevent underage drinking and 
alcohol abuse by college and university students. This section will 
also provide alcohol-specific enhancement grants through the Drug Free 
Communities Program.
  Lastly, the STOP Underage Drinking Act authorizes $6 million to 
expand research to assess the health effects of underage drinking on 
adolescent development, including its effect on the brain. This effort 
will additionally increase Federal data collection on underage 
drinking, including reporting on the types and brands of alcohol that 
kids consume.
  I want to convey my belief that this legislation truly offers a 
historical, first step toward addressing the national tragedy 
represented by underage drinking. I pledge to work strenuously toward 
passing the STOP Underage Drinking Act and building on its strong 
foundation and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this 
critically important initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI:
  S. 2719. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 to further improve the safety and health of working environments, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement 
for Employees (SAFE) Act of 2004. Every worker in America deserves to 
return home safely at the end of the day. However, more than 5,500 
workers die while at work annually. This means that, on any given day, 
15 workers will not return home to their families. The fact that these 
accidents are occurring is not because employers don't care about 
workplace safety. On the contrary, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, or OSHA, estimated that 95 percent of employers are 
striving to create a safer workplace. The vast majority of employers 
want to comply with safety laws. Therefore, any effort to significantly 
improve workplace safety by focusing solely on the small percentage of 
bad actors who willfully break the law is doomed to failure.
  We don't need political rhetoric, we need workable solutions. As 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I felt 
responsible for finding a solution that will succeed in protecting more 
workers from harm. I feel a responsibility to every worker and every 
worker's family to do all I can to prevent workplace accidents and 
deaths. The SAFE Act will provide the systematic safety improvements 
that American workers and their families deserve. This legislation 
helps the vast majority of good faith employers who want to achieve 
compliance with safety laws. They just need help doing so--more help 
than OSHA can currently give them. The SAFE Act also allows OSHA to 
effectively target the few bad actors who willfully place their 
employees at risk. It also includes provisions to improve hazard 
communication and reduce injuries and illnesses caused by the presence 
of hazardous chemicals in the workplace.
  The SAFE Act of 2004 will increase the maximum jail sentence for a 
willful safety violation that results in a worker's death from 6 
months, which is a misdemeanor, to 18 months, which is a felony. It 
would be naive to believe that increasing the criminal penalty by 
itself will significantly improve workplace safety. Increasing the 
maximum jail sentence for bad actors will do nothing to help improve 
the workplace safety records of the 95 percent of employers who want to 
do the right thing.
  I want to prevent the accident in the first place, not just penalize 
the employer for an injury or death that could have been avoided. By 
then, it's too late for the victim and their family. We need a system 
that encourages the good faith employers to find out how to achieve 
safety voluntarily and without fear of retribution. We need a system 
that harnesses the resources of safety experts so employers can achieve 
compliance with safety laws. And, we need a system that can target and 
punish the few bad employers. This is the system promoted by the Safety 
Advancement for Employees, or SAFE, Act. The SAFE Act will save 
workers' lives.

  The SAFE Act is a workable solution that will effectively add 
thousands of highly-trained safety and health professionals to the job 
of inspecting workplaces around the country. Why is enlisting third 
party safety experts so critical to the effort of getting employers to 
comply with safety laws? Because OSHA, the government agency 
responsible for regulating safety laws, can't do it alone. OSHA should 
be providing helpful assistance to the overwhelming number of employers 
who are pursuing safer workplaces. Simultaneously, OSHA should be 
targeting those employers who are willfully disregarding safety laws, 
inspecting them, penalizing them, and following up to make sure that 
bad practices are stopped before accidents occur.
  It has been estimated that it would take OSHA over 167 years to 
inspect every work site in the country. Therefore, OSHA cannot 
effectively help those good faith employers or deter bad employers from 
breaking the law. This is why the SAFE Act is so important. It will 
allow highly-trained safety and health professionals to reach work 
sites all over the country, where OSHA hasn't even been able to make a 
dent, encouraging employers to get into compliance voluntarily.
  These highly-trained consultants will work with employers to get them 
into compliance with safety laws. If the employer gets into compliance, 
the employer can receive a certificate of compliance which will exempt 
him from civil penalties only for one year. However, at all times and 
under all circumstances, OSHA remains free to inspect these work sites.
  The third-party consultation program is particularly important for 
small businesses. Employers have to read through and implement over a 
thousand pages of highly technical safety regulations. Too often, 
employers are left on their own to try to understand and comply with 
all these regulations. It is hard enough for large employers who have 
an in-house staff of safety experts. For the small employer--whose 
safety ``expert'' is also the human resources manager, accountant, and 
systems administrator--the task is nearly impossible. We're talking 
about employers who want to do the right thing, who want to comply with 
the law and protect their workers. They just need help doing so--help 
that OSHA is not currently equipped to provide.

[[Page S8697]]

  In a report published in March, 2004, the General Accounting Office 
cited the use of third party consultants among a list of 
recommendations by researchers, safety and health practitioners, and 
specialists, to achieve voluntary OSHA compliance. According to the GAO 
report: ``Using Consultants could leverage existing OSHA resources by 
helping workplaces that might never otherwise see an OSHA inspector, 
especially small employers, and possibly also by enabling employers to 
address additional safety and health issues that might not be covered 
under an OSHA inspection for compliance standards.''
  We need to leverage the resources of OSHA and the private sector to 
improve occupational safety around the country--in large and small 
workplaces alike.
  Nowhere is the safety and health challenge more daunting for small 
businesses than it is in the area of hazard communication. Hazardous 
chemicals pervade the 21st Century workplace. An estimated 650,000 
hazardous chemical products are used in over 3 million workplaces 
across the country. Everyday, more than 30 million American workers 
will be exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job. Whether or not they 
return home safely at the end of the day depends on their awareness of 
these hazards and appropriate precautionary measures. Communication is 
the key to protecting the safety and health of these 30 million 
workers. However, the protection is only as effective as the 
communication.

  Twenty years ago, OSHA adopted the Hazard Communication Standard. 
Material Safety Data Sheets are the cornerstone of hazard 
communication. The chemical manufacturer or importer evaluates the 
chemical and provides employers with information about its hazards and 
protective measures on the Material Safety Data Sheet, which employers 
must then provide to workers.
  OSHA's rule provides a generic framework for hazard communication. 
With over 650,000 chemicals in use, and tens of thousands of chemical 
manufacturers, the clarity, format, and accuracy of Material Safety 
Data Sheets varies widely. If the Material Safety Data Sheet is stuffed 
in some thick binder gathering dust, the worker doesn't have time to 
shuffle through the pages of complex, technical jargon it includes. 
Workers shouldn't need a Ph.D. in biochemistry to know how to protect 
themselves against hazardous chemicals.
  Twenty years after the Hazard Communication standard was published, 
it's time for review. It's time to heed the call of workers and 
employers alike for more clarity, consistency, accuracy, and guidance. 
Over the years, I've had the great fortune to work with Ron Hayes on 
improving the safety and health of American workers. Ron wrote me a 
letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the 
Record. He writes that: ``Other standards cover many issues for the 
workers, but the Material Safety Data Sheet, paperwork is used millions 
of times each workday, and the accuracy of these sheets [is] of 
paramount importance for the complete protection of our most important 
resource, our great American workers.''
  To improve the protection of our great American workers from 
hazardous chemicals, the new SAFE Act requires OSHA to develop and post 
on its website model material safety data sheets for those highly 
hazardous chemicals listed on the Process Safety Management Standard. 
These models will be particularly helpful to small businesses that 
don't have the expertise to develop or decipher their own.
  In the twenty years since the Hazard Communication Standard was 
adopted, the American workplace has changed dramatically. Electronic or 
internet-based systems not envisioned twenty years ago can 
significantly improve hazard communication. The new SAFE Act recognizes 
the promise of technology to improve hazard communication. The 
legislation creates grants to develop, implement, or evaluate 
strategies to improve hazard communication through the use of better 
technology.
  In the past twenty years, our workforce has become increasingly 
diverse. Effective hazard communication should reflect the fact that 
numerous languages may be spoken at a single worksite. Our economy has 
also become increasingly global. The chemical industry is one of the 
United States' largest exporting sectors. The manner in which other 
countries regulate hazardous chemicals impacts an American 
manufacturer's ability to compete in the global marketplace.
  In 2002, the United Nations adopted the Globally Harmonized System 
for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. The Globally Harmonized 
System is designed to improve the quality of hazard communication by 
establishing standardized requirements for hazard evaluation, safety 
data sheets, and labels. The Globally Harmonized System has the 
potential to address significant concerns with current hazard 
communication. Whether the United States adopts it cannot be decided by 
OSHA alone. Other agencies involved in regulating hazardous chemicals 
must be involved. Key stakeholders in hazard communication--chemical 
manufacturers, employers, workers, and safety and health experts--must 
also be involved. For this reason, the new SAFE Act establishes a 
commission of relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders to study and 
make recommendations to Congress about the adoption of the Globally 
Harmonized System.
  The SAFE Act sets us firmly on the path towards achieving the goal of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ``assure so far as possible 
every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working 
conditions.'' Enforcement alone cannot ensure the safety and health of 
America's workforce. Government and the private sector can--and must--
work together to create a culture where safety and health is the number 
one priority.
  I first introduced the SAFE Act in 1997. Today, the call for 
meaningful OSHA reform through cooperative and proactive efforts is 
even louder. The more time that passes without taking such action, the 
more injuries and deaths will occur that could otherwise be avoided. As 
I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I hope that we can again begin 
meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer 
workplaces. I also hope that we can actually pass the SAFE Act and 
achieve greater safety and health for our most important resource--our 
great American worker.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and letter were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2719

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safety 
     Advancement for Employees Act of 2004'' or the ``SAFE Act''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal 
     is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.).

      SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       Section 2(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 651(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) by increasing the joint cooperation of employers, 
     employees, and the Secretary of Labor in the effort to ensure 
     safe and healthful working conditions for employees.''.

      SEC. 3. THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION SERVICES PROGRAM.

       (a) Program.--The Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 8 the following:

     ``SEC. 8A. THIRD PARTY CONSULTATION SERVICES PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to 
     encourage employers to conduct voluntary safety and health 
     audits using the expertise of qualified safety and health 
     consultants and to proactively seek individualized solutions 
     to workplace safety and health concerns.
       ``(b) Establishment of Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the advisory committee established under section 7(d), 
     shall establish and implement, by regulation, a program that 
     qualifies individuals to provide consultation services to 
     employers to assist employers in the identification and 
     correction of safety and health hazards in the workplaces of 
     employers.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--The following individuals shall be 
     eligible to be qualified under the program under paragraph 
     (1) as certified safety and health consultants:
       ``(A) An individual who is licensed by a State authority as 
     a physician, industrial

[[Page S8698]]

     hygienist, professional engineer, safety engineer, safety 
     professional, or registered nurse.
       ``(B) An individual who has been employed as an inspector 
     for a State plan State or as a Federal occupational safety 
     and health inspector for not less than a 5-year period.
       ``(C) An individual who is qualified in an occupational 
     health or safety field by an organization whose program has 
     been accredited by a nationally recognized private 
     accreditation organization or by the Secretary.
       ``(D) An individual who has not less than 10 years 
     expertise in workplace safety and health.
       ``(E) Other individuals determined to be qualified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Geographical scope of consultation services.--A 
     consultant qualified under the program under paragraph (1) 
     may provide consultation services in any State.
       ``(4) Limitation based on expertise.--A consultant 
     qualified under the program under paragraph (1) may only 
     provide consultation services to an employer with respect to 
     a worksite if the work performed at that worksite coincides 
     with the particular expertise of the individual.
       ``(c) Safety and Health Registry.--The Secretary shall 
     develop and maintain a registry that includes all consultants 
     that are qualified under the program under subsection (b)(1) 
     to provide the consultation services described in subsection 
     (b) and shall publish and make such registry readily 
     available to the general public.
       ``(d) Disciplinary Actions.--The Secretary may revoke the 
     status of a consultant qualified under subsection (b), or the 
     participation of an employer under subsection (b) in the 
     third party consultation program, if the Secretary determines 
     that the consultant or employer--
       ``(1) has failed to meet the requirements of the program; 
     or
       ``(2) has committed malfeasance, gross negligence, 
     collusion or fraud in connection with any consultation 
     services provided by the qualified consultant.
       ``(e) Program Requirements.--
       ``(1) Full service consultation.--The consultation services 
     described in subsection (b), and provided by a consultant 
     qualified under the program under subsection (b)(1), shall 
     include an evaluation of the workplace of an employer to 
     determine if the employer is in compliance with the 
     requirements of this Act, including any regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to this Act. Employers electing to 
     participate in such program shall contract with a consultant 
     qualified under subsection (b)(2) to perform a full 
     service visit and consultation covering the employer's 
     establishment, including a complete safety and health 
     program review. Following the guidance as specified in 
     this section, the consultant shall discuss with the 
     employer the elements of an effective program.
       ``(2) Consultation report.--
       ``(A) In general.--After a consultant conducts a 
     comprehensive survey of an employer under a program under 
     this section, the consultant shall prepare and submit to the 
     employer a written report that includes an action plan 
     identifying any violations of this Act, and any appropriate 
     corrective measures to address the violations that are 
     identified using an effective safety and health program.
       ``(B) Elements.--A consultation report shall contain each 
     of the following elements.
       ``(i) Action plan.--

       ``(I) In general.--An action plan under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be developed in consultation with the employer as part 
     of the initial comprehensive survey. The consultant and the 
     employer shall jointly use the onsite time in the initial 
     visit to the employer's place of business to agree on the 
     terms of the action plan and the time frames for achieving 
     specific items.
       ``(II) Requirements.--The action plan shall outline the 
     specific steps that must be accomplished by the employer 
     prior to receiving a certificate of compliance. The action 
     plan shall address in detail--

       ``(aa) the employer's correction of all identified safety 
     and health hazards, with applicable time frames;
       ``(bb) the steps necessary for the employer to implement an 
     effective safety and health program, with applicable time 
     frames; and
       ``(cc) a statement of the employer's commitment to work 
     with the consultation project to achieve a certificate of 
     compliance.
       ``(ii) Safety and health program.--An employer electing to 
     participate in a program under this section shall establish a 
     safety and health program to manage workplace safety and 
     health to reduce injuries, illnesses and fatalities that 
     complies with paragraph (3). Such safety and health program 
     shall be appropriate to the conditions of the workplace 
     involved.
       ``(3) Requirements for safety and health program.--
       ``(A) Written program.--An employer electing to participate 
     shall maintain a written safety and health program that 
     contains policies, procedures, and practices to recognize and 
     protect their employees from occupational safety and health 
     hazards. Such procedures shall include provisions for the 
     identification, evaluation and prevention or control of 
     workplace hazards.
       ``(B) Major elements.--A safety and health program shall 
     include the following elements, and may include other 
     elements as necessary to the specific worksite involved and 
     as determined appropriate by the qualified consultant and 
     employer:
       ``(i) Employer commitment and employee involvement.--

       ``(I) In general.--The existence of both management 
     leadership and employee participation must be demonstrated in 
     accordance with subclauses (II) and (III).
       ``(II) Management leadership.--To make a demonstration of 
     management leadership under this subclause, the employer 
     shall--

       ``(aa) set a clear worksite safety and health policy that 
     employees can fully understand;
       ``(bb) set and communicate clear goals and objectives with 
     the involvement of employees;
       ``(cc) provide essential safety and health leadership in 
     tangible and recognizable ways;
       ``(dd) set positive safety and health examples; and
       ``(ee) perform comprehensive reviews of safety and health 
     programs for quality assurance using a process which promotes 
     continuous correction.

       ``(III) Employee participation.--With respect to employee 
     participation, the employer shall demonstrate a commitment to 
     working to develop a comprehensive, written and operational 
     safety and health program that involves employees in 
     significant ways that affect safety and health. In making 
     such a demonstration, the employer shall--

       ``(aa) provide for employee participation in actively 
     identifying and resolving safety and health issues in 
     tangible ways that employees can clearly understand;
       ``(bb) assign safety and health responsibilities in such a 
     way that employees can understand clearly what is expected of 
     them;
       ``(cc) provide employees with the necessary authority and 
     resources to meet their safety and health responsibilities; 
     and
       ``(dd) provide that safety and health performance for 
     managers, supervisors and employees be measured in tangible 
     ways.
       ``(ii) Workplace analysis.--The employer, in consultation 
     with the consultant, shall systematically identify and assess 
     hazards in the following ways:

       ``(I) Conduct corrective action and regular expert surveys 
     to update hazard inventories.
       ``(II) Have competent personnel review every planned or new 
     facility, process material, or equipment.
       ``(III) Train all employees and supervisors, conduct 
     routine joint inspections, and correct items identified.
       ``(IV) Establish a way for employees to report hazards and 
     provide prompt responses to such reports.
       ``(V) Investigate worksite accidents and near accidents.
       ``(VI) Provide employees with the necessary information 
     regarding incident trends, causes and means of prevention.

       ``(iii) Hazard prevention.--The employer, in consultation 
     with the consultant, shall--

       ``(I) engage in timely hazard control, working to ensure 
     that hazard controls are fully in place and communicated to 
     employees, with emphasis on engineering controls and 
     enforcing safe work procedures;
       ``(II) maintain equipment using operators who are trained 
     to recognize maintenance needs and perform or direct timely 
     maintenance;
       ``(III) provide training on emergency planning and 
     preparation, working to ensure that all personnel know 
     immediately how to respond as a result of effective planning, 
     training, and drills;
       ``(IV) equip facilities for emergencies with all systems 
     and equipment in place and regularly tested so that all 
     employees know how to communicate during emergencies and how 
     to use equipment; and
       ``(V) provide for emergency medical situations using 
     employees who are fully trained in emergency medicine.

       ``(iv) Safety and health training.--The employer, in 
     consultation with the consultant, shall--

       ``(I) involve employees in hazard assessment, development 
     and delivery of training;
       ``(II) actively involve supervisors in worksite analysis by 
     empowering them to ensure physical protections, reinforce 
     training, enforce discipline, and explain work procedures; 
     and
       ``(III) provide training in safety and health management to 
     managers.

       ``(4) Reinspection.--At a time agreed to by the employer 
     and the consultant, the consultant may reinspect the 
     workplace of the employer to verify that the required 
     elements in the consultation report have been satisfied. If 
     such requirements have been satisfied, the employer shall be 
     provided with a certificate of compliance for that workplace 
     by the qualified consultant.
       ``(f) Exemption From Civil Penalties for Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an employer enters into a contract 
     with an individual qualified under the program under this 
     section, to provide consultation services described in 
     subsection (b), and receives a certificate of compliance 
     under subsection (e)(4), the employer shall be exempt from 
     the assessment of any civil penalty under section 17 for a 
     period of 1 year after the date on which the employer 
     receives such certificate.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--An employer shall not be exempt under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) if the employer has not made a good faith effort to 
     remain in compliance as required under the certificate of 
     compliance; or
       ``(B) to the extent that there has been a fundamental 
     change in the hazards of the workplace.
       ``(g) Right To Inspect.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the

[[Page S8699]]

     rights of the Secretary to inspect and investigate worksites 
     covered by a certificate of compliance.
       ``(h) Renewal Requirements.--An employer that is granted a 
     certificate of compliance under this section may receive a 1 
     year renewal of the certificate if the following elements are 
     satisfied:
       ``(1) A qualified consultant shall conduct a complete 
     onsite safety and health survey to ensure that the safety and 
     health program has been effectively maintained or improved, 
     workplace hazards are under control, and elements of the 
     safety and health program are operating effectively.
       ``(2) The consultant, in an onsite visit by the consultant, 
     has determined that the program requirements have been 
     complied with and the health and safety program has been 
     operating effectively.
       ``(i) Non-Fixed Worksites.--With respect to employer 
     worksites that do not have a fixed location, a certificate of 
     compliance shall only apply to that worksite which satisfies 
     the criteria under this section and such certificate shall 
     not be portable to any other worksite. This section shall not 
     apply to service establishments that utilize essentially the 
     same work equipment at each non-fixed worksite.''.

      SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish 
     an advisory committee (pursuant to the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to carry out the duties 
     described in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) The advisory committee shall be composed of--
       ``(A) 3 members who are employees;
       ``(B) 3 members who are employers;
       ``(C) 2 members who are members of the general public; and
       ``(D) 1 member who is a State official from a State plan 
     State.

     Each member of the advisory committee shall have expertise in 
     workplace safety and health as demonstrated by the 
     educational background of the member.
       ``(3) The advisory committee shall advise and make 
     recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the 
     establishment and implementation of a consultation services 
     program under section 8A.''.

      SEC. 5. CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION 
                   FOR CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 
                   ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL.

       Section 8 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(i) Any Federal employee responsible for enforcing this 
     Act shall, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection or 2 years after the initial employment of 
     the employee involved, meet the eligibility requirements 
     prescribed under subsection (b)(2) of section 8A.
       ``(j) The Secretary shall ensure that any Federal employee 
     responsible for enforcing this Act who carries out 
     inspections or investigations under this section, receive 
     professional education and training at least every 5 years as 
     prescribed by the Secretary.''.

      SEC. 6. EXPANDED INSPECTION METHODS.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to empower 
     the Secretary of Labor to achieve increased employer 
     compliance by using, at the Secretary's discretion, more 
     efficient and effective means for conducting inspections.
       (b) General.--Section 8(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 657(f) is 
     amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary or an authorized representative of the 
     Secretary may, as a method of investigating an alleged 
     violation or danger under this subsection, attempt, if 
     feasible, to contact an employer by telephone, facsimile, or 
     other appropriate methods to determine whether--
       ``(A) the employer has taken corrective actions with 
     respect to the alleged violation or danger; or
       ``(B) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a hazard 
     exists.
       ``(4) The Secretary is not required to conduct an 
     inspection under this subsection if the Secretary determines 
     that a request for an inspection was made for reasons other 
     than the safety and health of the employees of an employer or 
     that the employees of an employer are not at risk.''.

      SEC. 7. WORKSITE-SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE METHODS.

       Section 9 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 658) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d) A citation issued under subsection (a) to an employer 
     who violates section 5, any standard, rule, or order 
     promulgated pursuant to section 6, or any other regulation 
     promulgated under this Act shall be vacated if such employer 
     demonstrates that the employees of such employer were 
     protected by alternative methods that are equally or more 
     protective of the safety and health of the employees than the 
     methods required by such standard, rule, order, or regulation 
     in the factual circumstances underlying the citation.
       ``(e) Subsection (d) shall not be construed to eliminate or 
     modify other defenses that may exist to any citation.''.

      SEC. 8. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 21(c) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 
     670(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c) The'' and inserting ``(c)(1) The'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) provide'' and inserting ``(A) 
     provide'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) consult'' and inserting ``(B) 
     consult''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall, through the authority granted 
     under section 7(c) and paragraph (1), enter into cooperative 
     agreements with States for the provision of consultation 
     services by such States to employers concerning the provision 
     of safe and healthful working conditions.
       ``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the Secretary 
     shall reimburse a State that enters into a cooperative 
     agreement under subparagraph (A) in an amount that equals 90 
     percent of the costs incurred by the State for the provision 
     of consultation services under such agreement.
       ``(ii) A State shall be reimbursed by the Secretary for 90 
     percent of the costs incurred by the State for the provision 
     of--
       ``(I) training approved by the Secretary for State 
     personnel operating under a cooperative agreement; and
       ``(II) specified out-of-State travel expenses incurred by 
     such personnel.
       ``(iii) A reimbursement paid to a State under this 
     subparagraph shall be limited to costs incurred by such State 
     for the provision of consultation services under this 
     paragraph and the costs described in clause (ii).''.
       (b) Pilot Program.--Section 21 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 670) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a pilot program in 3 States to provide expedited 
     consultation services, with respect to the provision of safe 
     and healthful working conditions, to employers that are small 
     businesses (as the term is defined by the Administrator of 
     the Small Business Administration). The Secretary shall carry 
     out the program for a period of not to exceed 2 years.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall provide consultation services 
     under paragraph (1) not later than 4 weeks after the date on 
     which the Secretary receives a request from an employer.
       ``(3) The Secretary may impose a nominal fee to an employer 
     requesting consultation services under paragraph (1). The fee 
     shall be in an amount determined by the Secretary. Employers 
     paying a fee shall receive priority consultation services by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(4) In lieu of issuing a citation under section 9 to an 
     employer for a violation found by the Secretary during a 
     consultation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall permit 
     the employer to carry out corrective measures to correct the 
     conditions causing the violation. The Secretary shall conduct 
     not more than 2 visits to the workplace of the employer to 
     determine if the employer has carried out the corrective 
     measures. The Secretary shall issue a citation as prescribed 
     under section 5 if, after such visits, the employer has 
     failed to carry out the corrective measures.
       ``(5) Not later than 90 days after the termination of the 
     program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall prepare and 
     submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     that contains an evaluation of the implementation of the 
     pilot program.''.

      SEC. 9. VOLUNTARY PROTECTION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish cooperative agreements with employers to encourage 
     the establishment of comprehensive safety and health 
     management systems that include--
       (1) requirements for systematic assessment of hazards;
       (2) comprehensive hazard prevention, mitigation, and 
     control programs;
       (3) active and meaningful management and employee 
     participation in the voluntary program described in 
     subsection (b); and
       (4) employee safety and health training.
       (b) Voluntary Protection Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish and 
     carry out a voluntary protection program (consistent with 
     subsection (a)) to encourage excellence and recognize the 
     achievement of excellence in both the technical and 
     managerial protection of employees from occupational hazards.
       (2) Program requirement.--The voluntary protection program 
     shall include the following:
       (A) Application.--Employers who volunteer under the program 
     shall be required to submit an application to the Secretary 
     of Labor demonstrating that the worksite with respect to 
     which the application is made meets such requirements as the 
     Secretary of Labor may require for participation in the 
     program.
       (B) Onsite evaluations.--There shall be onsite evaluations 
     by representatives of the Secretary of Labor to ensure a high 
     level of protection of employees. The onsite visits shall not 
     result in enforcement of citations under the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
       (C) Information.--Employers who are approved by the 
     Secretary of Labor for participation in the program shall 
     assure the Secretary of Labor that information about the 
     safety and health program of the employers shall be made 
     readily available to the Secretary of Labor to share with 
     employees.
       (D) Reevaluations.--Periodic reevaluations by the Secretary 
     of Labor of the employers shall be required for continued 
     participation in the program.
       (3) Exemptions.--A site with respect to which a program has 
     been approved shall,

[[Page S8700]]

     during participation in the program be exempt from 
     inspections or investigations and certain paperwork 
     requirements to be determined by the Secretary of Labor, 
     except that this paragraph shall not apply to inspections or 
     investigations arising from employee complaints, fatalities, 
     catastrophes, or significant toxic releases.
       (4) Increased small business participation.--The Secretary 
     of Labor shall establish and implement, by regulation, a 
     program to increase participation by small businesses (as the 
     term is defined by the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration) in the voluntary protection program through 
     outreach and assistance initiatives and developing program 
     requirements that address the needs of small businesses.

      SEC. 10. PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

       The Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 34. ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING.

       ``(a) Program Purpose.--In order to secure a safe 
     workplace, employers may establish and carry out an alcohol 
     and substance abuse testing program in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Federal Guidelines.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--An alcohol and substance abuse testing 
     program described in subsection (a) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) Substance abuse.--A substance abuse testing program 
     shall permit the use of an onsite or offsite testing.
       ``(B) Alcohol.--The alcohol testing component of the 
     program shall take the form of alcohol breath analysis and 
     shall conform to any guidelines developed by the Secretary of 
     Transportation for alcohol testing of mass transit employees 
     under the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1992.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     `alcohol and substance abuse testing program' means any 
     program under which test procedures are used to take an 
     analyze blood, breath, hair, urine, saliva, or other body 
     fluids or materials for the purpose of detecting the presence 
     or absence of alcohol or a drug or its metabolites. In the 
     case of urine testing, the confirmation tests must be 
     performed in accordance with the mandatory guidelines for 
     Federal workplace testing programs published by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services on April 11, 1988, 
     at section 11979 of title 53, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (including any amendments to such guidelines). Proper 
     laboratory protocols and procedures shall be used to 
     assure accuracy and fairness and laboratories must be 
     subject to the requirements of subpart B of the mandatory 
     guidelines, State certification, the Clinical Laboratory 
     Improvements Act of the College of American Pathologists.
       ``(c) Test Requirements.--This section shall not be 
     construed to prohibit an employer from requiring--
       ``(1) an applicant for employment to submit to and pass an 
     alcohol or substance abuse test before employment by the 
     employer; or
       ``(2) an employee, including managerial personnel, to 
     submit to and pass an alcohol or substance abuse test--
       ``(A) on a for-cause basis or where the employer has 
     reasonable suspicion to believe that such employee is using 
     or is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled 
     substance;
       ``(B) where such test is administered as part of a 
     scheduled medical examination;
       ``(C) in the case of an accident or incident, involving the 
     actual or potential loss of human life, bodily injury, or 
     property damage;
       ``(D) during the participation of an employee in an alcohol 
     or substance abuse treatment program, and for a reasonable 
     period of time (not to exceed 5 years) after the conclusion 
     of such program; or
       ``(E) on a random selection basis in work units, locations, 
     or facilities.
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to require an employer to establish an alcohol and 
     substance abuse testing program for applicants or employees 
     or make employment decisions based on such test results.
       ``(e) Preemption.--The provisions of this section shall not 
     preempt any provision of State law to the extent that such 
     State law is inconsistent with this section.
       ``(f) Investigations.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     conduct testing of employees (including managerial personnel) 
     of an employer for use of alcohol or controlled substances 
     during any investigations of a work-related fatality or 
     serious injury.''.

      SEC. 11. DISCRETIONARY COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE.

       Subsection (a) of section 9 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 658(a)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the Secretary or the authorized representative of 
     the Secretary from providing technical or compliance 
     assistance to an employer in correcting a violation 
     discovered during an inspection or investigation under this 
     Act without issuing a citation.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if, upon an 
     inspection or investigation, the Secretary or an authorized 
     representative of the Secretary believes that an employer has 
     violated a requirement of section 5, of any regulation, rule, 
     or order promulgated pursuant to section 6, or of any 
     regulations prescribed pursuant to this Act, the Secretary 
     may with reasonable promptness issue a citation to the 
     employer. Each citation shall be in writing and shall 
     describe with particularity the nature of a violation, 
     including a reference to the provision of the Act, 
     regulation, rule, or order alleged to have been violated. The 
     citation shall fix a reasonable time for the abatement of the 
     violation.
       ``(3) The Secretary or the authorized representative of the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) may issue a warning in lieu of a citation with 
     respect to a violation that has no significant relationship 
     to employee safety or health; and
       ``(B) may issue a warning in lieu of a citation in cases in 
     which an employer in good faith acts promptly to abate a 
     violation if the violation is not a willful or repeated 
     violation.''.

     SEC. 12. HAZARD COMMUNICATION.

       (a) Model Material Safety Data Sheets.--
       (1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     chemical manufactures and importers in preparing material 
     safety data sheets pursuant to the requirements of the Hazard 
     Communication standard published at section 1910.1200 of 
     title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, and to improve the 
     accuracy, consistency, and comprehensibility of such material 
     safety data sheets.
       (2) Model material safety data sheets for highly hazardous 
     chemicals.--The Secretary of Labor shall develop model 
     material safety data sheets for the list of highly hazardous 
     chemicals contained in Appendix A to the Process Safety 
     Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard published 
     at section 1910.119 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. 
     Such model material safety data sheets shall--
       (A) comply with the requirements of the Hazard 
     Communication standard published at section 1910.100 of such 
     title 29;
       (B) be presented in a consistent format that enhances the 
     reliability and comprehensibility of information about 
     chemical hazards in the workplace and protective measures; 
     and
       (C) be made available to the public, including through 
     posting on the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration's website, within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to--
       (A) modify or amend the Hazard Communication standard 
     published at section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the Process Safety Management of Highly 
     Hazardous Chemicals standard published at section 1910.119 of 
     such title 29, or any other provision of law; and
       (B) authorize the Secretary of Labor to include in the 
     model material safety data sheet developed under this 
     subsection any suggestion or recommendation as to permissible 
     or appropriate workplace exposure levels for these chemicals.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Labor such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Globally Harmonized System Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, there shall be established a 
     commission, to be known as the Global Harmonization 
     Commission (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Commission''), to consider the implementation of the United 
     Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and 
     Labeling of Chemicals to improve chemical hazard 
     communication and to make recommendations to Congress.
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 13 
     members of whom--
       (A) 1 shall be the Secretary of Labor;
       (B) 1 shall be the Secretary of Transportation;
       (C) 1 shall be the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (D) 1 shall be the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency;
       (E) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission; and
       (F) 8 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, of 
     whom--
       (i) 2 shall be representatives of manufacturers of 
     hazardous chemicals, including a representative of small 
     businesses;
       (ii) 2 shall be representatives of employers who are 
     extensive users of hazardous chemicals supplied by others, 
     including a representative of small businesses;
       (iii) 2 shall be representatives of labor organizations; 
     and
       (iv) 2 shall be occupational safety and health 
     professionals with expertise in chemical hazard 
     communications.
       (3) Chair and vice-chair.--The members of the Commission 
     shall select a chair and vice-chair from among its members.
       (4) Duties.--
       (A) Study and recommendations.--The Commission shall 
     conduct a thorough study of, and shall develop 
     recommendations on, the following issues relating to the 
     global harmonization of hazardous chemical communication:
       (i) Whether the United States should adopt any or all of 
     the elements of the United Nation's Globally Harmonized 
     System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (referred 
     to in this subsection and the ``Globally Harmonized 
     System'').
       (ii) How the Globally Harmonized System should be 
     implemented by the Federal agencies with relevant 
     jurisdiction, taking into consideration the role of the 
     States acting under delegated authority.

[[Page S8701]]

       (iii) How the Globally Harmonized System compares to 
     existing chemical hazard communication laws and regulations, 
     including the Hazard Communication standard published at 
     section 1910.1200 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (iv) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally 
     Harmonized System on the consistency, effectiveness, 
     comprehensiveness, timing, accuracy, and comprehensibility of 
     chemical hazard communication in the United States.
       (v) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally 
     Harmonized System on occupational safety and health in the 
     United States.
       (vi) A consideration of the impact of adopting the Globally 
     Harmonized System on tort, insurance, and workers 
     compensation laws in the United States.
       (vii) A consideration of the impact of adopting the 
     Globally Harmonized System on the ability to bring new 
     products to the market in the United States.
       (viii) A consideration of the cost and benefits of adopting 
     the Globally Harmonized System to businesses, including small 
     businesses, in the United States.
       (ix) Effective compliance assistance, training, and 
     outreach to help chemical manufacturers, importers, and 
     users, particularly small businesses, understand and comply 
     with the Globally Harmonized System.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report containing a 
     detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
     Commission, together with its recommendations for such 
     legislation as the Commission considers appropriate.
       (5) Powers.--
       (A) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this section. The Commission shall, to the 
     maximum extent possible, use existing data and research to 
     carry out this section.
       (B) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this section. Upon request by the Commission, the head of 
     such department or agency shall promptly furnish such 
     information to the Commission.
       (C) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (6) Personnel matters.--
       (A) Compensation; travel expenses.--Each member of the 
     Commission shall serve without compensation but shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (B) Staff and equipment.--The Department of the Labor shall 
     provide all financial, administrative, and staffing 
     requirements for the Commission including--
       (i) office space;
       (ii) furnishings; and
       (iii) equipment.
       (7) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     date that is 90 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits the report required under paragraph (3)(B).
       (8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Labor, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Hazard Communication Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Section 20(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 
     670(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation 
     with the Secretary, shall award grants to one or more 
     qualified applicants in order to carry out a demonstration 
     project to development, implement, or evaluate strategies or 
     programs to improve chemical hazard communication in the 
     workplace through the use of technology, which may include 
     electronic or Internet-based hazard communication systems.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the amendment made by paragraph (1).

     SEC. 13. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       Subsection (e) of section 17 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 666(e)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``fine of not more than $10,000'' and 
     inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
     United States Code'';
       (2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``18 months'';
       (3) by striking ``fine of not more than $20,000'' and 
     inserting ``fine in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, 
     United States Code''; and
       (4) by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``3 years''.
                                  ____

                                                   March 15, 2004.
     Re hearing on Hazard Communication (MSDS) March 25, 2004.

     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: Honorable Senators, staff and witnesses, 
     it is an honor for me to have a small part in this most 
     important hearing. I am very proud to have worked with you 
     great statesmen over the years to better safety and health 
     for our great American workers. Your work today in this 
     hearing could be the most important advancement of OSHA's 
     mission ever undertaken and more importantly provide 
     guidance, leadership and much needed closer oversight to a 
     slow moving, backward agency.
       No other standard or regulation in OSHA's responsibility 
     covers or protects workers as much as the Hazard 
     Communication standard does and especially the MSDS section 
     of this standard. MSDS effects every worker everyday on every 
     job. Other standards cover many issues for the workers but 
     the MSDS paperwork is used millions of times each workday, 
     and the accuracy of these sheets or of paramount importance 
     for the complete protection of our most important resource 
     our great American workers.
       These men and women work and toil everyday to bring a 
     better way of life for us all, they deserve to go home safe 
     and sound everyday, to have the opportunity to live a long 
     and happy life, free of injury and sickness. No one should 
     die, be hurt or made sick at work.
       I can only pray that you will be so moved by God today, to 
     make the much needed changes to this problem and find new 
     ways to make sure all MSDS sheets are readable, 
     understandable and correct. Education and information is the 
     key, please help make the changes that will protect all of 
     our workers all the time.
       Please forgive me for being absent today but I look forward 
     to working with you and this great committee in the future. I 
     know in my heart you will do the right thing today and am 
     confident new changes and new protection will come from this 
     hearing. God Bless and thank you for your courageous stand 
     for all American workers.
           Yours,
                                                        Ron Hayes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Hagel, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2720. A bill to provide assistance for the crisis in Sudan, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive 
Peace in Sudan Act. This bill is intended to address both the immediate 
crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and to support a comprehensive 
peace in all of that country. It would authorize $300 million to 
respond to the unfolding catastrophe in Darfur for the next fiscal year 
and to provide additional funds to begin reconstruction in Sudan upon 
the conclusion of a viable, comprehensive peace.
  Events in Darfur constitute a moral and humanitarian tragedy of 
incredible proportions. The people of the Darfur region of Sudan are 
experiencing the full force of an ethnic cleansing campaign by the 
Government of Sudan. Numerous credible reports by U.S. and U.N. 
officials indicate that the Sudanese Government has armed and employed 
a militia of Arab Sudanese, called Janjaweed, to join it in a 
coordinated effort to kill and rape Darfur inhabitants and 
systematically destroy homes, villages, and all means of subsistence. 
This campaign has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced 1.2 
million African Sudanese of which 200,000 are now refugees in Chad. A 
second phase of this campaign may prove to have the most devastating 
effect through the onset of famine and disease--unless, the 
international community responds quickly.
  The United Nations is meeting significant obstacles to providing 
life-saving food, medicine, and shelter to the displaced Sudanese. The 
Sudanese Government has established bureaucratic and administrative 
obstacles to the provision of assistance. In addition, the 
international community has not provided adequate resources given the 
magnitude of the human suffering in Darfur. The United States has been 
pressing for a more vigorous response to this humanitarian crisis. This 
bill would support diplomatic efforts already underway and ensure a 
significant flow of funding.
  I am hopeful that Senators will join me in passing this bill quickly.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2720

       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 ``Comprehensive Peace in Sudan 
     Act''.

[[Page S8702]]

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) JEM.--The term ``JEM'' means the Justice and Equality 
     Movement.
       (3) SPLM.--The term ``SPLM'' means the Sudan People's 
     Liberation Movement.
       (4) SLA.--The term ``SLA'' means the Sudanese Liberation 
     Army.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan, as 
     envisioned in the Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), and 
     in the Machakos Protocol of 2002, is in grave jeopardy.
       (2) Since 1989, the Government of Sudan has repeatedly 
     engaged in and sponsored orchestrated campaigns of attacking 
     and dislocating targeted civilian populations, disrupting 
     their ability to sustain themselves, and subsequently 
     restricting assistance to those displaced in a coordinated 
     policy of ethnic cleansing and Arabization that is most 
     recently evident in the Darfur region of Sudan.
       (3) In response to 2 decades of civil conflict in Sudan, 
     the United States has helped to establish an internationally 
     supported peace process to promote a negotiated settlement to 
     the war that has resulted in a framework peace agreement, the 
     Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan 
     signed June 5, 2004.
       (4) At the same time that the Government of Sudan was 
     negotiating for a final countrywide peace, enumerated in the 
     Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan, 
     it refused to engage in any discussion with regard to its 
     ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in the region of Darfur.
       (5) According to United States and United Nations 
     officials, the Government of Sudan has engaged in an 
     orchestrated campaign, with the assistance of its Arab 
     Sudanese proxy militia, the Janjaweed, to cleanse a 
     significant part of the ethnically African population from 
     North Darfur, West Darfur, and South Darfur, Sudan.
       (6) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 
     identified ``massive human rights violations in Darfur 
     perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed, 
     which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against 
     humanity''.
       (7) Evidence collected by international observers in the 
     Darfur region between January 2003 and July 2004 indicate a 
     coordinated effort to target African Sudanese civilians in a 
     scorched earth policy, from both air and ground, that has 
     destroyed African Sudanese villages, killing and driving away 
     its people, while Arab Sudanese villages have been left 
     unscathed.
       (8) As a result of this coordinated campaign that may well 
     constitute genocide, reports indicate tens of thousands of 
     African Sudanese civilians killed, the systematic rape of 
     hundreds of women and girls, the destruction of hundreds of 
     Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa villages and other ethnically 
     African populations, including the poisoning of their wells 
     and the plunder of crops and cattle upon which they sustain 
     themselves.
       (9) According to the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees, 1,200,000 people have been displaced in the Darfur 
     region of Sudan of whom nearly 200,000 have been forced to 
     flee to Chad as refugees.
       (10) Even as refugees were fleeing Sudan, the Government of 
     Sudan conducted aerial attack missions and deadly raids 
     across the international border between Sudan and Chad in an 
     illegal effort to pursue Sudanese civilians seeking refuge in 
     Chad.
       (11) In addition to the thousands of violent deaths 
     directly caused by ongoing Sudanese military and government 
     sponsored Janjaweed attacks in the Darfur region, the 
     Government of Sudan has restricted humanitarian and human 
     rights workers' access to the Darfur area, primarily through 
     bureaucratic and administrative obstruction and delays in an 
     attempt to inflict the most devastating harm on those 
     displaced from their villages and homes without any means of 
     sustenance or shelter.
       (12) The Government of Sudan's continued support for the 
     Janjaweed and their obstruction of the delivery of food, 
     shelter, and medical care to the Darfur region--
       (A) is estimated to be causing 500 deaths each day; and
       (B) is projected to escalate to 1,200 deaths each day by 
     August 2004, and 2,400 deaths each day by December 2004, so 
     that even a best-case scenario will likely result in the 
     death of more than 320,000 people between April 1, 2004 and 
     December 31, 2004.
       (13) The Government of Chad in N'Djamena served an 
     important role in facilitating the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-
     fire dated April 8, 2004 for the Darfur region between the 
     Government of Sudan and the 2 opposition rebel groups in 
     Darfur (the JEM and the SLA) although both sides have 
     violated it repeatedly.
       (14) The Government and people of Chad have allowed the 
     entry of 200,000 refugees from the Darfur region of Sudan and 
     have generally facilitated the delivery of international 
     humanitarian assistance, although logistical obstacles remain 
     a challenge in a crisis that is taxing the people of eastern 
     Chad and the refugees.
       (15) The cooperation and mediation of the SPLM is critical 
     to bringing about a political settlement between the 
     Government of Sudan, the SLA, and the JEM.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONFLICT IN DARFUR, 
                   SUDAN.

       (a) Sudan Peace Act.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) remains relevant and 
     should be extended to include the Darfur region of Sudan.
       (b) Actions To Address the Conflict.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that--
       (1) a legitimate countrywide peace in Sudan will only be 
     possible if the principles and purpose of the Machakos 
     Protocol of 2002 and the Nairobi Declaration on the Final 
     Phase of Peace in the Sudan signed June 5, 2004, negotiated 
     with the SPLM, should apply to all of Sudan and to all of the 
     people of Sudan, including the Darfur region;
       (2) the parties to the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-fire dated 
     April 8, 2004 (the Government of Sudan, the SLA, and the JEM) 
     must meet their obligations under that agreement to allow 
     safe and immediate access of all humanitarian assistance 
     throughout the Darfur region and must expedite the conclusion 
     of a political agreement to end the conflict in Darfur;
       (3) the United States should continue to provide 
     humanitarian assistance to the areas of Sudan to which the 
     United States has access and, at the same time, develop a 
     plan similar to that described in section 10 of the Sudan 
     Peace Act to provide assistance to the areas of Sudan to 
     which United States access has been obstructed or denied;
       (4) the international community, including African, Arab, 
     and Muslim nations, should immediately provide logistical, 
     financial, in-kind, and personnel resources necessary to save 
     the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the 
     Darfur crisis;
       (5) the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes 
     should travel to Chad and the Darfur region immediately to 
     investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, to 
     develop a more accurate portrayal of the situation on the 
     ground and best inform the report required in section 11(b) 
     of the Sudan Peace Act;
       (6) the United States and the international community 
     should use all necessary means to assist in the immediate 
     deployment of the full mandated African Union contingent of 
     100 monitors and a security force of 300, and work to 
     increase the authorized level to that which properly 
     addresses the gravity and scope of the problem in a region 
     the size of France;
       (7) the President should immediately name a new Special 
     Envoy to Sudan to further efforts begun by John Danforth and 
     to allow the United States to continue to lead the peace 
     effort toward a comprehensive and sustainable peace in Sudan;
       (8) the President should use all means to facilitate a 
     comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan, including by 
     directing the United States Permanent Representative to the 
     United Nations to pursue a resolution of the United Nations 
     Security Council that--
       (A) condemns the actions of the Government of Sudan in 
     engaging in an orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing in 
     Darfur;
       (B) calls on the Government of Sudan to cease support of 
     ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent civilians, 
     disarm the Janjaweed militias, prevent such militias from 
     harassing and killing civilians, and ensure immediate access 
     for all humanitarian assistance to all areas of Darfur;
       (C) calls on all parties to the conflict in the Darfur 
     region to permit unimpeded delivery of humanitarian 
     assistance directly to Darfur and to allow such assistance to 
     cross directly from countries that border Sudan, and abide by 
     the Darfur Humanitarian Cease-fire dated April 8, 2004;
       (D) calls on the Government of Sudan to provide all 
     assistance possible, including release of its strategic food 
     reserves to respond to the Darfur crisis;
       (E) calls on the international community, particularly 
     those countries with strong economic ties to Sudan, to 
     expedite the provision of humanitarian assistance to Darfur;
       (F) endorses the African Union Observer and Protection 
     Force now deploying to the Darfur region of Sudan;
       (G) establishes an international commission of inquiry to 
     examine the actions and accountability of those responsible 
     for war crimes and crimes against humanity that have 
     precipitated and perpetuated the humanitarian crisis in the 
     Darfur region; and
       (H) confirms the right of all displaced Sudanese to return 
     to their land under safe and secure conditions;
       (9) the United Nations should immediately deploy a United 
     Nations force to Sudan to ensure an appropriate international 
     humanitarian response to the catastrophe in the Darfur 
     region;
       (10) sanctions should be imposed on the assets and 
     activities of those Sudanese government officials and other 
     individuals that are involved in carrying out the policy of 
     ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region; and
       (11) the Government of the United States should not 
     normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting 
     of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to and 
     implements a comprehensive peace agreement for all areas of 
     Sudan, including Darfur.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE SUDAN PEACE ACT.

       (a) Assistance for the Crisis in Darfur and for 
     Comprehensive Peace in Sudan.--
       (1) In general.--The Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page S8703]]

     ``SEC. 12. ASSISTANCE FOR THE CRISIS IN DARFUR AND FOR 
                   COMPREHENSIVE PEACE IN SUDAN.

       ``(a) Assistance To Support a Comprehensive Final Peace 
     Agreement and To Respond to the Humanitarian Crisis in 
     Darfur.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the President is authorized to provide assistance 
     for Sudan to support the implementation of a comprehensive 
     peace agreement that applies to all regions of Sudan, 
     including the Darfur region, and to address the humanitarian 
     and human rights crisis in the Darfur region and its impact 
     on eastern Chad.
       ``(2) Requirement for certification.--Notwithstanding 
     section 501(a) of the Assistance for International Malaria 
     Control Act (Public Law 106-570; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), 
     assistance authorized under this section may be provided to 
     the Government of Sudan only if the President submits the 
     certification described in paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Certification for the government of sudan.--The 
     certification referred to in paragraph (2) is a certification 
     submitted by the President to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the Government of Sudan has taken 
     demonstrable steps to--
       ``(A) ensure that the armed forces of Sudan and any 
     associated militias are not committing atrocities or 
     obstructing human rights monitors or the provision of 
     humanitarian assistance or human rights monitors;
       ``(B) demobilize and disarm militias supported or created 
     by the Government of Sudan;
       ``(C) allow full and unfettered humanitarian assistance to 
     all regions of Sudan, including Darfur;
       ``(D) allow an international commission of inquiry to 
     conduct its investigation of atrocities in the Darfur region 
     and Khartoum, preserve evidence of atrocities and prosecute 
     those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity; 
     and
       ``(E) cooperate fully with the African Union and all other 
     observer and monitoring missions mandated to operate in 
     Sudan.
       ``(4) Suspension of assistance.--If, on a date after the 
     President submits the certification described in paragraph 
     (3), the President determines that the Government of Sudan 
     has ceased taking the actions described in such paragraph, 
     the President shall immediately suspend the provision of any 
     assistance to such Government until the date on which the 
     President certifies that the Government of Sudan has resumed 
     taking such actions.
       ``(5) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the President to provide the assistance described in 
     paragraph (1), $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, in addition 
     to any other funds otherwise available for such purpose. Of 
     such amount, $200,000,000 may be made available for 
     humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and 
     eastern Chad in response to the ongoing crisis, 
     notwithstanding any provision of law other than the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(B) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under subparagraph (A) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Government of Sudan Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `Government of Sudan' shall have the same meaning as 
     such term had immediately prior to the conclusion of Darfur 
     Humanitarian Cease-fire dated April 8, 2004.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(2) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 12, the''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 8 of the Sudan Peace 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``Sudan.'' and inserting ``Sudan, including the 
     conflict in the Darfur region.''.

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the planned 
     United States response to a comprehensive peace agreement for 
     Sudan.
       (b) Content.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the planned United States response to 
     a modified peace process between the Government of Sudan and 
     the SPLM that would account for the implementation of a peace 
     in all regions of Sudan, in particular Darfur;
       (2) a contingency plan for extraordinary humanitarian 
     assistance should the Government of Sudan continue to 
     obstruct or delay the international humanitarian response to 
     the crisis in Darfur, Sudan.
       (c) Form of Report.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     may be submitted in classified form.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY):
  S. 2721. A bill to amend the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress Authorization Act to require State academic assessments of 
student achievement in United States history, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American 
History Achievement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This is part of my effort 
to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful 
place in our school curriculum so our children can grow up learning 
what it means to be an American.
  This is especially appropriate on a day when the September 11 report 
is being released. We tend to think of ourselves as Americans and 
wonder who we are and what we value and what we have to defend at times 
when we are threatened or even frightened. This should be a day when we 
should feel threatened. We are reminded of the challenges we face.
  I am especially glad that Senator Kennedy has joined me in this. 
Senator Kennedy is especially appropriate to be a leading sponsor of 
this legislation. He and his family are, in fact, part of American 
history in a unique way. He, as well as Senator Reid, Senator Byrd, and 
a number of Senators on this side of the aisle have been working hard 
in a variety of ways to support efforts that are appropriate in the 
Federal Government to celebrate our own history.
  This modest bill provides for improved testing of American history so 
we can determine where history is being taught well and where it is 
being taught poorly so that improvements can be made. We also know when 
testing is focused on a specific subject, States and school districts 
are more likely to step up to the challenge and improve performance.
  For example, a number of professors and teachers of history have 
worried that because of the emphasis in No Child Left Behind on reading 
and mathematics, that history would be left behind. There are two 
answers to that. One is, if our citizens cannot read, they are not 
going to know much history, except from watching the History Channel, 
which is a pretty good way, and another answer is there is a specific 
provision in the No Child Left Behind Act, which we call the Byrd 
grants, after Senator Byrd, providing $100 million a year to school 
districts across the country for the teaching of traditional American 
history. Those programs are in full flourish in Tennessee, North 
Carolina, and many parts of this country. They are excellent programs.
  When you combine those with the We the People Project of the National 
Endowment of the Humanities--I attended one of their workshops in 
Nashville on Friday. Forty teachers across the country met at Andrew 
Jackson's home, the Hermitage.
  We are doing more to put this in the rightful place. The bill Senator 
Kennedy and I offer today is one more effort of putting the teaching of 
American history and civics back where it belongs.
  We could certainly use improvement in the teaching of American 
history. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, 
commonly referred to as the Nation's report card, fewer students have a 
basic understanding of American history than have a basic understanding 
of any other subject which we test, including math, science, and 
reading.
  When we look at our national report card, American history is our 
children's worst subject. Yet, according to recent poll results, the 
exact opposite outcome is desired by the American people.
  Hart-Teeter recently polled 1,300 adults for the educational testing 
service and asked what the principal goal of education should be. The 
top response: Producing literate, educated students who can participate 
in our democracy. Twenty-six percent of respondents believed that 
should be our principal goal. ``Teach basics: math, reading'' was 
selected by only 15 percent as the principal goal of education.
  The late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers used 
to say our common schools were created for the purpose of teaching 
immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic, the three R's, and 
what it means to be an American, so they could go home and teach their 
parents.
  They have forgotten that latter role, more and more. Our children 
don't know American history because they are not being taught. For 
example, the State of Florida just passed a bill permitting high school 
students to graduate without taking a course in U.S.

[[Page S8704]]

history. When our children are not being taught our history, they are 
not learning what is most important.
  According to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, a 1987 study of high 
school students found more who knew who Harriet Tubman was than knew 
Washington commanded the American Army in the Revolution, or that 
Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I am all for 
teaching about Harriet Tubman and teaching about the history of the 
Underground Railroad. My ancestor, the Rev. John Rankin, like Harriet 
Tubman, was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I would like for 
more children to know about them both. But surely children ought to 
learn first about the most critical leaders and events in the 
Revolution and in the Civil War.

  Let me give a couple of examples of how bad things have gotten. The 
fourth grade NAEP test asked students to identify the following 
passage:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are 
     created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, 
     and the pursuit of happiness . . .

  Students were given four choices for the source of that passage: the 
Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, 
the Articles of Confederation. Only 46 percent of students answered 
correctly, that it came from the Declaration of Independence.
  The eighth grade test asked, Imagine you could use a time machine to 
visit the past. You have landed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. 
Describe an important event that is happening.
  Nearly half the students, 46 percent, were not able to answer the 
question correctly, that the Declaration of Independence was being 
signed.
  This legislation aims to help in the effort to do something about 
that. The American History Achievement Act gives the national 
assessment governing board the authority to administer a 10-State pilot 
study for the NAEP test in U.S. history in 2006. The board already has 
the authority for reading, math, science, and writing. The pilot 
program should collect enough data to attain a State-by-State 
comparison of 8th and 12th grade student knowledge and understanding of 
history. That will allow us to know which States are doing a better job 
of teaching American history and allow other States to model their 
programs on those that are working well. This legislation is part of a 
broader effort in the Senate.
  Earlier this year, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Kennedy, and I and 
others joined with Senators to pass the American History and Civics 
Education Act, by unanimous vote, to create summer academies for 
teachers and students of American history. Senator Schumer and I have 
introduced a bill to codify the oath of allegiance which immigrants 
take when sworn in as new citizens of the United States. The oath 
should be protected in law just as the national anthem and Pledge of 
Allegiance are.
  Today we are putting a new focus on the teaching of American history. 
Our children are growing up ignorant of our Nation's history. Yet a 
recent poll tells us that Americans believe the principal goal of 
education is ``producing literate, educated citizens who can 
participate in our democracy.'' It is time to 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.
  Our diversity is a prized value in the United States. But more prized 
is that we have been able to turn all that diversity into one nation. 
Our motto is: ``e pluribus unum,'' not the other way around. It is: 
``one from many.''
  One thing we have in common is our history, and we should teach it. 
This bill takes us one step closer to achieving that noble goal. I urge 
my colleagues to support the legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2721

       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 ``American History Achievement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     assessment in United States history had the largest 
     percentage of students scoring below basic of any subject 
     that was tested, including mathematics, science, and reading; 
     and
       (2) in the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     assessment in United States history--
       (A) 33 percent of students in grade 4 scored below basic, 
     36 percent of students in grade 8 scored below basic, and 57 
     percent of students in grade 12 scored below basic;
       (B) 92 percent of students in grade 12 could not explain 
     the most important cause of the Great Depression after 
     reading a paragraph delineating 4 significant reasons;
       (C) 91 percent of students in grade 8 could not ``list two 
     issues that were important in causing the Civil War'' and 
     ``list the Northern and Southern positions on each of these 
     issues'';
       (D) 95 percent of students in grade 4 could not list ``two 
     reasons why the people we call `pioneers' moved west across 
     the United States'';
       (E) 73 percent of students in grade 4 could not identify 
     the Constitution from among 4 choices as ``the document that 
     contains the basic rules used to run the United States 
     government'';
       (F) 75 percent of students in grade 4 could not identify 
     ``the three parts of the federal (national) government of the 
     United States'' out of 4 possible choices;
       (G) 94 percent of students in grade 8 could not ``give two 
     reasons why it can be useful for a country to have a 
     constitution''; and
       (H) 91 percent of students in grade 12 were unable to 
     ``explain two ways that democratic society benefits from 
     citizens actively participating in the political process''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL 
                   PROGRESS AUTHORIZATION ACT.

       Section 303(b) of the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(D), by inserting ``(with a priority in 
     conducting assessments in history not less frequently than 
     once every 4 years)'' after ``subject matter''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) in clause (iii)--
       (i) by inserting ``except as provided in clause (v),'' 
     before ``may conduct''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) shall conduct trial State academic assessments of 
     student achievement in United States history in grades 8 and 
     12 in not less than 10 States representing geographically 
     diverse regions of the United States.''.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD.

       Section 302(e)(1) of the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9621(e)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K);
       (3) in the flush matter at the end, by striking 
     ``subparagraph (J)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (K)''; and
       (4) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
       ``(J) in consultation with the Commissioner for Education 
     Statistics, identify and select the States that will 
     participate in the trial State academic assessments described 
     in section 303(b)(3)(A)(v); and''.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 303(b)(3) of the National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622(b)(3)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out subparagraph 
     (A)(v) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 113(a)(1) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 
     2002 (20 U.S.C. 9513(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 
     302(e)(1)(J)'' and inserting ``section 302(e)(1)(K)''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator 
Alexander in introducing the American History Achievement Act. This 
bill is part of a continuing effort to renew the national commitment to 
teaching in the Nation's public schools. It lays the foundation for 
more effective ways of teaching children about the Nation's past. The 
bill contains no new requirements for schools, but it does offer a more 
frequent and effective analysis of how America's schoolchildren are 
learning American history.
  Our economy and our future security rely on good schools that help 
students develop specific skills, such as reading and math. But the 
strength of our democracy and our standing in the world also depend on 
ensuring that children have a basic understanding of the Nation's past.
  Helping to instill appreciation of America's past should be an 
important mission of public schools. Thanks to the hard work of large 
numbers of history teachers in classrooms throughout

[[Page S8705]]

America, we're making progress. Results from the most recent assessment 
under the NAEP show that fourth and eighth graders are improving their 
knowledge of U.S. history. Research conducted in history classrooms 
shows that children are using primary sources and documents more often 
to explore history, and are being assigned historical and biographical 
readings by their teachers more frequently.
  But much more remains to be done to advance the understanding of 
American history, and to see that the teaching of history is not left 
behind in classrooms.
  A recent study by Dr. Sheldon Stern--the Chief Historian Emeritus at 
my brother's Presidential Library--suggests that state standards for 
teaching American history need improvement. His research reveals that 
22 States have American history standards that are either weak or lack 
clear chronology, appropriate political and historical context, or 
sufficient information about real events and people. As many as 9 
States still have no standards at all for American history.
  Good standards matter. They're the foundation for teaching and 
learning in every school. With the right resources, time, and 
attention, it's possible to develop creative and effective history 
standards in every State. Massachusetts began to work on this effort in 
2000, through a joint review of history standards that involved 
teachers, administrators, curriculum coordinators, and university 
professors. After monthly meetings and 3 years of development and 
revision, the State released a new framework for teaching history in 
2003. Today, our standards in American history and World history 
receive the highest marks.
  School budget problems at the local level are obviously a serious 
threat to these goals. Last week, 7,500 school districts received 
notice of an impending $237 million overall cut to their budgets, to 
take effect this fall. These cuts further exacerbate the current 
funding crisis under the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, 
courses in history or the humanities are often the first to go.
  Other accounts report that schools are narrowing their curriculums 
away from the social sciences, arts, and humanities, in favor of a more 
concentrated approach to the teaching of reading and math in order to 
meet the strict standards of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Meeting high standards in reading and math is important, but it 
should not come at the expense of scaling back teaching in other core 
subjects such as history. Integrating reading and math with other 
subjects often gives children a better way to master literacy and 
number skills, even while learning in a history or geography lesson. 
That type of innovation deserves special attention in our schools. 
Making it happen requires added investments in teacher preparation and 
teacher mentoring, so that teachers are well prepared to use 
interdisciplinary methods in their lesson plans.
  Our bill today takes several important steps to strengthen the 
teaching of American history, and raise the standing of history in 
school curriculums. Through changes to the National Assessment for 
Educational Progress, schools will be better able to achieve success on 
this important issue.
  First, we propose a more frequent national assessment of children in 
American history under the NAEP. For years, NAEP has served as the gold 
standard for measuring the progress of students and reporting on that 
progress. Students last participated in the U.S. history NAEP in 2001, 
and that assessment generated encouraging results. But the preceding 
assessment--with which we can compare data--was administered in 1994--
too long before to be of real assistance.
  It makes sense to measure the knowledge and skills of children more 
frequently. This bill would place priority on administering the 
national U.S. history NAEP assessment, to generate a more timely 
picture of student progress. We should have an idea of children's 
knowledge and skills in American history more often than every 6 or 7 
years, in order to address gaps in learning.
  The bill also proposes a leap forward to strengthen state standards 
in American history, through a new State-level assessment of U.S. 
history under NAEP. The assessment would be conducted on an 
experimental and pilot basis in 10 States, in grades 8 and 12. The 
National Assessment Governing Board would ensure that States with model 
history standards, as well as those that are still under development, 
participate in this assessment.
  Moving NAEP to the state level does not carry any high stakes for 
schools. But it will provide an additional benchmark for States to 
develop and improve American history standards. It's our hope that 
States will also be encouraged to undertake improvements in their 
history curricula and ensure that American history is a beneficiary and 
not a victim of school reform.
  America's past encompasses great leaders and great ideas that 
contributed to our heritage and to the principles of freedom, equality, 
justice, and opportunity for all. Today's students will be better 
citizens in the future if they learn more about that history. The 
American History Achievement Act is an important effort toward that 
goal, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2723. A bill to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as 
wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in 
Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and 
the 20th anniversary of the Oregon Wilderness bill from 1984.
  But perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the 
single most important exploratory committee ever to be launched by this 
Federal government: the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
  I can see no better way to mark this auspicious year than by enacting 
a new Oregon Wilderness bill, the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood 
Wilderness Act of 2004,'' which includes, in tribute to the great 
river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of five free-
flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River 
System.
  In the last few years, some of Oregon's most important treasures have 
been Congressionally protected: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 
acres of Wilderness; the Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull 
Run Management Unit and will help provide drinking water for over 
700,000 Oregonians; Soda Mountain has been designated a National 
Monument; and the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded and 
is the subject of legislation under consideration by this august body, 
as I speak, to make it Oregon's second National Park.
  The wilderness bill I introduce today continues to encapsulate, as 
did the draft wilderness proposal that I floated on this subject in 
March of this year, the wish of the people in my State to protect but 
also actively relate to her treasures. Thousands of Oregonians 
responded to my draft proposal--far more than I ever could have 
expected. As a result, this is their bill more than it is my bill.
  Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge must be protected because the 
people of Oregon love these areas, they are proud of these areas, and 
they are demanding that we come together to protect Oregon's treasures 
for this and future generations. The people of Oregon helped write this 
bill, and I believe the people of Oregon on a bipartisan basis will be 
the ones who help get it passed and signed by the President.
  This bill I introduce today protects the lower elevation forests 
surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark 
saw them. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of Oregon. They 
provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened 
steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical 
habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic 
bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled 
recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.
  But the bill I introduce today differs in many ways from the draft 
proposal because it responds to the many comments I heard in the 
ensuing 4 months. I received thousands of comments on the proposed 
legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public 
meetings I held in Oregon, on

[[Page S8706]]

April 11 and 14 of this year in Southwest Portland and in Hood River. 
Each meeting lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was 
given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second 
Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge in June hosted by 
Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 
community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon 
congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. 
And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from 
Oregonians.
  What I overwhelmingly heard was the need to protect and build on 
Oregon's Wilderness system is as important today as it was in 1804, 
1964 or 1984--and is arguably more so--but it must be accompanied by 
tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. Mount Hood is 
clearly going to be at risk otherwise.
  The Mount Hood National Forest is the eighth most visited National 
Forest in the United States. It is one of fourteen Forest Service-
designated ``urban'' national forests in the entire Nation. In the 20 
years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in 
the Mount Hood area--wild and scenic rivers were last set aside 16 
years ago, the population in local counties has increased 
significantly--20 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River 
County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County.
  The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized 
activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on 
wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, 
wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor 
recreation sometimes it seems--I heard this repeatedly--we are in 
jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''
  A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the 
number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the 
public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that 
they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of 
the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more 
opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places.
  As the Forest Service is well-aware, Mt. Hood's non-mechanized use 
will increase dramatically over time, but the Forest Service's own 
documents acknowledge that we are not today even close to ready for 
that eventuality.
  The Forest Service's current Land and Resource Management Plan for 
Mount Hood, page III-36, which notes the following:

     the present capability to supply recreational opportunities 
     such as hiking on trails in primitive and semi-primitive non-
     motorized areas is predicted to fall short of satisfying 
     demand.

  According to that Forest Service management plan, the Mount Hood 
National Forest already provides resources for nearly twice the current 
demand for developed recreation like skiing, power boating and 
sightseeing by car, but meets less than two-thirds of the demand for 
backcountry recreation. The future is even grimmer. The Management Plan 
goes on to project that by 2040, the Mount Hood National Forest will 
only meet 16 percent of the demand for wilderness recreation, while 
still meeting over 100 percent of the demand for mechanized recreation.
  This Forest Service-projected shortfall means an ever-increasing 
number of Oregonians will be forced onto inadequate, existing 
wilderness, drastically impacting the mountain, its visitors, and its 
well-deserved reputation as one of this country's greatest natural 
wonders.
  Of the more than 600 people who attended the two meetings I held in 
April in Oregon, 128 spoke--110 in favor of more wilderness and 18 
spoke in opposition.
  Additionally, I received more than 1,100 written comments about the 
proposal and over 1,000 of those expressed support for additional 
wilderness.
  I know my colleague wishes to speak. I want to wrap up by 
highlighting the key areas I had Oregonians focus on in these meetings 
and how we responded.
  First, we heard that Oregonians felt there was not enough wilderness. 
Second, we heard concern from some who enjoy mountain biking that their 
recreational opportunity would be unfairly curtailed. Third, we heard 
from people in the towns, mountains, and gorges about fire protection 
for their communities. Fourth, we heard about forest health and 
timber--again, a very important set of concerns for our region. 
Finally, we were told about developed recreation with many being 
worried about maintaining a role for skiing and other recreational 
pleasures on Mount Hood.
  In each of these five areas we took steps to address these concerns.
  First, the legislation I introduce today to respond to the call of 
the people of my State for more wilderness would increase the amount we 
had originally proposed by designating approximately 177,000 new acres 
of wilderness.
  These include very important areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood 
wilderness areas--spectacular ridges that frame the Columbia River 
Gorge that all will marvel at and essential other areas of beautiful 
fall colors and the best deer and elk hunting existing in the entire 
forest.
  Second, and especially important, I thought the mountain bikers 
raised valid concerns. So we took two steps. I proposed and I am very 
interested in talking to my friend from Tennessee who has such an 
interest in the environment and recreation, generally, about an idea we 
proposed in this legislation to create a Mount Hood Pedaler's 
Demonstration Experiment. We call it Hood-PDX, which would in effect be 
the Nation's first mountain bike area that would join such a treasure 
as Mount Hood. In this demonstration project, Hood-PDX would be managed 
as wilderness though it wouldn't be wilderness. It would be a pilot 
project encompassing over 13,000 acres and over 50 miles of trail. The 
mountain bikers would have 10 years to establish that bikers can 
coexist peacefully with wild natural areas.
  We also made boundary adjustments to keep them on over 120 miles of 
trail which they were concerned about losing.
  Third, we took steps to protect our communities--particularly Cascade 
Locks, Government Camp, and Rowena--and so this bill creates fire 
safety zones for communities in this area.
  This legislation also reiterates the Forest Service's mandate for 
thinning for forest health on the Mount Hood National Resources, and 
especially the resources to get the job done in the area.
  Finally, we add a proposal for developed recreation that would 
reestablish a southside winter recreation area that encompasses those 
areas on the southside of Mount Hood that have exceptional potential 
for commercial recreation.
  The protection of these important areas will depend on the hard work 
and dedication of all Oregonians. I want to particularly thank my 
friend and colleague Senator Smith who meets with me every Thursday 
over lunch. We talk repeatedly about this issue and he has been very 
gracious. We are going to work together to address the various issues 
raised by our constituents and raised by our colleagues in the other 
body, particularly Congressmen Walden, Blumenauer, and Hooley.
  This is a special day for Oregon. This is the formal beginning of an 
important debate about how to protect special Oregon treasure.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would like to salute the Senator 
from Oregon. I am glad I was here to hear his discussion, especially 
about mountain bikers' great conservation majority in this country. We 
ought to do a better job of creating a bigger conservation majority in 
the Senate. We sometimes split up on the issues, it would appear. But I 
don't think that is necessary.
  For example, I was in Idaho a couple of weeks ago and took a mountain 
bike ride on the Hiawatha Trail which is between Idaho and Montana 
where the Milwaukee Railroad used to run from Chicago to Takoma. At one 
point, they were going to dig up the tracks. But this is a place where 
they have long tunnels and the speculator high trestles where people 
used to go in the 1950s and 1960s. But now, because of the work by 
Members of this body, some on this side of the aisle, some on that 
side, that is a rails-to-trails project. On that Sunday morning, there 
were maybe 500 or 600 mountain bikers who had that experience.
  It made me think of something I failed to do when I was Governor of 
our

[[Page S8707]]

home State. I still deeply regret it. I thought toward the end of my 
term about but couldn't quite get done the notion of whenever we build 
a new highway we should provide for a pedestrian or bike trail along 
the side of it--it is too expensive to do a lot of times on existing 
roads--that every time you build a new road or widen a road, acquire a 
little bit more right of way. If we had done that 20 years ago in 
Tennessee, we would all be grateful for that today.
  Senator Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, and I are 
working on legislation called the American Outdoors legislation, to try 
to assure a steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund for urban parks, for the Game and Fish Commission, 
and other conservation purposes.
  Senator Wyden, Senator Landrieu, and I are all in the same committee. 
I look forward to working with them on this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 2725. A bill to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 to eliminate the coverage gap, to 
eliminate HMO subsidies, to repeal health savings accounts, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 2003 the Medicare Modernization Act 
became law. A part of that legislation continued a very modest--and 
fatally flawed--prescription drug benefit for seniors.
   One of those flaws--and it was something I pointed out during the 
Senate debate and offered an amendment to fix--is known as the coverage 
gap.
   Here's how it works: Seniors will have a monthly premium and a $250 
deductible and then they pay 25 percent of their prescription drug 
costs. So far so good. But then once they have drug costs of over 
$2,250, the benefit stops; it shuts down. And seniors have to pay the 
next $2,850 of drug costs on their own--100 percent of their costs--
before their coverage starts again.
   Does this sound like prescription drug coverage to you? I know that 
my insurance has no such thing, and I know of no other insurance that 
has such a policy.
   So today, Senator Mikulski and I are introducing a bill that closes 
this coverage gap and will better fulfill our promise to seniors to 
provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.
   Under our bill--the Closing the Coverage Gap Act of 2004--seniors 
will pay the premium and the $250 deductible and then pay for 25 
percent of their coverage until they reach their catastrophic limit of 
$5,100. After that, Medicare will pay 95 percent.
   Let me give you an example of how this works. A constituent from San 
Marcos, California wrote me about her prescription drug costs. They 
exceed $10,000 a year. In 2006, she will be helped by the new law, but 
will still end up paying nearly $4,000 for her prescriptions. Under my, 
this woman will be responsible for only $1,500 of her costs. It will 
ease her burden and give her greater peace of mind.
   This bill is simple; it is fair, and it will help millions of 
seniors across the country.
   I thank Senator Mikulski for joining me in this effort, and I urge 
my colleague to cosponsor this bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Boxer, to introduce the Closing the Coverage Gap of 2004 Act. 
This bill would fix one of the major flaws of the recently passed 
Medicare Modernization Act--the $2,850 gap in prescription drug 
coverage.
  The Medicare bill is a hollow promise for a prescription drug benefit 
for seniors which talks big but delivers small. It promises 
prescription drugs for seniors, yet it will cause over 2 million 
seniors to lose their drug coverage, coerce seniors into HMOs, and do 
nothing to stop the soaring cost of prescription drugs.
  During the debate on the bill, Senator Boxer and I worked on an 
amendment to fix one of the worst flaws in the drug benefit--the 
coverage gap. When I reviewed the bill, I was appalled to discover that 
the promised benefit actually provides no drug benefit to seniors for 
drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100 per year.
  The new Medicare benefit affects seniors' drug costs in two ways. 
First of all it, it prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices 
for seniors. I am fighting for legislation that would allow Medicare to 
negotiate drug prices--lowering drug costs to both seniors and 
taxpayers.
  Next, the benefits are skimpy and spartan. The new Medicare benefit 
leaves too many seniors in a coverage gap. Some people are calling this 
a ``donut,'' as if it's a ``Krispy Kream,'' but there is nothing sweet 
about it. Seniors will have to pay out of pocket all of their drugs 
between $2,250 and $5,100 while still paying monthly premiums. This 
isn't a donut; it's a hidden deductible. The real deductible in this 
plan isn't $250. Once a senior's drug costs put them into the coverage 
gap, their deductible could be as high as $3,100. Seniors would have to 
pay all of the drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100, a total of $2,850, 
out of their own pockets on top of the $250 deductible.
  I think this is outrageous. No other insurance plan simply stops 
coverage for a while.
  Our bill would fix this fatal flaw in the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit by providing real prescription drug coverage. Under our bill, 
there is no coverage gap. Seniors would pay their premium and the $250 
deductible. Once they have paid their deductible, they would pay 25 
percent their drug costs until they reach the catastrophic limit of 
$5,100. And just like the current benefit, once a senior reaches 
$5,100, Medicare would pay 95 percent of all drug costs.
  I thank Senator Boxer for all her work on this important bill and 
look forward to working together to close the coverage gap.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2726. A bill to amend title 49 of the United States Code to 
provide flight attendant security training, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that 
is important to the security of our air travel: ensuring that our 
Nation's flight attendants receive anti-terrorist security training.
  On September 11th, as we all know, the terrorists hijacked four 
commercial jets--all of which were heading to California. And while I 
can say that air travel today is more secure than it was before the 
terrorist attacks, I still believe that we have more to do--which was 
proven with the information recently that a flight between LAX and 
Dulles is a ``flight of interest.'' There are still threats out there.
  It is unacceptable to have loopholes in our aviation security--nearly 
3 years since the attack.
  In addition to air marshals and armed pilots, flight attendants are 
part of the last line of defense. The most obvious case is Richard 
Reid--the shoe bomber who was stopped with the help of a flight 
attendant. That was a courageous--and life saving--act. All flight 
attendants should be trained and ready to respond to these types of 
incidents.
  As part of the Department of Homeland Security legislation in 2002, 
we passed strong flight attendant security training, which I helped 
write with former Senator Bob Smith. Unfortunately, last year, much of 
that was repealed--at the insistence of a single member of the House--
in the FAA Reauthorization bill.
  Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that would reinstate 
the flight attendant security training included in the Homeland 
Security bill. The bill would restore the law requiring uniform anti-
terrorist training for all flight attendants.
  We took a great step forward in 2002. We should not have gone 
backwards to create a loophole in our aviation security.
  We cannot stop fighting terrorism. Well-trained flight attendants are 
key. We do not have enough air marshals on planes, and the 
Administration is slow-walking the guns in the cockpit program. We need 
to rely on our flight attendants now more than ever. We must ensure 
they get the training they need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Feingold):

[[Page S8708]]

  S. 2727. A bill to amend part A of title VI of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 regarding international and foreign language studies; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Durbin 
and Feingold to introduce The International and Foreign Language 
Studies Act of 2004.
  In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased 
throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range 
of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the 
globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business 
increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in 
the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.
  Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign 
language skills across 70 federal agencies. These agencies have stated 
over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls 
have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, 
law enforcement, intelligence, counter-terrorism and diplomatic 
efforts.
  Despite our growing needs, in the 2000-01 school year, the number of 
undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred was only one percent 
of all degrees. In 2003, only 41 percent of undergraduates reported 
taking foreign language courses while only 18 percent reported having 
studied abroad. And yet, 79 percent of Americans believe that students 
should study abroad sometime during college.
  At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a 
time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time 
when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful 
and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our 
disposal a multilingual, multi cultural, internationally experienced 
workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies 
Act attempts to provide us with this.
  The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will 
increase undergraduate study abroad opportunities as they relate to 
programs designed to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen 
cultural knowledge. The Dodd-Cochran bill will reinstate undergraduate 
eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The 
Dodd-Cochran bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage 
in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data on international 
education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand 
exactly what our needs in this area are. And, most importantly, the 
Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to 
increasing the foreign language proficiency and international 
experience of our electorate by increasing the amount appropriated to 
international education within the Higher Education Act to $120 million 
each year.
  The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major 
activities as they relate to financial assistance for students 
attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of 
higher education, services to help students complete high school and 
enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve 
the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill 
that mission.
  Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure 
the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly 
international economy. Foreign language skills and international study 
are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges 
properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks 
on September 11, 2001.
  I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it 
serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate 
as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security 
and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish 
to enter the international arena.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 2728. A bill to create a penalty for automobile insurance fraud; 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Stabenow and 
Lautenberg to introduce the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees (GRAD) 
Act.
  The percentage of individuals pursuing graduate education has 
increased dramatically in recent decades as individuals seek the 
education and skills needed to participate in a technologically complex 
and global economy. In the last 25 years alone, graduate enrollment in 
the United States has increased by 39 percent. In the fall of 2000, 
there were 1.85 million graduate students enrolled in American schools.
  The economic benefits of graduate education are significant. The 
median earnings of workers who possess a graduate or professional 
degree are more than 3\1/2\ times those of high school dropouts.
  Despite the impact of graduate education on individuals' economic 
well being, and on the economic strength of our national economy as a 
whole, graduate education is, for many, financially out of reach. In 
2001-02 the average graduate school tuition at public institutions was 
$4,491 and $15,233 at private institutions. In a 2002 borrower's 
survey, the average debt reported by graduate students was $45,900. 
This is an astounding figure.
  To respond to the need for a highly educated workforce, I have put 
together a series of proposals that will make graduate education more 
accessible and affordable to qualified applicants regardless of income 
level, the Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act (GRAD). The purpose 
of the GRAD Act is to encourage students to pursue graduate education 
and to assist them in affording it.
  Specifically, the GRAD Act increases the authorization level of the 
Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) program to $50 
million and the Jacob Javits Fellowship Program to $35 million. The 
GAANN fellowship program helps to support graduate study in areas of 
national need such as chemistry, computer and information science, 
engineering, mathematics and physics. The Jacob Javits Fellowship 
Program helps support graduate study in the arts, humanities and social 
sciences.
  To encourage greater participation by minority students in graduate 
studies, the Act creates the Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program to offer 
assistance to underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral 
degree. The Patsy T. Mink Fellowship Program will help address the 
important problem of underrepresentation of students from certain 
minority groups in graduate education.
  To help students afford the costs of graduation education, the GRAD 
Act expands the tax-exempt status of scholarships to treat reasonable 
room and board allowances as part of permitted higher education 
expenses. The Act revises the cost of attendance calculations for 
financial aid for students with dependents to reflect the true cost of 
living expenses for themselves and their children. The Act increases 
the amount of earnings students can set aside without having to apply 
those earnings to the cost of attendance. The GRAD Act also increases 
the unsubsidized Stafford loan limit for graduate and professional 
students from $10,000 to $12,500 so they are less likely to have to 
turn to more expensive private loans.
  The Getting Results for Advanced Degrees Act will help students meet 
the financial challenges faced in pursuing graduate studies. The Act 
strengthens programs that support graduate students in areas of vital 
importance to our Nation and makes assistance available to 
underrepresented minority students pursuing a doctoral degree. By 
helping students to pursue and afford graduate education, the GRAD Act 
will help individuals, families and the nation as a whole, realize the 
important benefits of graduate education.
  I hope more of my colleagues will join me in support of graduate 
education by signing on this bill. By working together, I believe that 
the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able 
to pursue graduate education and assist our Nation in meeting the 
challenges faced in a global economy.

[[Page S8709]]

                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2730. A bill to amend title V, XVIII, and XIX of the Social 
Security Act to promote cessation of tobacco use under the medicare 
program, the medicaid program, and the maternal and child health 
services block grant program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
expands treatment to millions of Americans suffering from a deadly 
addiction: tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation 
Promotion Act of 2004 will help make smoking cessation therapy 
accessible to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and 
Child Health (MCH) Program.
  We have long known that cigarette smoking is the largest preventable 
cause of death, accounting for 20 percent of all deaths in this 
country. It is well documented that smoking causes virtually all cases 
of lung cancer and contributes to coronary heart disease, peripheral 
vascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and other deadly 
health ailments.
  The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. A recent 
report issued by the American Legacy Foundation cites the effects of 
second-hand smoke on children of smokers. In addition to the cost of 
health complications of asthma and chronic ear infections in children, 
the report indicates that 43,000 children are orphaned every year 
because of tobacco-related deaths.
  Still, despite enormous health risks, 45 million adults in the United 
States smoke cigarettes. Of those, low income and racial minorities 
make up a disproportionate share. While 22.5 percent of the general 
adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is 
about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent 
of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.
  We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as 
well. According to the Center for Tobacco Cessation, about 14 percent 
of all Medicaid expenditures on average are related to smoking. That's 
not surprising, given that smokers incur an average of $1,041 more in 
annual medical costs than non-smokers.
  Today, however, we have identified clinically proven, effective 
strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use 
and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped 
millions kick the habit. The Surgeon General's 2000 Report, Reducing 
Tobacco Use, concluded that ``pharmacologic treatment of nicotine 
addiction, combined with behavioral support, will enable 10 to 25 
percent of users to remain abstinent at one year of post-treatment.
  Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use 
treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health 
improvements and cost savings. Creating a new nonsmoker reduces 
anticipated medical costs associated with acute myocardial infarction 
and stroke by $47 in the first year and by $853 during the next seven 
years in 1995 dollars. Within four to five years after tobacco 
cessation, quitters use fewer health care services than continued 
smokers.
  New Jersey and Oregon have provided Medicaid coverage for counseling 
and drugs as recommended by the Public Health Service, and both states 
now have among the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.
  The health benefits tobacco quitters enjoy are also undisputed. They 
live longer, and after 15 years, the risk of premature death for ex-
smokers returns to nearly the level of persons who have never smoked. 
Male smokers who quit between just the ages of 35 and 39 add an average 
of five years to their lives; women can add three years. Even older 
Americans over age 65 can extend their life expectancy by giving up 
cigarettes.
  Former smokers are also healthier. They are less likely to die of 
chronic lung diseases, and after ten smoke-free years, their risk of 
lung cancer drops to as much as one-half that of those who continue to 
smoke. After five to fifteen years the risk of stroke and heart disease 
for ex-smokers returns to the level of those who have never smoked. 
They have fewer days of illness, reduced rates of bronchitis and 
pneumonia, and fewer health complaints.
  Public Health Service Guidelines released a few years ago conclude 
that tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and 
cost-effective relative to other medical and disease prevention 
interventions. The guidelines urge health care insurers and purchasers 
to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a 
covered benefit.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government, a major purchaser of health 
care through Medicare and Medicaid, does not currently adhere to its 
own published guidelines. It is high time that government-sponsored 
health programs catch up with science. That is why I am introducing 
legislation to improve smoking cessation benefits in government-
sponsored health programs.
  The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 
2004 improves access to and coverage of smoking cessation treatment 
therapies in three meaningful ways.
  First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and 
coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. The bill 
requires all prescription drug sponsors to provide coverage for tobacco 
cessation drugs under Medicare's prescription drug coverage. It also 
defines over-the-counter agents as covered drugs, as long as those 
drugs are prescribed by a doctor or other authorized medical 
professional. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 
years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 
billion to treat tobacco-related diseases over the next twenty years. 
In a study of adults 65 years of age or older who received advice to 
quit, behavioral counseling and pharmacologic therapy, 24.8 percent 
reported having stopped smoking six months following the intervention. 
The total economic benefits of quitting after age 65 are notable. Due 
to a reduction in the risk of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and 
emphysema, studies have found that heavy smokers over age 65 who quit 
can avoid up to $4,592 in lifelong illness-related costs.
  Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and 
non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The 
bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows states 
to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under 
Medicaid. Despite the fact that the states have received payments from 
their successful federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less 
than half the states provide coverage for smoking cessation in their 
Medicaid program.
  Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively 
to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health 
improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost 
twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 
seven years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point 
among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and 
save $572 million in direct medical costs.
  Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program 
recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the 
inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered 
part of quality maternal and child health services
  I hope my colleagues will join me not only in cosponsoring this 
legislation but also in working with me to see that its provisions are 
adopted. As the Surgeon General has said, ``Although our knowledge 
about tobacco control remains imperfect, we know more than enough to 
act now.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Durbin, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2731. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic 
Animal Protection Act of 2004. This Act would prohibit the barbaric and 
unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by 
my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feinstein, 
Feingold, Kohl, Durbin and Schumer.

[[Page S8710]]

  Canned hunts take place on private land under circumstances that 
virtually assure hunters of a kill. Although they advertise under a 
variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned 
hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an 
animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the 
hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' 
Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed 
deer or elk, while others deal in exotic, non-native, animals that are 
either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals 
may include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, 
and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic 
species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States 
estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at 
least 25 different States.
  Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the 
skill, for normal sports hunting, but who have the money to pay the 
hefty fees charged for trophy kills. They do not require skill in 
tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts guarantee a 
``hunter'' a kill of the animal of their choice. A wild boar ``kill'' 
may sell for up to $1000, a water buffalo for $3500, and a red deer for 
up to $6000.
  The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, 
leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by 
humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee 
from hunters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts 
use other practices to assure their customers a kill. They employ 
guides who are intimately familiar with their preserve or ranch, 
including locations where animals like to eat, bed down, and hide, and 
may use food plots and feeding stations to attract animals and make 
them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands--all practices 
which are prohibited by many State game commissions.
  Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. The 
Fund for Animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls 
a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane 
Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than 
shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order 
to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that federal legislation is 
needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned 
hunts.''
  Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The 
Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy 
Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and 
lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North 
American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an 
improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in 
canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' 
and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper 
advantage'' over the animals.
  In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious 
health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. 
Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches are not 
uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. 
A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is 
chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of mad cow disease. In 
some States, experts believe that canned hunts, with their fences and 
high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this 
disease.
  In recognition of these threats, several states have banned canned 
hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most states lack laws to outlaw this 
practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, 
Federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.
  My bill is essentially the same as legislation S. 1655, that was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee late in the 107th Congress and 
sponsored by Senator Biden. It is similar to legislation that I 
introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, 
Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target 
only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic, non-
native, mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does 
not do: (1) The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, 
such as white-tail deer; (2) the bill does not regulate the hunting of 
birds, native or exotic, such as doves, pheasants, and mallard ducks; 
(3) the bill protects only exotic, non-native, mammals that have been 
confined for the greater part of the animal's life or a year, whichever 
is shorter; (4) the bill does not cover exotic mammals living as they 
would in the wild on large preserves where they have an opportunity to 
avoid hunters, 1000 acres or larger; and (5) the bill regulates the 
conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic 
mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt 
facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and 
trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy 
hunts.
  The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target 
of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. 
In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned 
hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not 
belong in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.
  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. 2731

       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 ``Captive Exotic Animal 
     Protection Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The ethic of hunting involves the consideration of fair 
     chase, which allows the animal the opportunity to avoid the 
     hunter.
       (2) At more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations 
     across the country, trophy hunters pay a fee to shoot captive 
     exotic animals, from African lions to giraffes and blackbuck 
     antelope, in fenced-in enclosures.
       (3) Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high 
     densities, confined exotic animals attract disease more 
     readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam 
     freely.
       (4) The transportation of captive exotic animals to 
     commercial canned hunt operations can facilitate the spread 
     of disease across great distances.
       (5) The regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic 
     animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional 
     domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and 
     game agencies.
       (6) This Act is limited in its purpose and will not limit 
     the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or 
     exotic birds.
       (7) This Act does not aim to criticize those hunters who 
     pursue animals that are not enclosed within a fence.
       (8) This Act does not attempt to prohibit slaughterhouse 
     activities, nor does it aim to prohibit the routine 
     euthanasia of domesticated farm animals.

     SEC. 3. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 49. Exotic animals

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever, in or substantially affecting 
     interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, 
     transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the 
     purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal 
     for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a 
     species not historically indigenous to the United States, 
     that has been held in captivity, whether or not the defendant 
     knows the length of the captivity, for the shorter of--
       ``(A) the majority of the animal's life; or
       ``(B) a period of 1 year; and
       ``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period 
     during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
       ``(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally 
     occurring food;
       ``(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than 
     1,000 acres; and
       ``(C) having the opportunity to avoid hunters.
       ``(c) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person authorized by the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, may--
       ``(A) without a warrant, arrest any person that violates 
     this section (including regulations promulgated under this 
     section) in the presence or view of the arresting person;

[[Page S8711]]

       ``(B) execute any warrant or other process issued by an 
     officer or court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this 
     section; and
       ``(C) with a search warrant, search for and seize any 
     animal taken or possessed in violation of this section.
       ``(2) Forfeiture.--Any animal seized with or without a 
     search warrant shall be held by the Secretary or by a United 
     States marshal, and upon conviction, shall be forfeited to 
     the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the 
     Interior in accordance with law.
       ``(3) Assistance.--The Director of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service may use by agreement, with or without 
     reimbursement, the personnel and services of any other 
     Federal or State agency for the purpose of enforcing this 
     section.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

  ``Sec. 49. Exotic animals''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2732. A bill to provide grants for use by rural local educational 
agencies in purchasing new school buses; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are still small towns in America where 
the citizens wait for a doctor to make rounds, a mail truck to drop off 
the mail. These families have elected to stay in their communities 
despite all the obstacles, and they deserve an opportunity to enjoy a 
good quality of life.
  But sometimes, the challenges of living in rural America can be 
overwhelming--especially as they relate to identifying and securing 
Federal education funding.
  There are hundreds of Federal education grants that currently provide 
an array of support for local education agencies: literacy programs, 
English learner's programs, after school programs--just to name a few.
  Most of the time these Federal dollars and grants end up going to 
larger urban school districts, not to the little rural ones. One reason 
is because rural school districts simply don't have the resources 
needed to write the grant applications or oversee the program.
  Or perhaps rural educators don't even realize they are qualified to 
apply for a particular grant, or they don't have the infrastructure 
needed to support the initiative.
  Many years ago when I attended school in Searchlight, we had one 
teacher who taught grades 1 through 8. There are still schools in 
Nevada where this is the case.
  I walked to school, and when it was time for high school I hitched a 
ride into a town 40 miles away and had to stay with a family during the 
week. That was the transportation system in rural America back then: 
walk or hitchhike.
  Now we have school buses. But many rural areas are operating 
outdated, unsafe school buses that are driven until they finally can't 
pass inspection any longer. The skyrocketing gas prices of the past 
seven months have only made the problem worse.
  These local education agencies are strapped. They can't afford to buy 
newer, safer buses. I was astonished to learn that the school buses in 
some rural Nevada counties travel a combined 1 million miles in a 
school year.
  The superintendents in my State asked me for help. They identified 
their need for school buses, and I want to help.
  I am introducing legislation today that will help rural school 
districts transport children to school in a way that is safe, 
affordable and environmentally sound.
  The ``Bus Utility and Safety in School Transportation Opportunity and 
Purchasing Act of 2004''--or BUS STOP--authorizes the Federal 
Government to provide $50,000,000 in grants on a competitive basis to 
rural local educational agencies seeking Federal share assistance to 
purchase school buses. The Federal share will be 75 percent.
  Each applicant must provide documentation that at least 50 percent of 
their school buses are in need of repair or replacement; the total 
mileage each bus traveled in the most recent school year; documentation 
that the applicant is operating with a depleted fleet; and assurance 
that the school system will pay the local share for the purchase of new 
school buses.
  In an effort to promote clean air, the Environmental Protection 
Agency has already established a cost-share grant program that will 
help local school systems replace old school buses, install pollution 
control devices, and eliminate unnecessary idling.
  The EPA is seeking to improve air quality by encouraging large school 
districts to voluntarily cut emissions. The EPA awarded $5 million in 
grants to 20 school districts last month and $5 million to 17 school 
districts last year.
  Unfortunately this is an example of a program that my rural counties 
didn't apply for because they don't have the infrastructure in place to 
support clean buses. However, working in the spirit of clean air and 
healthy children, rural school districts can buy newer buses that are 
better for our air, and safer for our children.
  My office has already received phone calls from the education 
departments from other states. They want to know if the rumor is true: 
is there finally going to be legislation to help us purchase school 
buses?
  The answer is yes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                S. 2732

       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 ``Bus Utility and Safety in 
     School Transportation Opportunity and Purchasing Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) school transportation issues have concerned parents, 
     local educational agencies, lawmakers, the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, and the Environmental Protection Agency for 
     years;
       (2) millions of children face potential future health 
     problems because of exposure to noxious fumes emitted from 
     older school buses;
       (3) the Environmental Protection Agency established the 
     Clean School Bus USA program to replace 129,000 of the oldest 
     diesel buses that cannot be retrofitted in an effort to help 
     children and the environment by improving air quality;
       (4) unfortunately, many rural local educational agencies 
     are unable to participate in that program because of the 
     specialized fuels needed to sustain a clean bus fleet;
       (5) many rural local educational agencies are operating 
     outdated, unsafe school buses that are failing inspection 
     because of automotive flaws, resulting in a depletion of 
     school bus fleets of the local educational agencies; and
       (6) many rural local educational agencies are unable to 
     afford to buy newer, safer buses.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish 
     within the Environmental Protection Agency a Federal cost-
     sharing program to assist rural local educational agencies 
     with older, unsafe school bus fleets in purchasing newer, 
     safer school buses.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Rural local educational agency.--The term ``rural local 
     educational agency'' means a local educational agency, as 
     defined in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801), with respect to 
     which--
       (A) each county in which a school served by the local 
     educational agency is located has a total population density 
     of fewer than 10 persons per square mile;
       (B) all schools served by the local educational agency are 
     designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Education; or
       (C) all schools served by the local educational agency have 
     been designated, by official action taken by the legislature 
     of the State in which the local educational agency is 
     located, as rural schools for purposes relating to the 
     provision of educational services to students in the State.
       (3) School bus.--The term ``school bus'' means a vehicle 
     the primary purpose of which is to transport students to and 
     from school or school activities.

     SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--From amounts made available under 
     subsection (e) for a fiscal year, the Administrator shall 
     provide grants, on a competitive basis, to rural local 
     educational agencies to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     purchasing new school buses.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each rural local educational agency that 
     seeks to receive a grant under this Act shall submit to the 
     Administrator for approval an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and accompanied by such information (in addition 
     to information required under paragraph (2)) as the 
     Administrator may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include--
       (A) documentation that, of the total number of school buses 
     operated by the rural local educational agency, not less than 
     50 percent of the school buses are in need of repair or 
     replacement;
       (B) documentation of the number of miles that each school 
     bus operated by the rural

[[Page S8712]]

     local educational agency traveled in the most recent 9-month 
     academic year;
       (C) documentation that the rural local educational agency 
     is operating with a reduced fleet of school buses;
       (D) a resolution from the rural local educational agency 
     that--
       (i) authorizes the application of the rural local 
     educational agency for a grant under this Act; and
       (ii) describes the dedication of the rural local 
     educational agency to school bus replacement programs and 
     school transportation needs (including the number of new 
     school buses needed by the rural local educational agency); 
     and
       (E) an assurance that the rural local educational agency 
     will pay the non-Federal share of the cost of the purchase of 
     new school buses under this Act from non-Federal sources.
       (c) Priority.--
       (1) In general.--In providing grants under this Act, the 
     Administrator shall give priority to rural local educational 
     agencies that, as determined by the Administrator--
       (A) are transporting students in a bus manufactured before 
     1977;
       (B) have a grossly depleted fleet of school buses; or
       (C) serve a school that is required, under section 
     1116(b)(1)(E) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1)(E)), to provide transportation 
     to students to enable the students to transfer to another 
     public school served by the rural local educational agency.
       (d) Payments; Federal Share.--
       (1) Payments.--The Administrator shall pay to each rural 
     local educational agency having an application approved under 
     this section the Federal share described in paragraph (2) of 
     the cost of purchasing such number of new school buses as is 
     specified in the approved application.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     purchasing a new school bus under this Act shall be 75 
     percent.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
       (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2734. A bill to implement the recommendations of the Inspector 
General of the Department of the Interior regarding Indian Tribal 
detention facilities; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce The Indian 
Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act of 2004 which proposes sweeping 
reforms to operation of tribal detention systems in American Indian 
communities.
  The bill will launch significant efforts to address the third world 
conditions plaguing this system, problems which were the subject of a 
series of articles in the USA Today and other national newspapers.
  On June 23, 2004, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on 
the operation and condition of these detention facilities and the 
testimony we received was very disturbing.
  At the hearing, the Inspector General of the Department of Interior 
reported that after reports from a variety of sources, including the 
U.S. Department of Justice, his office began an assessment of the 
physical condition of these facilities and how they are operated.
  The Inspector General also testified about numerous examples of 
inmate suicides, escapes, neglect, overcrowding and other inhumane 
conditions, staffing shortages, inmate access to weapons and poor 
prisoner supervision, all occurring in facilities operated by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs or by Indian tribes, pursuant to contract.
  The Inspector General reported that the lack of prison monitoring 
sadly resulted in the death of a 16 year old Indian girl who was placed 
in a cell for underage drinking. She later died of alcohol poisoning 
and her family is now considering legal action charging negligence by 
the jail's managers.
  The tragic part of the story is that the death might have been 
prevented. But what is even more frightening is that deaths and 
attempted suicides are not isolated events at these facilities.
  This is but one example brought to the Committee's attention and in 
my mind these events and conditions are deplorable, inexcusable and 
have to end.
  The bill I am introducing today establishes clear lines of authority 
for detention services by directing the Secretary of Interior to create 
a separate branch of detention services. This separate branch will give 
the proper attention to issues surrounding detention facilities.
  In addition, the bill will require the creation of reporting 
protocols on serious incidents, particularly escapes, to proper law 
enforcement authorities. Because in some cases reporting may not be 
sufficient, the bill will also establish criteria for conducting 
preliminary inquiries into serious incidents to determine if there is a 
need for a full investigation.
  Finally, the bill requires that the Department of Interior conduct a 
full report on the conditions and needs of the detention facilities in 
Indian communities, including staffing shortages and training, and a 
plan for addressing the needs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  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. 2734

       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 ``Indian Tribal Detention 
     Facility Reform Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2801) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Branch of criminal investigations.--The term `Branch 
     of Criminal Investigations' means the entity the Secretary is 
     required to establish within the Division of Law Enforcement 
     Services under section 3(d)(1).
       ``(2) Branch of detention services.--The term `Branch of 
     Detention Services' means the entity that the Secretary is 
     required to establish within the Division of Law Enforcement 
     Services under section 3(f)(1).
       ``(3) Bureau.--The term `Bureau' means the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs of the Department of the Interior.
       ``(4) Complementary facility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `complementary facility' means 
     a facility for the provision of additional or necessary 
     services to detainees as a result of their being in custody.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `complementary facility' 
     includes a detoxification center, protective custody cell, 
     shelter care facility, community treatment center, halfway 
     house, or any similar facility.
       ``(5) Detainee.--The term `detainee' means an individual 
     who is held in a detention facility for any period of time.
       ``(6) Detention facility.--The term `detention facility' 
     means a facility for holding of individuals for correctional, 
     intergovernmental, or other custodial purposes that is--
       ``(A) operated by the Bureau; or
       ``(B) operated by an Indian tribe under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.).
       ``(7) Division of law enforcement services.--The term 
     `Division of Law Enforcement Services' means the entity 
     established within the Bureau under section 3(b).
       ``(8) Employee of the bureau.--The term `employee of the 
     Bureau' includes an officer of the Bureau.
       ``(9) Enforcement of a law.--The term `enforcement of a 
     law' includes the prevention, detection, and investigation of 
     an offense and the detention or confinement of an offender.
       ``(10) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       ``(11) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 201 of Public Law 90-284 
     (commonly known as the `Civil Rights Act of 1968') (25 U.S.C. 
     1301).
       ``(12) Offense.--The term `offense' means an offense 
     against the United States, including a violation of a Federal 
     regulation relating to part or all of Indian country.
       ``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       ``(14) Serious incident.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `serious incident' means an 
     occurrence, event, activity, or other incident that results 
     in--
       ``(i) a risk of harm or actual harm to an individual or the 
     community; or
       ``(ii) serious damage to property.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `serious incident' includes all 
     incidents relating to detainee deaths or injuries, suicides, 
     attempted suicides, escapes, and officer safety issues.''.

     SEC. 3. BRANCH OF DETENTION SERVICES.

       Section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2802) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(4), by striking ``Area'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Regional''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Branch of Detention Services.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within 
     the Division of Law Enforcement Services a separate Branch of 
     Detention Services.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Branch of Detention Services--
       ``(A) except as prohibited by other Federal law, shall be 
     responsible for the detention, confinement, and corrections 
     of offenders within Indian country;

[[Page S8713]]

       ``(B) shall not be primarily responsible for routine law 
     enforcement, criminal investigations, or police operations in 
     Indian country; and
       ``(C) under an interagency agreement between the Secretary 
     and Attorney General and subject to such guidelines as the 
     appropriate agencies or officials of the Department of 
     Justice may adopt, may be responsible for temporarily 
     detaining individuals for the purpose of Federal prosecution, 
     immigration, or transportation, or any other detention 
     purpose.
       ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing a procedure for active cooperation 
     and consultation of the detention services employees of the 
     Branch of Detention Services assigned to an Indian 
     reservation with the governmental, law enforcement, and 
     detention officials of the Indian tribes located on the 
     Indian reservation.
       ``(4) Personnel.--
       ``(A) Supervision and direction.--Personnel of the Branch 
     of Detention Services--
       ``(i) shall be subject only to the supervision and 
     direction of the law enforcement personnel or personnel of 
     the Branch of Detention Services or of the Division, as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate; and
       ``(ii) shall not be subject to the supervision of the 
     Bureau Agency Superintendent or Bureau Regional Director.
       ``(B) Effect of paragraph.--Nothing in this paragraph--
       ``(i) precludes cooperation, coordination, or consultation, 
     as appropriate, with non-law enforcement Bureau personnel at 
     the agency or regional level; or
       ``(ii) restricts the right of an Indian tribe to contract a 
     detention program under the authority of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.) or to maintain its own detention operations.
       ``(C) Reestablishment of authority.--
       ``(i) Request.--After the date that is 1 year after the 
     date of establishment of the Branch of Detention Services, 
     any Indian tribe may, by resolution of the governing body of 
     the Indian tribe, request the Secretary to reestablish 
     authority over detention of members of the Indian tribe 
     directly through the Agency Superintendent or Bureau Regional 
     Office Director rather than through the Branch of Detention 
     Services.
       ``(ii) Approval.--In the absence of good cause to the 
     contrary, the Secretary, on receipt of a resolution under 
     clause (i), shall reestablish the authority as requested by 
     the Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 4. FUNDING.

       Section 9 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2808) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``Any expenses'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 9. FUNDING.

       ``(a) In General.--Any expenses''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Availability.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     Act shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 5. DETENTION REFORM AND REVIEW.

       The Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act is amended by 
     inserting after section 10 (25 U.S.C. 2809) the following:

     ``SEC. 10A. DETENTION REFORM.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) there are 74 detention facilities in Indian country;
       ``(2) serious deficiencies in Indian country detention have 
     arisen, including--
       ``(A) poor facility conditions;
       ``(B) lack of staff training;
       ``(C) understaffing; and
       ``(D) lack of detention facility administration and other 
     operational standards, or failure to comply with any such 
     standards;
       ``(3) those deficiencies create a dangerous and potentially 
     life-threatening situation for detainees and detention 
     personnel;
       ``(4) the April 2004 interim report of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of the Interior found that deaths, 
     escapes, and assaults on correctional officers have occurred 
     at several detention facilities in Indian country as a result 
     of those deficiencies;
       ``(5) the Division of Law Enforcement Services has 
     responsibility for both law enforcement and detention 
     services, but no clear lines of authority for detention 
     services;
       ``(6) existing Federal law does not provide clear lines of 
     authority or standards for detention services in Indian 
     country; and
       ``(7) clear authority and standards are needed to assist 
     detention and law enforcement officials in--
       ``(A) meeting the principal goals of Indian country law 
     enforcement and detention;
       ``(B) protecting life and property; and
       ``(C) reducing crime and recidivism rates.
       ``(b) Reporting Protocols for Serious Incidents.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform 
     Act of 2004, the Bureau shall develop and implement protocols 
     to ensure that all serious incidents occurring at a detention 
     facility are reported promptly through an established chain 
     of command.
       ``(2) Reporting of escapes to law enforcement 
     authorities.--The protocols shall ensure that each incident 
     involving an escape of a detainee from a detention facility 
     is reported immediately to the appropriate Federal, State, 
     tribal, and local law enforcement authorities.
       ``(3) Preliminary inquiries into serious incidents.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Division of Law Enforcement Services 
     shall conduct a preliminary inquiry of any serious incident 
     to determine whether a full investigation is warranted.
       ``(B) Findings.--All findings made in conducting 
     preliminary inquiries under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     reported to the Division of Law Enforcement Services and the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs.
       ``(4) Detention facilities staffing review.--The Bureau 
     shall--
       ``(A) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act of 2004, 
     conduct a review of the staffing needs at all detention 
     facilities; and
       ``(B) update that review annually.
       ``(c) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act 
     of 2004, the Secretary, after consultation with the Attorney 
     General, shall promulgate regulations to carry out 
     subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(d) Detention Facilities Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Consultation.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform 
     Act of 2004, in consultation with Indian tribes to the extent 
     practicable, the Bureau shall complete an assessment of the 
     physical conditions and needs of all detention facilities.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Indian Tribal Detention Facility Reform Act 
     of 2004, the Bureau shall--
       ``(i) submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives a report that describes the results of the 
     assessment under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) make the report available to Indian tribal 
     governments.
       ``(2) Data and methodologies.--In preparing the report 
     under paragraph (1), the Bureau shall use--
       ``(A) the existing Department of Justice Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons formula for determining the condition and adequacy of 
     Department of Justice detention facilities, including 
     operational standards;
       ``(B) data relating to conditions at detention facilities 
     that have previously been compiled, collected, or secured 
     from any source derived, so long as the data are accurate, 
     relevant, timely, and necessary to preparation of the report; 
     and
       ``(C) the methodologies of the American Institute of 
     Architects or other accredited and reputable architecture or 
     engineering associations responsible for detention facility 
     construction.
       ``(3) Contents.--The report shall include--
       ``(A) a catalog of the condition of detention facilities 
     that--
       ``(i) identifies the existing detention and complementary 
     facilities and any detention and complementary facilities 
     that do not exist but are needed, taking into consideration--

       ``(I) the size of a detention facility or complementary 
     facility;
       ``(II) the number of detainees in a facility;
       ``(III) the age and condition of a facility;
       ``(IV) interjurisdictional detention needs;
       ``(V) staff needs; and
       ``(VI) prisoner isolation and transportation needs;

       ``(ii) establishes a routine maintenance schedule for each 
     facility;
       ``(iii) identifies staffing and operational needs of 
     existing and needed facilities; and
       ``(iv) provides specific cost estimates needed to repair, 
     renovate, lease or construct any new, existing or additional 
     detention facilities or complementary facilities;
       ``(B) a detailed plan to bring all detention facilities and 
     complementary facilities into compliance with applicable 
     standards that includes--
       ``(i) detailed information on the status of each facility's 
     compliance with the standards;
       ``(ii) specific cost estimates for meeting the standards at 
     each facility; and
       ``(iii) specific timelines for bringing each facility into 
     compliance with the standards;
       ``(C) an assessment of the feasibility of developing 
     regional detention facilities, taking into consideration the 
     factors identified in subparagraph (A)(i) and a comparison of 
     costs and benefits of regional facilities versus individual 
     tribal facilities; and
       ``(D) an assessment of the feasibility of tribal operation 
     of the facilities identified under subparagraphs (A)(i) and 
     (C) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), including--
       ``(i) any cost savings that would result from tribal rather 
     than Federal operation of the facilities; and
       ``(ii) a comparison of costs and benefits arising from 
     individual tribal operation versus contracting detention 
     services with State or local facilities.
       ``(4) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection 
     requires termination of the operations of any facility that 
     fails to comply with standards described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.''.

[[Page S8714]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2738. A bill to establish a Commission to commemorate the 400th 
anniversary of the arrival of Samuel de Champlain in the Champlain 
Valley, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I submit today a bill that will assist the 
States of Vermont and New York in commemorating the extraordinary 
cultural; historical, and recreational heritage of one of Vermont's 
greatest natural treasures, Lake Champlain.
  Nearly 400 years ago, in 1609, Samuel de Champlain entered a green 
valley where he arrived at the lake that today carries his name. Lake 
Champlain stretches nearly 120 miles from Whitehall, NY, to the 
Richelieu River in Quebec and is nestled between the dramatic peaks of 
the New York's Adirondacks and Vermont's picturesque Green Mountains.
  The Samuel de Champlain 400th Commemoration Commission Act of 2004 
will authorize the National Park Service to fund a Commemoration 
Committee established with the Governors of Vermont and New York in 
order to plan national events for 2009 that celebrate the arrival of 
Samuel de Champlain and the rich heritage of the lake--which includes 
all people present when Champlain arrived in the valley and the 
communities that exist today.
  We Vermonters sometimes affectionately refer to Lake Champlain as the 
``Sixth Great Lake,'' and I have many fond memories of this wonderful 
lake. As a boy I spent time fishing and boating in its waters and over 
the years have taken my family on many enjoyable ferry rides across the 
lake. More recently I have become an avid scuba diver, and my own 
explorations of shipwreck sites in the lake have inspired me to educate 
others about its history and work to help preserve its unique heritage.
  Just as in my own family's history, Lake Champlain's history links 
together Vermont and our Nation's storied histories.
  Shortly after Champlain entered the region, what is now known as Lake 
Champlain was quickly recognized as the vital transportation route for 
the Northeast which had been used by Native peoples for centuries. 
Early settlers used the lake to explore unknown lands and create new 
settlements in the wilderness of Colonial North America.

  Lake Champlain is awash in a rich maritime history. The chain of 
lakes that includes Lake Champlain has been called the ``The Great 
Warpath'' because of its use by early Colonial armies and flotillas. It 
played a critical role in the birth of the United States Navy through 
early military and naval struggles played out along its shores and in 
its bays.
  The most famous naval battle on Lake Champlain occurred in 1776, 
during the American Revolutionary War, when Benedict Arnold managed to 
successfully delay a British invasion of the rebelling colonies at the 
Battle of Valcour Island.
  Lake Champlain holds one of the largest and best preserved 
collections of historic naval and other shipwrecks. As an avid scuba 
diver, I have viewed many of the shipwrecks first hand and am always 
awed by how well they have been preserved.
  The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and 
many other Vermonters and New Yorkers have worked hard to preserve our 
fabulous maritime archaeological heritage so that other intrepid 
adventurers can dive in and explore a part of Vermont's past that 
helped shape the direction of our developing Nation.
  Over the years as my family and I explored the lake's maritime 
history we also learned about its role in the growing economy of our 
young Nation. As the United States became more settled and stable, Lake 
Champlain became a center of flourishing commerce in the Northeast and 
a critical conduit for getting goods up and down the eastern seaboard.
  In fact, historians call the 19th nineteenth century Lake Champlain's 
``Golden Era'' of waterborne commerce. During that time the lake's 
peaceful waters were churning with the wakes of hundreds of steamboats, 
canal boats, ferries, merchant sloops and schooners--all plying their 
trade to markets in the Northeast and abroad.
  Today, the storied waters of Lake Champlain are treasured by 
Vermonters and New Yorkers and millions more as an outstanding natural, 
cultural, and recreational resource. Activities such as boating, 
fishing, and tourism help Lake Champlain support a regional economy of 
more than $9 billion dollars. No other inland body of water has played 
such a decisive role in the history of the United States as has Lake 
Champlain.
  The arrival of Samuel de Champlain had profound influence on our 
Nation's history that goes far beyond the simple naming of a lake--this 
event lead to a multitude of great historic, cultural, and economic 
achievements that to this day continue to influence life throughout the 
United States.
  This legislation will help our country and the many small towns and 
groups around Lake Champlain properly celebrate our common heritage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2739. A bill to improve the training and retention of health 
professionals under titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Health care continues to be among the fastest growing 
sectors of the U.S. economy. From 1970 to 2002, the health care 
consumption doubled from 7 to 14 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic 
Product (GDP). Employment in health occupations is projected to 
increase from 11 million in 2000 to 14 million by 2010. In that same 
period, the growth rate for new job creation in health care occupations 
is expected to be 29 percent more than double the growth projected for 
non-health occupations. Over 5.3 million people will be needed to fill 
these health-related positions. However, as a nation, we are not 
educating and training sufficient numbers of healthcare workers and 
providers, and therefore failing the American people.
  There are two ways in which we are failing our citizens. The first is 
an over-reliance on foreign healthcare workers. Instead of committing 
ourselves to training and educating Americans, we are importing large 
numbers of foreigners to meet our public health needs. For example, 25 
percent of all physicians in the U.S. are immigrants, as are 16 percent 
of all laboratory technicians. Although these foreign workers are 
filling an important void, and are both qualified and competent, 
thousands of qualified Americans wishing to pursue an education in 
healthcare fields are turned down every year. It's time we stop 
importing our skilled workers and start investing in the expansion of a 
skilled workforce in our own country. In fact, given the recent 
economic downturn, and the high level of unemployment in our country, 
preparing Americans to work in an expanding job market such as 
healthcare is the right thing to do.
  The second way in which we are failing the American people is by not 
educating and training sufficient numbers of racial and ethnic 
minorities to work in the healthcare system. The racial/ethnic 
composition of the U.S. healthcare workforce does not reflect that of 
the general population. For example, while Blacks, Hispanics, and 
Native Americans represented 26 percent of the general population in 
2002, they only represented 6 percent of physicians.
  A recent study of New Mexico healthcare professionals concluded that 
88 percent of physicians are non-Hispanic Whites, while only 6.5 
percent are Hispanic. Overall, ethnic/racial minorities are 
inadequately represented in all healthcare professions in New Mexico. 
Additionally, in my State, 21 percent of Internal Medicine Specialists 
are international medical school graduates, and so are 15 percent of 
primary care physicians.
  A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study described compelling 
evidence for the need to increase diversity within the health 
workforce. Diversity ensures access to healthcare for underserved 
populations and greater patient satisfaction. Many segments of the U.S. 
population, particularly minority groups, reside in medically 
underserved areas. Black and Hispanic health workers are more likely to 
provide healthcare to Black and Hispanic patients, to serve poor, 
uninsured, or Medicaid-insured patients, and to locate their practices 
in underserved

[[Page S8715]]

areas. Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority patients are more satisfied 
with their providers when they are of the same racial/ethnic group.
  It is time we invest in our healthcare workforce; in our people; in 
our future. That is why I am introducing the ``Investing in America's 
Future Act of 2004'' today. This bill has several components aimed at 
improving and expanding education and training for healthcare workers.
  This bill will provide incentives for Americans to seek and complete 
high-quality allied health education and training. It will also expand 
the Health Career Opportunities Program, which is aimed at enhancing 
the academic skills of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and 
supporting them in successfully entering and graduating from health 
professions training programs. It creates programs of excellence in 
health professions education for underrepresented minorities, and a 
health professions student loan fund for low-income and racial/ethnic 
minority students. Finally, this bill also establishes a Health Work 
Advisory Commission, charged with creating a national vision to serve 
as a map for investing in the health workforce.
  We must ensure that qualified Americans who wish to enter the health 
workforce are able to do so, and we must support the training and 
education of the generations of Americans to come. In doing so, not 
only will we help more Americans hold good jobs, but we will also 
provide better healthcare to underserved and disadvantaged groups.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
in the Record.
  There being two objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2739

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Investing 
     in America's Future Act of 2004''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                         TITLE I--ALLIED HEALTH

Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Purposes.
Sec. 103. Amendments to Public Health Service Act.

             TITLE II--HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION

Sec. 201. Health Workforce Advisory Commission.

      TITLE III--PHYSICIAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN RURAL STATES

Sec. 301. Definitions.
Sec. 302. Rural States physician recruitment and retention 
              demonstration program.
Sec. 303. Establishment of the health professions database.
Sec. 304. Evaluation and reports.
Sec. 305. Contracting flexibility.

              TITLE IV--HEALTH CAREERS OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Sec. 401. Purpose.
Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.

  TITLE V--PROGRAM OF EXCELLENCE IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION FOR 
                      UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES

Sec. 501. Purpose.
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriation.

   TITLE VI--HEALTH PROFESSIONS STUDENT LOAN FUND; AUTHORIZATIONS OF 
    APPROPRIATIONS REGARDING STUDENTS FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS

Sec. 601. Student loans.
Sec. 602. National Health Service Corps; recruitment and fellowships 
              for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 703. Study by the Institute of Medicine.

                         TITLE I--ALLIED HEALTH

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Bureau of the Census [and other reports] highlight 
     the increased demand for acute and chronic health care 
     services among both the general population and a rapidly 
     [growing aging portion of the population].
       (2) The calls for reduction in medical errors, increased 
     patient safety, and increased quality of care have resulted 
     in an amplified call for allied health professionals to 
     provide health care services.
       (3) Several allied health professions are characterized by 
     workforce shortages, declining enrollments in allied health 
     education programs, or a combination of both factors, and 
     hospital officials have reported vacancy rates in positions 
     occupied by allied health professionals.
       (4) Many allied health education programs are facing 
     significant economic pressure that could force their closure 
     due to an insufficient number of students.

     SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

       The purpose of this title is to ensure that the United 
     States health care industry will have a supply of allied 
     health professionals needed to support the Nation's health 
     care system in this decade and beyond by--
       (1) providing incentives for members of the United States 
     population to seek and complete high-quality allied health 
     education and training; and
       (2) providing additional funding to ensure that such 
     education and training can be provided to allied health 
     students.

     SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       (a) In General.--Part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294n et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                ``Subpart 3--Allied Health Professionals

     ``SEC. 775. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Allied health education program.--The term `allied 
     health education program' means any education program at an 
     accredited institution of higher education leading to a 
     certificate, an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, or a 
     post baccalaureate degree in an allied health profession.
       ``(2) Allied health profession.--The term `allied health 
     profession' means any profession practiced by an individual 
     in his or her capacity as an allied health professional.
       ``(3) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms 
     `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the meanings 
     give to those terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       ``(4) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given to 
     that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001).

     ``SEC. 775A. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

       ``The Secretary shall develop and issue public service 
     announcements that advertise and promote the allied health 
     professions, highlight the advantages and rewards of the 
     allied health professions, and encourage individuals from 
     disadvantaged communities and backgrounds to enter the allied 
     health professions.

     ``SEC. 775B. STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     eligible entities to support State and local advertising 
     campaigns through appropriate media outlets to promote the 
     allied health professions, highlight the advantages and 
     rewards of the allied health professions, and encourage 
     individuals from disadvantaged communities and backgrounds to 
     enter the allied health professions.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means an entity that is--
       ``(1) a professional, national, or State allied health 
     association;
       ``(2) a State health care provider; or
       ``(3) an association of entities that are each a health 
     care facility, an allied health education program, [or an 
     entity that provides similar services or serves a like 
     function].

     ``SEC. 775C. ALLIED HEALTH RECRUITMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to eligible entities to increase allied health professions 
     education opportunities.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means an entity that is--
       ``(1) a professional, national, or State allied health 
     association;
       ``(2) a State health care provider; or
       ``(3) an association of entities that are each a health 
     care facility, an allied health education program, [or an 
     entity that provides similar services or serves a like 
     function].
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use funds received under such 
     grant to--
       ``(1) support outreach programs at elementary schools and 
     secondary schools that inform guidance counselors and 
     students of education opportunities regarding the allied 
     health professions;
       ``(2) carry out special projects to increase allied health 
     professions education opportunities for individuals who are 
     from disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial and ethnic 
     minorities underrepresented in the allied health professions) 
     by providing student scholarships or stipends, pre-entry 
     preparation, and retention activities;
       ``(3) provide assistance to public and nonprofit private 
     educational institutions to support remedial education 
     programs for allied health professions students who require 
     assistance with math, science, English, and medical 
     terminology;
       ``(4) meet the costs of child care and transportation for 
     individuals who are taking part in an allied health education 
     program; or
       ``(5) support community-based partnerships seeking to 
     recruit allied health professionals in rural communities, 
     urban medically underserved communities, and other 
     communities experiencing an allied health professions 
     shortage.

     ``SEC. 775D. GRANTS FOR HEALTH CAREER ACADEMIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     eligible entities for the purpose of assisting such entities 
     in collaborating to carry out programs that form education 
     pipelines to facilitate the entry of

[[Page S8716]]

     students of secondary schools, especially underrepresented 
     racial and ethnic minorities, into careers in the allied 
     health professions.
       ``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means an institution that offers an allied health 
     education program, a health care facility, or a secondary 
     school.

     ``SEC. 775E. ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSION, PRACTICE, AND 
                   RETENTION GRANTS.

       ``(a) Education Priority Areas.--The Secretary may award 
     grants to or enter into contracts with eligible entities 
     for--
       ``(1) expanding the enrollment in allied health profession 
     education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and 
     ethnic minority students; and
       ``(2) providing allied health education through new 
     technologies and methods, including distance learning 
     methodologies.
       ``(b) Practice Priority Areas.--The Secretary may award 
     grants to or enter into contracts with eligible entities 
     for--
       ``(1) establishing or expanding allied health professions 
     practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to 
     demonstrate methods to improve access to primary health care 
     in rural areas and other medically underserved communities;
       ``(2) providing care for underserved populations and other 
     high-risk groups such as the elderly, individuals with HIV/
     AIDS, substance abusers, the homeless, and victims of 
     domestic violence;
       ``(3) providing managed care, information management, 
     quality improvement, and other skills needed to practice in 
     existing and emerging organized health care systems; or
       ``(4) developing generational and cultural competencies 
     among allied health professionals.
       ``(c) Retention Priority Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to and 
     enter into contracts with eligible entities to enhance the 
     allied health professions workforce by initiating and 
     maintaining allied health retention programs pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(2) Grants for career ladder programs.--The Secretary may 
     award grants to and enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities for programs--
       ``(A) to promote career advancement for allied health 
     professionals in a variety of training settings, cross 
     training or specialty training among diverse population 
     groups, and the advancement of individuals; and
       ``(B) to assist individuals in obtaining education and 
     training required to enter the allied health professions and 
     advance within such professions, such as by providing career 
     counseling and mentoring.
       ``(3) Enhancing patient care delivery systems.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may award grants to eligible 
     entities to improve the retention of allied health 
     professionals and enhance patient care that is directly 
     related to allied health activities by enhancing 
     collaboration and communication among allied health 
     professionals and other health care professionals, and by 
     promoting the involvement of allied health professionals in 
     the organizational and clinical decisionmaking processes of a 
     health care facility.
       ``(B) Preference.--In making awards of grants under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall give preference to applicants 
     that have not previously received an award under this 
     paragraph and to applicants from rural, underserved areas.
       ``(C) Continuation of an award.--The Secretary shall make 
     continuation of any award under this paragraph beyond the 
     second year of such award contingent on the recipient of such 
     award having demonstrated to the Secretary measurable and 
     substantive improvement in allied health professional 
     retention or patient care.
       ``(d) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means a health care facility, or any partnership or 
     coalition including a health care facility or an allied 
     health education program.

     ``SEC. 775F. DEVELOPING MODELS AND BEST PRACTICES PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Models and Best Practices.--
       ``(1) Grants.--The Secretary shall award grants to eligible 
     entities to enable such entities to carry out demonstrations 
     of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose 
     of developing innovative strategies or approaches for the 
     retention of allied health professionals.
       ``(2) Distribution of grants.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     the distribution of grants under this subsection to a range 
     of types and sizes of facilities, including facilities 
     located in rural, urban, and suburban areas and a variety of 
     geographic regions.
       ``(3) Use of fund.--The Secretary may not make a grant to 
     an eligible entity under this subsection unless the entity 
     agrees to use funds received under the grant to carry out 
     demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(A) promoting retention and satisfaction of allied health 
     professionals;
       ``(B) promoting opportunities for allied health 
     professionals to pursue education, career advancement, and 
     organizational recognition; and
       ``(C) developing continuing education programs that 
     instruct allied health professionals on how to use emerging 
     medical technologies and how to address current and future 
     health care needs.
       ``(b) Models of Excellence.--The Secretary shall award 
     grants to [area health education centers] to enable such 
     centers to enter into contracts with allied health education 
     programs--
       ``(1) to expand the operation of area health education 
     centers to work in communities to develop models of 
     excellence for allied health professionals; or
       ``(2) to expand any junior or senior secondary school 
     mentoring programs to include an allied health professions 
     mentoring program.
       ``(c) Definition.--In this section the term `eligible 
     entity' means a health care facility, or any partnership or 
     coalition containing a health care facility and an allied 
     health education program.

     ``SEC. 775G. ALLIED HEALTH FACULTY LOAN PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, may enter into an agreement with any 
     institution of higher education offering an allied health 
     education program for the establishment and operation of a 
     faculty loan fund in accordance with this section, to 
     increase the number of qualified allied health faculty.
       ``(b) Agreements.--Each agreement entered into under this 
     section shall--
       ``(1) provide for the establishment of a loan fund by the 
     institution involved;
       ``(2) provide for deposit in the fund of--
       ``(A) the Federal capital contributions to the fund;
       ``(B) an amount equal to not less than one-ninth of such 
     Federal capital contributions, contributed by such 
     institution;
       ``(C) collections of principal and interest on loans made 
     from the fund; and
       ``(D) any other earnings of the fund;
       ``(3) provide that the fund will be used only for loans to 
     faculty of allied health education programs in accordance 
     with subsection (c) and for the costs of collection of such 
     loans and interest thereon;
       ``(4) provide that loans may be made from such fund only to 
     faculty pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in 
     an advanced degree program; and
       ``(5) contain such other provisions as are necessary to 
     protect the financial interests of the United States.
       ``(c) Loan Provisions.--Loans from any faculty loan fund 
     established by an institution pursuant to an agreement under 
     this section shall be made to an individual on such terms and 
     conditions as the institution may determine, except that--
       ``(1) such terms and conditions are subject to any 
     conditions, limitations, and requirements prescribed by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(2) in the case of any individual, the total of the loans 
     for any academic year made by an institution from loan funds 
     established pursuant to agreements under this section may not 
     exceed $30,000, plus any amount determined by the Secretary 
     on an annual basis to reflect inflation;
       ``(3) an amount up to 85 percent of any such loan (plus 
     interest thereon) shall be canceled by the institution as 
     follows--
       ``(A) upon completion by the individual of each of the 
     first, second, and third year of full-time employment 
     required by the loan agreement entered into under this 
     section, as a faculty member in an allied health education 
     program, the institution shall cancel __ percent of the 
     principal of, and the interest on, the amount of such loan 
     unpaid on the first day of such employment; and
       ``(B) upon completion by the individual of the fourth year 
     of full-time employment, required by the loan agreement 
     entered into under this section, as a faculty member in an 
     allied health education program, the school shall cancel 25 
     percent of the principal of, and the interest on, the amount 
     of such loan unpaid on the first day of such employment;
       ``(4) such a loan may be used to pay the cost of tuition, 
     fees, books, laboratory expenses, and other reasonable 
     education expenses;
       ``(5) such a loan shall be repayable in equal or graduated 
     periodic installments (with the right of the borrower to 
     accelerate repayment) over the 10-year period that begins 9 
     months after the individual ceases to pursue a course of 
     study in an allied health education program; and
       ``(6) such a loan shall--
       ``(A) beginning on the date that is 3 months after the 
     individual ceases to pursue a course of study in an allied 
     health education program, bear interest on the unpaid balance 
     of the loan at the rate of 3 percent per annum; or
       ``(B) subject to subsection (e), if the institution 
     determines that the individual will not complete such course 
     of study or serve as a faculty member as required under the 
     loan agreement under this subsection, bear interest on the 
     unpaid balance of the loan at the prevailing market rate.
       ``(d) Payment of Proportionate Share.--Where all or any 
     part of a loan, or interest, is canceled under this section, 
     the Secretary shall pay to the institution and amount equal 
     to the school's proportionate share of the canceled portion, 
     as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Review by Secretary.--At the request of the 
     individual involved, the Secretary may review any 
     determination by an institution under this section.

     ``SEC. 775H. SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR SERVICE IN RURAL AND 
                   OTHER MEDICALLY UNDER-SERVED AREAS.

       ``(a) Scholarship Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program 
     of entering into contracts with eligible individuals under 
     which such individuals agree to serve as allied

[[Page S8717]]

     health professionals for a period of not less than 2 years at 
     a health care facility with a critical shortage of allied 
     health professionals in consideration of the Federal 
     Government agreeing to provide to the individuals 
     scholarships for attendance in an allied health education 
     program.
       ``(2) Eligible individuals.--In this subsection, the term 
     `eligible individual' means an individual who is enrolled or 
     accepted for enrollment as a full-time or part-time student 
     in an allied health education program.
       ``(3) Service requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may not enter into a 
     contract with an eligible individual under this section 
     unless the individual agrees to serve as an allied health 
     professional at a health care facility with a critical 
     shortage of allied health professionals for a period of full-
     time service of not less than 2 years, or for a period of 
     part-time service in accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Part-time service.--An individual may complete the 
     period of service described in subparagraph (A) on a part-
     time basis if the individual has a written agreement that--
       ``(i) is entered into by the health care facility involved 
     and the individual and is approved by the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) provides that the period of obligated service will 
     be extended so that the aggregate amount of service performed 
     will equal the amount of service that would be performed 
     through a period of full-time service of not less than 2 
     years.
       ``(4) Preference.--In awarding scholarships under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give a preference to applicants 
     with the greatest financial need, applicants currently 
     working in a health care facility who agree to serve the 
     period of obligated service at such facility, minority allied 
     health applicants, and applicants with an interest in a 
     practice area of allied health that has unmet needs.
       ``(b) Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subpart and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report 
     describing the programs carried out under this section, 
     including statements regarding--
       ``(1) the number of enrollees by specialty or discipline, 
     scholarships, and grant recipients;
       ``(2) the number of graduates;
       ``(3) the amount of scholarship payments made;
       ``(4) which educational institutions the recipients 
     attended;
       ``(5) the number and placement location of the scholarship 
     recipients at health care facilities with a critical shortage 
     of allied health professionals;
       ``(6) the default rate and actions required;
       ``(7) the amount of outstanding default funds of the 
     scholarship program;
       ``(8) to the extent that it can be determined, the reason 
     for the default;
       ``(9) the demographics of the individuals participating in 
     the scholarship program; and
       ``(10) an evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of 
     the program.

     ``SEC. 775I. GRANTS FOR CLINICAL EDUCATION, INTERNSHIP, 
                   RESIDENCY PROGRAMS, AND CONTINUING EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to eligible entities to develop allied health clinical 
     education, internship, residency, and continuing education 
     programs described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary may not award a grant to 
     an eligible entity under this section unless the entity 
     agrees to use the grant to develop clinical education, 
     internship, residency, and continuing education programs for 
     graduates of allied health education programs. Each such 
     clinical education, internship, residency, or continuing 
     education program shall--
       ``(1) provide support for allied health education program 
     faculty and mentors;
       ``(2) provide support for allied health professionals 
     participating on a full-time or a part-time basis; and
       ``(3) encourage the development of specialties.
       ``(c) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means a partnership of an allied health education 
     program and a health care facility.

     ``SEC. 775J. GRANTS FOR PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     eligible entities to enable such entities to form 
     partnerships to carry out the activities described in this 
     section.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use amounts received under the 
     grant to--
       ``(1) provide employees of the health care facility 
     involved advanced training and education in an allied health 
     education program;
       ``(2) establish or expand allied health practice 
     arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate 
     methods to improve access to health care in rural and other 
     medically underserved communities;
       ``(3) purchase distance learning technology to extend 
     general education and training programs to rural areas, and 
     to extend specialty education and training programs to all 
     areas; and
       ``(4) establish or expand mentoring, clinical education, 
     and internship programs for training in specialty care areas.
       ``(c) Eligible Entity.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     entity' means a partnership of an allied health education 
     program and a health care facility formed to carry out the 
     activities described in this section.

     ``SEC. 775K. ALLIED HEALTH WORKFORCE DATA COLLECTION AND 
                   ANALYSIS.

       ``The Secretary, in conjunction with allied health 
     professional associations, shall develop a system for 
     collecting and analyzing allied health workforce data 
     gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration, the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the 
     Department of Defense, allied health professional 
     associations, and regional centers for health workforce 
     studies for the purpose of--
       ``(1) determining educational pipeline and practitioner 
     shortages; and
       ``(2) projecting future needs for such a workforce.

     ``SEC. 775L. REPORTS BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.

       ``The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct an evaluation of whether the activities carried out 
     under this subpart have demonstrably increased the number of 
     applicants to allied health education programs. Not later 
     than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this subpart, 
     the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress 
     on the results of such evaluation.

     ``SEC. 775M. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subpart, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.''.
       (b) Centers of Excellence.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     736(g)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     293(g)(1)) is amended by inserting ``a school of allied 
     health,'' after ``a school of pharmacy,''.

             TITLE II--HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION

     SEC. 201. HEALTH WORKFORCE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States (referred to in this title as the ``Comptroller 
     General'') shall establish a commission to be known as the 
     Health Workforce Advisory Commission (referred to in this 
     title as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 18 
     members to be appointed by the Comptroller General not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and an 
     ex-officio member who shall serve as the Director of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Qualifications.--In appointing members to the 
     Commission under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall 
     ensure that--
       (A) the Commission includes individuals with national 
     recognition for their expertise in health care workforce 
     issues, including workforce forecasting, undergraduate and 
     graduate training, economics, health care and health care 
     systems financing, public health policy, and other fields;
       (B) the members are geographically representative of the 
     United States and maintain a balance between urban and rural 
     representatives;
       (C) the members include a representative from the 
     commissioned corps of the Public Health Service;
       (D) the members represent the spectrum of professions in 
     the current and future healthcare workforce, including 
     physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and 
     personnel, and are skilled in the conduct and interpretation 
     of health workforce measurement, monitoring and analysis, 
     health services, economics, and other workforce related 
     research and technology assessment;
       (E) at least 25 percent of the members who are health care 
     providers are from rural areas; and
       (F) a majority of the members are individuals who are not 
     currently primarily involved in the provision or management 
     of health professions education and training programs.
       (3) Terms and vacancies.--
       (A) Terms.--The term of service of the members of the 
     Commission shall be for 3 years, except that the Comptroller 
     General shall designate staggered terms for members initially 
     appointed under paragraph (1).
       (B) Vacancies.--Any member of the Commission who is 
     appointed to fill a vacancy on the Commission that occurs 
     before the expiration of the term for which the member's 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the 
     remainder of that term.
       (4) Chairperson.--
       (A) Designation.--The Comptroller General shall designate a 
     member of the Commission, at the time of the appointment of 
     such member--
       (i) to serve as the Chairperson of the Commission; and
       (ii) to serve as the Vice Chairperson of the Commission.
       (B) Term.--A member of the Commission shall serve as the 
     Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Commission under 
     subparagraph (A) for the term of such member.
       (C) Vacancy.--In the case of a vacancy in the 
     Chairpersonship or Vice Chairpersonship, the Comptroller 
     General shall designate another member to serve for the 
     remainder of the vacant member's term.
       (c) Duties.--The Commission shall--
       (1) review the health workforce policies implemented--
       (A) under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395, 1396 et seq.);
       (B) under titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 292, 296 et seq.);

[[Page S8718]]

       (C) by the National Institutes of Health;
       (D) by the Department of Health and Human Services;
       (E) by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
       (F) by other departments and agencies as appropriate;
       (2) analyze and make recommendations to improve the methods 
     used to measure and monitor the health workforce and the 
     relationship between the number and make up of such personnel 
     and the access of individuals to appropriate health care;
       (3) review the impact of health workforce policies and 
     other factors on the ability of the health care system to 
     provide optimal medical and health care services;
       (4) analyze and make recommendations pertaining to Federal 
     incentives (financial, regulatory, and otherwise) and Federal 
     programs that are in place to promote the education of an 
     appropriate number and mix of health professionals to provide 
     access to appropriate health care in the United States;
       (5) analyze and make recommendations about the appropriate 
     supply and distribution of physicians, nurses, and other 
     health professionals and personnel to achieve a health care 
     system that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, 
     equitable, and efficient;
       (6) analyze the role and global implications of 
     internationally trained physicians, nurses, and other health 
     professionals and personnel in the United States health 
     workforce;
       (7) analyze and make recommendations about achieving 
     appropriate diversity in the United States health workforce;
       (8) conduct public meetings to discuss health workforce 
     policy issues and help formulate recommendations for Congress 
     and the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (9) in the course of meetings conducted under paragraph 
     (8), consider the results of staff research, presentations by 
     policy experts, and comments from interested parties;
       (10) make recommendations to Congress concerning health 
     workforce policy issues;
       (11) not later than April 15, 2005, and each April 15 
     thereafter, submit a report to Congress containing the 
     results of the reviews conducted under this subsection and 
     the recommendations developed under this subsection;
       (12) periodically, as determined appropriate by the 
     Commission, submit reports to Congress concerning specific 
     issues that the Commission determines are of high importance; 
     and
       (13) carry out any other activities determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (d) Ongoing Duties Concerning Reports and Reviews.--
       (1) Commenting on reports.--
       (A) Submission to commission.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall transmit to the Commission a copy of 
     each report that is submitted by the Secretary to Congress if 
     such report is required by law and relates to health 
     workforce policy.
       (B) Review.--The Commission shall review a report 
     transmitted under subparagraph (A) and, not later than 6 
     months after the date on which the report is transmitted, 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress written 
     comments concerning such report. Such comments may include 
     such recommendations as the Commission determines 
     appropriate.
       (2) Agenda and additional reviews.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall consult periodically 
     with the chairman and ranking members of the appropriate 
     committees of Congress concerning the agenda and progress of 
     the Commission.
       (B) Additional reviews.--The Commission may from time to 
     time conduct additional reviews and submit additional reports 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress on topics relating 
     to Federal health workforce-related programs and as may be 
     requested by the chairman and ranking members of such 
     committees.
       (3) Availability of reports.--The Commission shall transmit 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a copy of each 
     report submitted by the Commission under this section and 
     shall make such reports available to the public.
       (e) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) General powers.--Subject to such review as the 
     Comptroller General determines to be necessary to ensure the 
     efficient administration of the Commission, the Commission 
     may--
       (A) employ and fix the compensation of the Executive 
     Director and such other personnel as may be necessary to 
     carry out its duties;
       (B) seek such assistance and support as may be required in 
     the performance of its duties from appropriate Federal 
     departments and agencies;
       (C) enter into contracts or make other arrangements as may 
     be necessary for the conduct of the work of the Commission;
       (D) make advance, progress, and other payments that relate 
     to the work of the Commission;
       (E) provide transportation and subsistence for personnel 
     who are serving without compensation; and
       (F) prescribe such rules and regulations at the Commission 
     determines necessary with respect to the internal 
     organization and operation of the Commission.
       (2) Information.--To carry out its duties under this 
     section, the Commission--
       (A) shall have unrestricted access to all deliberations, 
     records, and nonproprietary data maintained by the Government 
     Accountability Office;
       (B) may secure directly from any department or agency of 
     the United States information necessary to enable the 
     Commission to carry out its duties under this section, on a 
     schedule that is agreed upon between the Chairperson and the 
     head of the department or agency involved;
       (C) shall utilize existing information (published and 
     unpublished) collected and assessed either by the staff of 
     the Commission or under other arrangements;
       (D) may conduct, or award grants or contracts for the 
     conduct of, original research and experimentation where 
     information available under subparagraphs (A) and (B) is 
     inadequate;
       (E) may adopt procedures to permit any interested party to 
     submit information to be used by the Commission in making 
     reports and recommendations under this section; and
       (F) may carry out other activities determined appropriate 
     by the Commission.
       (f) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) Compensation.--While serving on the business of the 
     Commission a member of the Commission shall be entitled to 
     compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate provided 
     for under level IV of the Executive Schedule under title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (3) Executive director and staff.--The Comptroller General 
     shall appoint an individual to serve as the interim Executive 
     Director of the Commission until the members of the 
     Commission are able to select a permanent Executive Director 
     under subsection (e)(1)(A).
       (4) Ethical disclosure.--The Comptroller General shall 
     establish a system for public disclosure by members of the 
     Commission of financial and other potential conflicts of 
     interest relating to such members.
       (5) Audits.--The Commission shall be subject to periodic 
     audit by the Comptroller General.
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) Requests.--The Commission shall submit requests for 
     appropriations in the same manner as the Comptroller General 
     submits such requests. Amounts appropriated for the 
     Commission shall be separate from amounts appropriated for 
     the Comptroller General.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $6,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     subsequent fiscal year, of which--
       (A) 80 percent of such appropriated amount shall be made 
     available from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     under section 1817 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i); and
       (B) 20 percent of such appropriated amount shall be made 
     available from amounts appropriated to carry out title XIX of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
       (h) Definition.--In this title, the term ``appropriate 
     committees of Congress'' means the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives.

      TITLE III--PHYSICIAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN RURAL STATES

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) COGME.--The term ``COGME'' means the Council on 
     Graduate Medical Education established under section 762 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294o).
       (2) Demonstration program.--The term ``demonstration 
     program'' means the Rural States Physician Recruitment and 
     Retention Demonstration Program established by the Secretary 
     under section 302(a).
       (3) Demonstration states.--The term ``demonstration 
     States'' means each State identified by the Secretary, based 
     upon data from the most recent year for which data are 
     available--
       (A) that has an uninsured population above 16 percent (as 
     determined by the Bureau of the Census);
       (B) for which the sum of the number of individuals who are 
     entitled to benefits under the medicare program under title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) and 
     the number of individuals who are eligible for medical 
     assistance under the medicaid program under title XIX of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) equals or exceeds 20 percent of 
     the total population of the State (as determined by the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services); and
       (C) that has an estimated number of individuals in the 
     State without access to a primary care provider of at least 
     17 percent (as published in ``HRSA's Bureau of Primary Health 
     Care: BPHC State Profiles'').
       (4) Eligible residency or fellowship graduate.--The term 
     ``eligible residency or fellowship graduate'' means a 
     graduate of an approved medical residency training program 
     (as defined in section 1886(h)(5)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A))) in a shortage physician 
     specialty.
       (5) Health professions database.--The term ``Health 
     Professions Database'' means the database established under 
     section 303(a).
       (6) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means 
     the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (7) MedPAC.--The term ``MedPAC'' means the Medicare Payment 
     Advisory Commission established under section 1805 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6).
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

[[Page S8719]]

       (9) Shortage physician specialty.--The term ``shortage 
     physician specialty'' means a medical or surgical specialty 
     identified in a demonstration State by the Secretary based 
     on--
       (A) an analysis and comparison of national data and 
     demonstration State data; and
       (B) recommendations from appropriate Federal, State, and 
     private commissions, centers, councils, medical and surgical 
     physician specialty boards, and medical societies or 
     associations involved in physician workforce, education and 
     training, and payment issues.

     SEC. 302. RURAL STATES PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Rural 
     States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration 
     Program for the purpose of ameliorating physician shortage, 
     recruitment, and retention problems in rural States in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section.
       (2) Consultation.--For purposes of establishing the 
     demonstration program, the Secretary shall consult with--
       (A) COGME;
       (B) MedPAC;
       (C) a representative of each demonstration State medical 
     society or association;
       (D) the health workforce planning and physician training 
     authority of each demonstration State; and
       (E) any other entity described in section 301(9)(B).
       (b) Duration.--The Secretary shall conduct the 
     demonstration program for a period of 10 years.
       (c) Conduct of Program.--
       (1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the 
     Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Centers 
     for Medicare & Medicaid Services) shall--
       (i) notwithstanding section 1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(F)) increase, by up to 
     50 percent of the total number of residency and fellowship 
     positions approved at each medical residency training program 
     in each demonstration State, the number of residency and 
     fellowship positions in each shortage physician specialty; 
     and
       (ii) subject to subparagraph (C), provide funding under 
     subsections (d)(5)(B) and (h) of section 1886 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) for each position added under 
     clause (i).
       (B) Establishment of additional positions.--
       (i) Identification.--The Secretary shall identify each 
     additional residency and fellowship position created as a 
     result of the application of subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Negotiation and consultation.--The Secretary shall 
     negotiate and consult with representatives of each approved 
     medical residency training program in a demonstration State 
     at which a position identified under clause (i) is created 
     for purposes of supporting such position.
       (C) Contracts with sponsoring institutions.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall condition the 
     availability of funding for each residency and fellowship 
     position identified under subparagraph (B)(i) on the 
     execution of a contract containing such provisions as the 
     Secretary determines are appropriate, including the provision 
     described in clause (ii) by each sponsoring institution.
       (ii) Provision described.--

       (I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), the 
     provision described in this clause is a provision that 
     provides that, during the residency or fellowship, the 
     resident or fellow shall spend not less than 10 percent of 
     the training time providing specialty services to underserved 
     and rural community populations other than an underserved 
     population of the sponsoring institution.
       (II) Exceptions.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     COGME, shall identify shortage physician specialties and 
     subspecialties for which the application of the provision 
     described in subclause (I) would be inappropriate and the 
     Secretary may waive the requirement under clause (i) that 
     such provision be included in the contract of a resident or 
     fellow with such a specialty or subspecialty.

       (D) Limitations.--
       (i) Period of payment.--The Secretary may not fund any 
     residency or fellowship position identified under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) for a period of more than 5 years.
       (ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess 
     the status of the shortage physician specialty in the 
     demonstration State prior to entering into any contract under 
     subparagraph (C) after the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the Secretary establishes the demonstration 
     program.
       (2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the demonstration program, the 
     Secretary (acting through the Administrator of the Health 
     Resources and Services Administration) shall establish a loan 
     repayment and forgiveness program, through the holder of the 
     loan, under which the Secretary assumes the obligation to 
     repay a qualified loan amount for an educational loan of an 
     eligible residency or fellowship graduate--
       (i) for whom the Secretary has approved an application 
     submitted under subparagraph (D); and
       (ii) with whom the Secretary has entered into a contract 
     under subparagraph (C).
       (B) Qualified loan amount.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary 
     shall repay the lesser of--

       (I) 25 percent of the loan obligation of a graduate on a 
     loan that is outstanding during the period that the eligible 
     residency or fellowship graduate practices in the area 
     designated by the contract entered into under subparagraph 
     (C); or
       (II) $25,000 per graduate per year of such obligation 
     during such period.

       (ii) Limitation.--The aggregate amount under this 
     subparagraph may not exceed $125,000 for any graduate and the 
     Secretary may not repay or forgive more than 30 loans per 
     year in each demonstration State under this paragraph.
       (C) Contracts with residents and fellows.--
       (i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship 
     graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph 
     shall execute a contract containing the provisions described 
     in clause (ii).
       (ii) Provisions.--The provisions described in this clause 
     are provisions that require the eligible residency or 
     fellowship graduate--

       (I) to practice in a health professional shortage area of a 
     demonstration State during the period in which a loan is 
     being repaid or forgiven under this section; and
       (II) to provide health services relating to the shortage 
     physician specialty of the graduate that was funded with the 
     loan being repaid or forgiven under this section during such 
     period.

       (D) Application.--
       (i) In general.--Each eligible residency or fellowship 
     graduate desiring repayment of a loan under this paragraph 
     shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in 
     such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       (ii) Reassessment of need.--The Secretary shall reassess 
     the shortage physician specialty in the demonstration State 
     prior to accepting an application for repayment of any loan 
     under this paragraph after the date that is 5 years after the 
     date on which the demonstration program is established.
       (E) Construction.--Nothing in the section shall be 
     construed to authorize any refunding of any repayment of a 
     loan.
       (F) Prevention of double benefits.--No borrower may, for 
     the same service, receive a benefit under both this paragraph 
     and any loan repayment or forgiveness program under title VII 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.).
       (d) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to waive any requirement of the medicare program, 
     or approve equivalent or alternative ways of meeting such a 
     requirement, if such waiver is necessary to carry out the 
     demonstration program, including the waiver of any limitation 
     on the amount of payment or number of residents under section 
     1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww).
       (e) Appropriations.--
       (1) Funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions.--Any expenditures resulting from the establishment 
     of the funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions under subsection (c)(1) shall be made from the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i).
       (2) Loan repayment and forgiveness program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the loan repayment and forgiveness program 
     established under subsection (c)(2).

     SEC. 303. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS DATABASE.

       (a) Establishment of the Health Professions Database.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 7 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary (acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration) shall establish a State-specific health 
     professions database to track health professionals in each 
     demonstration State with respect to specialty certifications, 
     practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice 
     types, locations, education, and training, as well as 
     obligations under the demonstration program as a result of 
     the execution of a contract under paragraph (1)(C) or (2)(C) 
     of section 302(c).
       (2) Data sources.--In establishing the Health Professions 
     Database, the Secretary shall use the latest available data 
     from existing health workforce files, including the American 
     Medical Association Master File, State databases, specialty 
     medical society data sources and information, and such other 
     data points as may be recommended by COGME, MedPAC, the 
     National Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, or 
     the medical society of the respective demonstration State.
       (b) Availability.--
       (1) During the program.--During the demonstration program, 
     data from the Health Professions Database shall be made 
     available to the Secretary, each demonstration State, and the 
     public for the purposes of--
       (A) developing a baseline with respect to a State's health 
     professions workforce and to track changes in a demonstration 
     State's health professions workforce;
       (B) tracking direct and indirect graduate medical education 
     payments to hospitals;
       (C) tracking the forgiveness and repayment of loans for 
     educating physicians; and

[[Page S8720]]

       (D) tracking commitments by physicians under the 
     demonstration program.
       (2) Following the program.--Following the termination of 
     the demonstration program, a demonstration State may elect to 
     maintain the Health Professions Database for such State at 
     its expense.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 304. EVALUATION AND REPORTS.

       (a) Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--COGME and MedPAC shall jointly conduct a 
     comprehensive evaluation of the demonstration program.
       (2) Matters evaluated.--The evaluation conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include an analysis of the effectiveness 
     of the funding of additional residency and fellowship 
     positions and the loan repayment and forgiveness program on 
     physician recruitment, retention, and specialty mix in each 
     demonstration State.
       (b) Progress Reports.--
       (1) COGME.--Not later than 1 year after the date on which 
     the Secretary establishes the demonstration program, 5 years 
     after such date, and 10 years after such date, COGME shall 
     submit a report on the progress of the demonstration program 
     to the Secretary and Congress.
       (2) MedPAC.--MedPAC shall submit biennial reports on the 
     progress of the demonstration program to the Secretary and 
     Congress.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the demonstration program terminates, COGME and MedPAC 
     shall submit a final report to the President, Congress, and 
     the Secretary which shall contain a detailed statement of the 
     findings and conclusions of COGME and MedPAC, together with 
     such recommendations for legislation and administrative 
     actions as COGME and MedPAC consider appropriate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to COGME such sums as may be necessary for 
     the purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 305. CONTRACTING FLEXIBILITY.

       For purposes of conducting the demonstration program and 
     establishing and administering the Health Professions 
     Database, the Secretary may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.

              TITLE IV--HEALTH CAREERS OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

     SEC. 401. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to diversify the healthcare 
     workforce by increasing the number of individuals from 
     disadvantaged backgrounds in the health and allied health 
     professions by enhancing the academic skills of students from 
     disadvantaged backgrounds and supporting them in successfully 
     completing, entering, and graduating from health professions 
     training programs.

     SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 740(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     293d(c)) is amended by striking ``$29,400,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``2002'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010''.

  TITLE V--PROGRAM OF EXCELLENCE IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION FOR 
                      UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES

     SEC. 501. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to diversify the healthcare 
     workforce by supporting programs of excellence in designated 
     health professions schools that demonstrate a commitment to 
     underrepresented minority populations with a focus on 
     minority health issues, cultural and linguistic competence, 
     and eliminating health disparities.

     SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       Section 736(h)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 293(h)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     making grants under subsection (a), there are authorized to 
     be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.''.

   TITLE VI--HEALTH PROFESSIONS STUDENT LOAN FUND; AUTHORIZATIONS OF 
    APPROPRIATIONS REGARDING STUDENTS FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS

     SEC. 601. STUDENT LOANS.

       Section 724(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     292t(f)) is amended by inserting before paragraph (2), the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to making Federal capital 
     contributions to student loan funds for purposes of 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 602. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; RECRUITMENT AND 
                   FELLOWSHIPS FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM DISADVANTAGED 
                   BACKGROUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 331(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the individuals with 
     respect to whom activities under paragraphs (1) and (2) are 
     carried out include individuals from disadvantaged 
     backgrounds, including activities carried out to provide 
     health professions students with information on the 
     Scholarship and Repayment Programs.''.
       (b) Assignment of Corps Personnel.--Section 333(a) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254f(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) In assigning Corps personnel under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give preference to applicants who request 
     assignment to a federally qualified health center (as defined 
     in section 1905(1)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act) or to a 
     provider organization that has a majority of patients who are 
     minorities or individuals from low-income families (families 
     with a family income that is less than 200 percent of the 
     Official Poverty Line).''.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 703. STUDY BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

       (a) Contract.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of 
     Medicine for the conduct of a study and the preparation of a 
     report on the role of United States medical schools in 
     meeting the physician needs of the United States.
       (b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under the 
     contract under subsection (a), the Institute of Medicine 
     shall--
       (1) examine the supply structure of United States 
     undergraduate medical education and make recommendations 
     concerning the advisability of expanding, enhancing, or 
     modifying such structure to achieve a higher degree of self-
     sufficiency and equity in such medical education and to 
     position medical schools for the future demands generated by 
     the growing population of the United States; and
       (2) examine the role of United States medical schools in 
     reducing racial and ethnic disparities in medical education 
     opportunities and in population health outcomes as well as in 
     reducing the drain on the medical education systems of other 
     countries.
       (c) Report.--The contract under subsection (a) shall 
     require the Institute of Medicine to submit a report to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services on the results of the 
     study not later than 12 months after the date on which the 
     contract is entered into. The Secretary shall submit such 
     report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2740. A bill to improve dental services in underserved areas by 
amending the Public Health Service Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year, I spend time driving across 
the State of South Dakota, and every year, I hear unbelievable stories 
from my constituents about the growing health care crisis in South 
Dakota and across America. One issue that comes up repeatedly in my 
travels is South Dakota's dental shortage.
  The statistics speak for themselves. Almost one-third of my State's 
66 counties have been designated Dental Health Professional Shortage 
Areas. In total, over 97,000 South Dakotans live in a county that does 
not have enough dentists to meet the needs of the population. 
Nationally, 25 million Americans reside in such shortage areas.
  South Dakota has only one dentist for every 250 square miles, which 
means that many South Dakotans must travel more than 100 miles to visit 
a dentist. To see a pediatric dentist, parents often have to travel up 
to 400 miles. I've heard stories of families driving clear across the 
State so that their children can receive urgent dental care. 
Comparatively, Minnesota's rate is 28 square miles per dentist. 
Massachusetts's rate is less than 2 square miles per dentist, and here 
in Washington, DC, the rate is 0.1 square miles per dentist.
  In addition, the dentists my State does have are getting older. A 
study conducted in South Dakota found that roughly half of the dentists 
currently practicing there are over 50 years old, and that 30 percent 
plan to retire within 10 years. Nationally, more than 20 percent of 
dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental 
graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace them.
  The problem in Indian country is even worse. Indian pre-school 
children have 5 times the rate of dental decay experienced by other 
children in their age group. Despite this great need, the Indian Health 
Services estimates that one-third of its dental positions are vacant.
  A report by the Government Accounting Office in 2000 found that, 
while several factors contribute to the low use of dental services 
among low-income individuals, the most important factor was the 
inability to find a

[[Page S8721]]

dentist to treat them. That is simply unacceptable.
  Another report by Oral Health America in 2003 found that the United 
States does poorly in several areas that measure access to dental care. 
In fact, in the report's assessment of dentist availability, the 
majority of States received a grade of C or lower. The report card also 
found that those with the greatest need have the hardest time finding 
care; 18 states received a failing grade for the availability of 
dentists who provide significant services under Medicaid, contributing 
to an alarming D grade for the entire nation.
  In an effort to address this urgent problem, I have been working with 
representatives from the South Dakota Oral Health Coalition to develop 
a legislative remedy at the Federal level. The culmination of that 
effort is the bill I am introducing today, the Dental Health Provider 
Shortage Act. Together with Senator Collins--herself a longtime 
supporter of expanding access to dental care--I am proud to introduce 
this bill, which would help to expand the number of dentists and dental 
hygienists, both nationwide and in rural and underserved areas.
  Specifically, the Dental Heath Provider Shortage Act would work to 
increase the overall number of dentists and dental hygienists by 
providing faculty loan repayment programs for dentists who agree to 
teach, especially in general and pediatric training programs. It would 
also provide incentives for dentists and dental hygienists to work in 
rural and underserved areas by expanding both the National Health 
Service Corps and the Indian Health Service; providing support to 
Community Health Centers, which play a critical role in the delivery of 
dental care; and helping these centers and other providers that work in 
underserved areas to expand their practices. Finally, to encourage 
participation in State Medicaid programs, the bill would provide 
funding for states to simplify the Medicaid enrollment and payment 
process.
  In this day and age, people should not be forced to travel great 
distances--let alone more than 100 miles--just to see a dentist. We can 
and must do better. The Surgeon General's report, ``Oral Health in 
America,'' reinforced that oral health is essential to the general 
health and well-being of all Americans. In its ``Call to Action,'' the 
report challenged the Nation to build a health infrastructure that can 
effectively meet the oral health needs of all Americans. By passing the 
bipartisan Dental Health Provider Shortage Act, we can begin to do just 
that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2740

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Dental 
     Health Provider Shortage Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

             TITLE I--EXPANDED DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES

Sec. 101. Expansion of dental services offered in underserved areas.
Sec. 102. Grants for capital expenditures for dental care practices in 
              dental health professional shortage areas.
Sec. 103. Grants for administrative simplification for medicaid 
              providers.

            TITLE II--EXPANSION OF DENTAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Flexible use of training funds for general and pediatric 
              dentistry.
Sec. 202. Loan repayment for faculty of dental educational programs.

  TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES THROUGH THE INDIAN 
          HEALTH SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS

Sec. 301. Indian Health Service dental officer multiyear retention 
              bonus.
Sec. 302. Increase in National Health Service Corps dental training 
              positions.
Sec. 303. Availability of scholarship and loan repayment programs for 
              National Health Service Corps dental hygienists.

             TITLE I--EXPANDED DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES

     SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF DENTAL SERVICES OFFERED IN UNDERSERVED 
                   AREAS.

       Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     254b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Health Center Dental Access Grants.--
       ``(1) Grant program authorized.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Administrator of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, is authorized to award grants and 
     enter into cooperative agreements, for a period not to exceed 
     3 years, to health centers for the purpose of increasing the 
     number of dental providers associated with the health 
     centers.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use 
     amounts received under a grant under this subsection in any 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) for recruitment or retention efforts targeting the 
     dental health care staff of a health center;
       ``(B) to contract for technical assistance for the purpose 
     of recruiting or retaining dental health care staff; or
       ``(C) to contract for technical assistance in preparing 
     contracts with local providers of dental health care to 
     provide dental services for medically underserved 
     populations.
       ``(3) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(t) Grants for Dental Care Facility Capital 
     Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Grant program authorized.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Administrator of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, is authorized to award 1-year grants 
     to health centers for the purpose of increasing dental health 
     care capabilities by constructing or renovating building 
     space to provide for dental health care.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use 
     amounts received under a grant under this subsection in any 
     fiscal year for the construction or expansion of dental care 
     facilities, including--
       ``(A) the costs of acquiring or leasing facilities;
       ``(B) the costs of constructing new facilities;
       ``(C) the costs of repairing or modernizing existing 
     facilities; or
       ``(D) the purchase or lease of equipment.
       ``(3) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(u) Grants for Dental Residency Programs.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     award grants to health centers for the purpose of 
     establishing, at the health centers, new or alternative-
     campus accredited dental residency training programs 
     affiliated with accredited dental programs.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--A health center shall use 
     amounts received under a grant under this subsection for the 
     costs of establishing a new or alternative-campus accredited 
     dental residency training program affiliated with an 
     accredited dental program at the health center, including the 
     costs of curriculum development, equipment, and recruitment, 
     training, and retention of residents and faculty for such 
     training program.
       ``(3) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     awarding grants under this subsection to health centers in 
     rural areas.
       ``(4) Application.--Each health center desiring a grant 
     under this subsection shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(5) Definition of accredited.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term 
     `accredited', when applied to a dental training program or a 
     new or alternative-campus dental residency training program, 
     means a program that is accredited by a recognized body or 
     bodies approved for such purpose by the Secretary of 
     Education.
       ``(B) Special rule.--A new dental residency training 
     program that, by reason of an insufficient period of 
     operation, is not, at the time of application for a grant 
     under this subsection, eligible for accreditation by such a 
     recognized body or bodies, shall be deemed accredited for 
     purposes of this subsection, if the Secretary of Education 
     finds, after consultation with the appropriate accreditation 
     body or bodies, that there is reasonable assurance that the 
     new dental residency training program will meet the 
     accreditation standards of such body or bodies prior to the 
     graduation date of the first entering class in such program.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--The special rule for 
     accreditation described in subparagraph (B) shall not apply 
     to an alternative-campus dental residency training 
     program.''.

     SEC. 102. GRANTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL CARE 
                   PRACTICES IN DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL 
                   SHORTAGE AREAS.

       Subpart V of part D of title III of the Public Health 
     Service Act (20 U.S.C. 256 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 340A. GRANTS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL CARE 
                   PRACTICES IN DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL 
                   SHORTAGE AREAS.

       ``(a) Grant Program Authorized.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Administrator of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, is authorized to award 1-year grants 
     to eligible individuals for the purpose of increasing dental 
     health care capabilities in dental health professional 
     shortage areas

[[Page S8722]]

     by constructing or renovating building space to provide for 
     dental health care.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--An eligible individual shall 
     use amounts received under a grant under this section in any 
     fiscal year for the construction or expansion of dental care 
     facilities in dental health professional shortage areas, 
     including--
       ``(1) the costs of acquiring or leasing facilities;
       ``(2) the costs of constructing new facilities;
       ``(3) the costs of repairing or modernizing existing 
     facilities; or
       ``(4) the purchase or lease of equipment.
       ``(c) Application.--Each eligible individual desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(d) Eligible Individual.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, an individual shall be a dental 
     health professional who is licensed or certified in 
     accordance with the laws of the State in which such 
     individual provides dental services.
       ``(e) Eligible Individual Grant Agreement.--Each eligible 
     individual who receives a grant under this section shall 
     enter into an agreement with the Secretary under which the 
     eligible individual agrees--
       ``(1) to practice for 5 years in a dental health 
     professional shortage area, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(2) that during the period under paragraph (1), not less 
     than 25 percent of the patients of such individual receive 
     assistance--
       ``(A) under a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); or
       ``(B) under a State plan under title XXI of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.);
       ``(3) to provide services to patients regardless of such 
     patients' ability to pay;
       ``(4) to use a sliding payment scale for patients who are 
     unable to pay the total cost of services; and
       ``(5) to repay a pro rata portion of the grant funds 
     received if the eligible individual fails to practice in 
     accordance with paragraphs (1) through (4).
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''.

     SEC. 103. GRANTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION FOR 
                   MEDICAID PROVIDERS.

       (a) Authority To Award Provider Administrative 
     Simplification Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall award grants to State agencies responsible for the 
     administration of the State medicaid program under title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for the 
     purpose of simplifying and automating the procedures 
     applicable to providers of medical assistance under the State 
     medicaid program in order to encourage providers to 
     participate in the dental component of such program.
       (2) Use of funds.--A grant awarded under this subsection 
     may be used to simplify--
       (A) provider enrollment contracts and processes through 
     such means as providing for online provider enrollment forms;
       (B) preauthorization procedures;
       (C) claims remittance and processing; and
       (D) any other procedures or requirements that would reduce 
     the time and expenses necessary for providers to participate 
     in the medicaid program.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to award grants under this subsection such sums as 
     are necessary for fiscal year 2005.
       (b)  Model Contract for the Enrollment of Dentists as 
     Medicaid Participating Providers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall award grants to eligible entities to develop, 
     disseminate, and assist with the implementation of a model 
     contract for States to use to enroll dentists as 
     participating providers under the State medicaid program 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Eligible entities defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``eligible entities'' means entities with expertise in 
     the administration of State medicaid programs, which may 
     include the National Association of State Medicaid Directors.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to award grants under this subsection such sums as 
     are necessary for fiscal year 2005.

            TITLE II--EXPANSION OF DENTAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. FLEXIBLE USE OF TRAINING FUNDS FOR GENERAL AND 
                   PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY.

       Section 747(a)(6) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 293k(a)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) to plan, develop, or operate a program of general 
     dentistry or pediatric dentistry, including the costs of 
     faculty development, curriculum development, program 
     administration, financial assistance to residents in such 
     program, and other functions critical to building a competent 
     dental workforce.''.

     SEC. 202. LOAN REPAYMENT FOR FACULTY OF DENTAL EDUCATIONAL 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Part C of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 293k et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     748 the following:

     ``SEC. 749. LOAN REPAYMENT FOR FACULTY OF DENTAL EDUCATIONAL 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, shall carry out a program to repay (by direct 
     payment on behalf of the individual) any outstanding student 
     loan of an individual who is employed as a full-time faculty 
     member of a school of dentistry or an accredited dental 
     education program.
       ``(b) Loan Repayment.--The payments described in subsection 
     (a) shall be made by the Secretary as follows:
       ``(1) Upon completion by the individual for whom the 
     payments are to be made of the first year of employment 
     described under subsection (a), the Secretary shall pay 25 
     percent of the principal of, and the interest on, each 
     outstanding student loan.
       ``(2) Upon completion by such individual of the second 
     consecutive year of such employment, the Secretary shall pay 
     an additional 25 percent of the principal of, and the 
     interest on, each such loan.
       ``(3) Upon completion by such individual of the third 
     consecutive year of such employment, the Secretary shall pay 
     an additional 35 percent of the principal of, and the 
     interest on, each such loan.
       ``(c) Priority.--In entering into agreements to repay 
     outstanding student loans under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall give priority to qualified applicants--
       ``(1) with the greatest financial need; or
       ``(2) who are full-time faculty for an accredited program 
     of general or pediatric dentistry.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the program 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report 
     describing the program carried out under this section, 
     including--
       ``(1) the number and amount of loan repayments made;
       ``(2) the number of individuals who receive loan repayment 
     under subsection (a) at each school of dentistry or 
     accredited dental education program that employs individuals 
     who receive such loan repayment;
       ``(3) the demographics of the individuals participating in 
     the loan repayment program; and
       ``(4) an evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of 
     the loan repayment program.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.''.

  TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF DENTAL SERVICES THROUGH THE INDIAN 
          HEALTH SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS

     SEC. 301. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR 
                   RETENTION BONUS.

       (a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service'' 
     includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate 
     dental educational training programs while not on active duty 
     in the Indian Health Service and all periods of active duty 
     in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
       (2) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an 
     individual in the dental health profession who is an officer 
     of the Indian Health Service.
       (3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       (4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate 
     dental educational training program of at least 12 months 
     leading to a specialty, including general practice residency 
     or an advanced education general dentistry.
       (5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental 
     specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service 
     specialty code number.
       (b) General Authority.--The Director may authorize a 
     multiyear retention bonus under this section for a dental 
     officer of the Indian Health Service who meets the 
     eligibility requirements of subsection (c) and who executes a 
     written agreement to remain on active duty for 2, 3, or 4 
     years after the completion of any other active duty service 
     commitment to the Indian Health Service.
       (c) Eligibility Requirements.--In addition to the 
     requirements described under subsection (b), an eligible 
     dental officer shall--
       (1) if trained as a dentist--
       (A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall 
     determine;
       (B) hold the degree of doctor of dentistry or an equivalent 
     degree;
       (C) have completed any active duty service commitment of 
     the Indian Health Service incurred for dental education and 
     training or have 8 years of creditable service; and
       (D) have completed initial residency training, or be 
     scheduled to complete initial residency training before 
     September 30 of the fiscal year in which the dental officer 
     enters into a multiyear retention bonus service agreement 
     under this section; or
       (2) if trained as a dental hygienist--
       (A) have graduated from a dental hygiene educational or 
     training program accredited by the American Dental 
     Association Commission on Dental Accreditation (ADA CDA);

[[Page S8723]]

       (B) hold a certification of successful completion of the 
     National Board Dental Hygiene Examination; and
       (C) hold an active and current dental hygiene license.
       (d) Maximum Bonus Amounts.--
       (1) Maximum bonus amounts for dentists.--A multiyear 
     retention bonus authorized for a dental officer who meets the 
     requirements of subsection (c)(1) shall not exceed--
       (A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement;
       (B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement; or
       (C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
       (2) Maximum bonus amounts for dental hygienists.--A 
     multiyear retention bonus authorized for a dental officer who 
     meets the requirements of subsection (c)(2) shall not 
     exceed--
       (A) $4,000 for a 4-year written agreement;
       (B) $2,000 for a 3-year written agreement; or
       (C) $1,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
       (e) Discretion in Selection Process.--The Director may, 
     based on the requirements of the Indian Health Service, 
     decline to offer a multi-year retention bonus to any 
     specialty that is otherwise eligible, or to restrict the 
     length of such a retention bonus contract for a specialty to 
     less than 4 years.
       (f) Termination of Entitlement to Multiyear Retention 
     Bonus.--
       (1) In general.--The Director may terminate, with cause, a 
     dental officer multiyear retention bonus agreement with a 
     dental officer under this section at any time.
       (2) Pro rata recoupment.--If a dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus agreement is terminated under paragraph (1), 
     the unserved portion of the retention bonus agreement shall 
     be recouped on a pro rata basis.
       (3) Regulations.--The Director shall establish regulations 
     that--
       (A) specify the conditions and procedures under which 
     termination may take place; and
       (B) shall be included in the dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus agreement under subsection (b).
       (g) Refunds.--
       (1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for 
     sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section 
     if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus 
     fails to complete the total period of service specified in 
     the dental officer multiyear retention bonus agreement, as 
     conditions and circumstances warrant.
       (2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the 
     United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to 
     the United States.
       (3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, 
     United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after 
     the termination of a dental officer multiyear retention bonus 
     agreement under this section does not discharge the dental 
     officer who signed such a contract from a debt arising under 
     the contract or under paragraph (1).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

     SEC. 302. INCREASE IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS DENTAL 
                   TRAINING POSITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     increase the number of dentists in the National Health 
     Service Corps (referred to in this section as the ``Corps''), 
     as designated in subpart II of part D of title III of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d et seq.), by not 
     less than 100 in each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
       (b) Availability of Loan Repayment and Scholarship Programs 
     for Dentists.--The Secretary shall increase the number of 
     Corps dentists selected for the loan repayment and 
     scholarship programs under subpart III of part D of title III 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l et seq.) in 
     a sufficient number to address the demand for such programs 
     by qualified individuals.
       (c) Report on Corps.--The Secretary shall annually report 
     to Congress concerning how the Corps is meeting the oral 
     health needs in underserved areas, including rural, frontier, 
     and border areas.

     SEC. 303. AVAILABILITY OF SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN REPAYMENT 
                   PROGRAMS FOR NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS 
                   DENTAL HYGIENISTS.

       Section 338A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     254l) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Of the total number of contracts under this section 
     and section 338B for each school year that are dedicated to 
     dental hygienists, not less than 20 percent of such contracts 
     for each such school year shall be entered into under this 
     section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 2741. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
and extend the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention and services program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. For many years 
now, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been profoundly 
affected by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Prenatal 
exposure to alcohol can cause a wide range of serious, life-long 
problems known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders. Individuals with 
FASD can have a low IQ, behavioral impairments, growth retardation, 
facial abnormalities, and birth defects. About 40,000 children are born 
with FASD each year.
  A great deal of progress has been made in raising awareness of the 
dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but much more needs to 
be done. The bill I am introducing today addresses the need for more 
research, better screening systems to identify children with FASD, 
effective prevention programs, and enhanced access to treatment and 
support services. It is my sincere hope that this bill--when combined 
with the tireless efforts of parents, health professionals, teachers, 
and countless others--will help prevent FASD and support the children 
and families who are living with its consequences. I ask unanimous 
consent that a fact sheet containing a description of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

                                S. 2741

       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 ``Advancing FASD Research, 
     Prevention, and Services Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders are the spectrum of 
     serious, life-long disorders caused by prenatal exposure to 
     alcohol, which include Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Alcohol-
     Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder, and Alcohol-Related 
     Birth Defects.
       (2) In the decades that have passed since Fetal Alcohol 
     Syndrome was first recognized in the United States, this 
     fully preventable condition has continued to affect American 
     children and families.
       (3) Prenatal alcohol exposure can cause brain damage that 
     produces cognitive and behavioral impairments. Prenatal 
     alcohol exposure can cause mental retardation or low IQ and 
     difficulties with learning, memory, attention, and problem-
     solving. It can also create problems with mental health and 
     social interactions.
       (4) Prenatal alcohol exposure also can cause growth 
     retardation, birth defects involving the heart, kidney, 
     vision and hearing, and a characteristic pattern of facial 
     abnormalities.
       (5) About 13 percent of women report using alcohol during 
     pregnancy even though there is no known safe level of alcohol 
     consumption during pregnancy.
       (6) Estimates of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome 
     vary but are estimated to be between 0.5 and 2.0 per 1,000 
     births. The prevalence rate is considerably higher for all 
     Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: about 10 out of 1,000 
     births (1 percent of births).
       (7) Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders can be 
     even higher in certain populations, such as Native Americans, 
     and in certain areas, such as those characterized by low 
     socioeconomic status.
       (8) Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders pose extraordinary 
     financial costs to the Nation, including the cost of 
     specialized health care, education, foster care, 
     incarceration, job training, and general support services for 
     individuals affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       (9) Lifetime health costs for an individual with Fetal 
     Alcohol Syndrome average $860,000, and can run as high as 
     $4,200,000. The direct and indirect economic costs of Fetal 
     Alcohol Syndrome in the United States were $5,400,000,000 in 
     2003. Total economic costs would be even higher for all Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       (10) There is a great need for research, surveillance, 
     prevention, treatment, and support services for individuals 
     with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and their families.

     SEC. 3. PROGRAMS FOR FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS.

       Section 399H of the Public Health Service Act (48 U.S.C. 
     280f) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399H. PROGRAMS FOR FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM 
                   DISORDERS.'';

       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as 
     subsections (h) through (k), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after the section heading, the following:
       ``(a) Research on FAS and Related Disorders.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health and in 
     coordination with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 
     Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, shall--

[[Page S8724]]

       ``(A) establish a research agenda for Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(B) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 
     public or private nonprofit entities to pay all or part of 
     carrying out research under such agenda.
       ``(2) Types of research.--In carrying out paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National 
     Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, shall conduct 
     national and international research in coordination with 
     other Federal agencies that includes--
       ``(A) the identification of the mechanisms that produce the 
     cognitive and behavioral problems associated with fetal 
     alcohol exposure;
       ``(B) the development of a neurocognitive phenotype for 
     Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental 
     Disorder;
       ``(C) the identification of biological markers that can be 
     used to indicate fetal alcohol exposure;
       ``(D) the identification of fetal and maternal risk factors 
     that increase susceptibility to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders;
       ``(E) the investigation of behavioral and pharmacotherapies 
     for alcohol-dependent women to determine new approaches for 
     sustaining recovery;
       ``(F) the development of scientific-based therapeutic 
     interventions for individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders;
       ``(G) the development of screening instruments to identify 
     women who consume alcohol during pregnancy and the 
     development of standards for measuring, reporting, and 
     analyzing alcohol consumption patterns in pregnant women; and
       ``(H) other research that the Director determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Study.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of 
     the National Institute of Mental Health, shall--
       ``(A) conduct a study on the behavioral disorders that may 
     be associated with prenatal alcohol exposure;
       ``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act, 
     submit to Congress a report on the appropriateness of 
     characterizing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and their 
     secondary behavioral disorders as mental health disorders; 
     and
       ``(C) conduct additional research on the epidemiology of 
     behavior disorders associated with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders in collaboration with the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       ``(b) Surveillance, Identification, and Prevention 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and 
     Developmental Disabilities, shall facilitate surveillance, 
     identification, and prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders as provided for in this subsection.
       ``(2) Surveillance, identification, and prevention.--In 
     carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) develop and implement a uniform surveillance case 
     definition for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and a uniform 
     surveillance case definition for Alcohol Related 
     Neurodevelopmental Disorder;
       ``(B) develop a comprehensive screening process for Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders that covers different age, race, 
     and ethnic groups and is based on the uniform surveillance 
     case definitions developed under subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) disseminate and provide the necessary training and 
     support for the screening process developed under 
     subparagraph (B) to--
       ``(i) hospitals, community health centers, outpatient 
     programs, and other appropriate health care providers;
       ``(ii) incarceration and detainment facilities;
       ``(iii) primary and secondary schools;
       ``(iv) social work and child welfare offices;
       ``(v) foster care providers and adoption agencies;
       ``(vi) State offices and others providing services to 
     individuals with disabilities; and
       ``(vii) other entities that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate;
       ``(D) conduct activities related to risk factor 
     surveillance including the annual monitoring and reporting of 
     alcohol consumption among pregnant women and women of child 
     bearing age; and
       ``(E) conduct applied public health prevention research and 
     implement strategies for reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancies 
     in women at high risk for alcohol-exposed pregnancies.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(c) Building State FASD Systems.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration, shall award grants, contracts, or 
     cooperative agreements to States for the purpose of 
     establishing or expanding statewide programs of surveillance, 
     prevention, and treatment of individuals with Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) a 
     State shall--
       ``(A) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require;
       ``(B) develop and implement a statewide strategic plan for 
     preventing and treating Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
       ``(C) consult with public and private non-profit entities 
     with relevant expertise on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 
     within the State, including--
       ``(i) parent-led groups and other organizations that 
     support and advocate for individuals with Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(ii) Indian tribes and tribal organizations; and
       ``(D) designate an individual to serve as the coordinator 
     of the State's Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders program.
       ``(3) Strategic plan.--The statewide strategic plan 
     prepared under paragraph (2)(B) shall include--
       ``(A) the identification of existing State programs and 
     systems that could be used to identify and treat individuals 
     with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and prevent alcohol 
     consumption during pregnancy, such as--
       ``(i) programs for the developmentally disabled, the 
     mentally ill, and individuals with alcohol dependency;
       ``(ii) primary and secondary educational systems;
       ``(iii) judicial systems for juveniles and adults;
       ``(iv) child welfare programs and social service programs; 
     and
       ``(v) other programs or systems the State determines to be 
     appropriate;
       ``(B) the identification of any barriers for individuals 
     with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders or women at risk for 
     alcohol consumption during pregnancy to access the programs 
     identified under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) proposals to eliminate barriers to prevention and 
     treatment programs and coordinate the activities of such 
     programs.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Amounts received under a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) shall 
     be used for one or more of the following activities:
       ``(A) Establishing a statewide surveillance system.
       ``(B) Collecting, analyzing and interpreting data.
       ``(C) Establishing a diagnostic center.
       ``(D) Developing, implementing, and evaluating population-
     based and targeted prevention programs for Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders, including public awareness campaigns.
       ``(E) Referring individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders to appropriate support services.
       ``(F) Developing and sharing best practices for the 
     prevention, identification, and treatment of Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(G) Providing training to health care providers on the 
     prevention, identification, and treatment of Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(H) Disseminating information about Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders and the availability of support services 
     to families of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders.
       ``(I) Other activities determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(5) Multi-state programs.--The Secretary shall permit the 
     formation of multi-State Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 
     programs under this subsection.
       ``(6) Other contracts and agreements.--A State may carry 
     out activities under paragraph (4) through contacts or 
     cooperative agreements with public and private non-profit 
     entities with a demonstrated expertise in Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       ``(d) Promoting Community Partnerships.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements to eligible entities to 
     enable such entities to establish, enhance, or improve 
     community partnerships for the purpose of collaborating on 
     common objectives and integrating the services available to 
     individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, such as 
     surveillance, prevention, treatment, and provision of support 
     services.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under paragraph 
     (1), an entity shall--
       ``(A) be a public or private nonprofit entity, including--
       ``(i) a health care provider or health professional;
       ``(ii) a primary or secondary school;
       ``(iii) a social work or child welfare office;
       ``(iv) an incarceration or detainment facility;
       ``(v) a parent-led group or other organization that 
     supports and advocates for individuals with Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders;
       ``(vi) an Indian tribe or tribal organization;
       ``(vii) any other entity the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate; or
       ``(viii) a consortium of any of the entities described in 
     clauses (i) through (vii); and
       ``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at 
     such time, in such manner,

[[Page S8725]]

     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require, including assurances that the entity 
     submitting the application does, at the time of application, 
     or will, within a reasonable amount of time from the date of 
     application, include substantive participation of a broad 
     range of entities that work with or provide services for 
     individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(3) Activities.--An eligible entity shall use amounts 
     received under a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement 
     under this subsection shall carry out 1 or more of the 
     following activities:
       ``(A) Identifying and integrating existing programs and 
     services available in the community for individuals with 
     Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(B) Conducting a needs assessment to identify services 
     that are not available in a community.
       ``(C) Developing and implementing community-based 
     initiatives to prevent, diagnose, treat, and provide support 
     services to individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders.
       ``(D) Disseminating information about Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders and the availability of support services.
       ``(E) Developing and implementing a community-wide public 
     awareness and outreach campaign focusing on the dangers of 
     drinking alcohol while pregnant.
       ``(F) Providing mentoring or other support to families of 
     individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(G) Other activities determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriation.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(e) Development of Best Practices.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, 
     shall award grants to States, Indian tribes and tribal 
     organizations, and nongovernmental organizations for the 
     establishment of pilot projects to identify and implement 
     best practices for--
       ``(A) educating children with fetal alcohol spectrum 
     disorders, including--
       ``(i) activities and programs designed specifically for the 
     identification, treatment, and education of such children; 
     and
       ``(ii) curricula development and credentialing of teachers, 
     administrators, and social workers who implement such 
     programs;
       ``(B) educating judges, attorneys, child advocates, law 
     enforcement officers, prison wardens, alternative 
     incarceration administrators, and incarceration officials on 
     how to treat and support individuals suffering from Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders within the criminal justice 
     system, including--
       ``(i) programs designed specifically for the 
     identification, treatment, and education of those with Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(ii) curricula development and credentialing within the 
     justice system for individuals who implement such programs; 
     and
       ``(C) educating adoption or foster care agency officials 
     about available and necessary services for children with 
     fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including--
       ``(i) programs designed specifically for the 
     identification, treatment, and education of those with Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(ii) education and training for potential parents of an 
     adopted child with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     paragraph (1), an entity shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably 
     require.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       ``(f) Transitional Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award demonstration 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to States, 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and nongovernmental 
     organizations for the purpose of establishing integrated 
     systems for providing transitional services for those 
     affected by prenatal alcohol exposure and evaluating their 
     effectiveness.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1), an entity shall 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(3) Allowable uses.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under 
     paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) provide housing assistance to adults with Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
       ``(B) provide vocational training and placement services 
     for adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
       ``(C) provide medication monitoring services for adults 
     with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(D) provide training and support to organizations 
     providing family services or mental health programs and other 
     organizations that work with adults with Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       ``(g) Community Health Center Initiative.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, shall award grants to community health 
     centers acting in collaboration with States, Indian tribes, 
     tribal organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, for 
     the establishment of a 5-year demonstration program under the 
     direction of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal 
     Alcohol Syndrome to implement and evaluate a program to 
     increase awareness and identification of Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders in community health centers and to refer 
     affected individuals to appropriate support services.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     paragraph (1), a community health center shall prepare and 
     submit to the Administrator an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Administrator may reasonably require.
       ``(3) Activities.--A community health center shall use 
     amounts received under a grant under paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) provide training for health care providers on 
     identifying and educating women who are at risk for alcohol 
     consumption during pregnancy;
       ``(B) provide training for health care providers on 
     screening children for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders;
       ``(C) educate health care providers and other relevant 
     community health center workers on the support services 
     available for those with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders and 
     treatment services available for women at risk for alcohol 
     consumption during pregnancy; and
       ``(D) implement a tracking system that can identify the 
     rates of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders by racial, ethnic, 
     and economic backgrounds.
       ``(4) Selection of participants.--The Administrator shall 
     determine the number of community health centers that will 
     participate in the demonstration program under this 
     subsection and shall select participants, to the extent 
     practicable, that are located in different regions of the 
     United States and that serve a racially and ethnically 
     diverse population.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       ``(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after 
     completion of the demonstration program under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the demonstration 
     program, including--
       ``(A) changes in the number of women screened for and 
     identified as at risk for alcohol consumption during 
     pregnancy;
       ``(B) changes in the number of individuals identified as 
     having a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; and
       ``(C) changes in the number of alcohol-consuming pregnant 
     women and individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 
     who were referred to appropriate services.'';
       (4) in subsection (h)(1) (as so redesignated).
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) national public service announcements to raise public 
     awareness of the risks associated with alcohol consumption 
     during pregnancy with the purpose of reducing the prevalence 
     of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, that shall--
       ``(i) be conducted by relevant Federal agencies under the 
     coordination of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 
     Fetal Alcohol Syndrome;
       ``(ii) be developed by the appropriate Federal agencies, as 
     determined by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal 
     Alcohol Syndrome taking into consideration the expertise and 
     experience of other relevant Federal agencies, and shall test 
     and evaluate the public service announcement's effectiveness 
     prior to broadcasting the announcements nationally;
       ``(iii) be broadcast through appropriate media outlets, 
     including television or radio, in a manner intended to reach 
     women at risk of alcohol consumption during pregnancy; and
       ``(iv) be measured prior to broadcast of the national 
     public service announcements to provide baseline data that 
     will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
     announcements.''; and
       (5) in subsection (k) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``National Task Force on 
     Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect'' and 
     inserting ``National Task Force on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) develop, in collaboration with the Interagency 
     Coordinating Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a report 
     that identifies and describes the 10 most important

[[Page S8726]]

     actions that must be taken to reduce prenatal alcohol 
     exposure and all its adverse outcomes, and that shall--
       ``(i) describe the state of the current epidemiology of 
     Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, risk factors, and 
     successful approaches in policy and services that have 
     reduced alcohol-exposed pregnancies and outcomes;
       ``(ii) identify innovative approaches that have worked in 
     related areas such as tobacco control or HIV prevention that 
     may provide models for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders 
     prevention;
       ``(iii) recommend short-term and long-term action plans for 
     achieving the Healthy 2010 Objectives for the United States, 
     such as increasing abstinence from alcohol among pregnant 
     women and reducing the occurrence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome; 
     and
       ``(iv) recommend in coordination with the National 
     Institute on Mental Health whether Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and 
     other prenatal alcohol disorders, or a subset of these 
     disorders, should be included in the Diagnostic and 
     Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.''; and
       (C) by striking ``Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol 
     Effect'' each place that such appears and inserting ``Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders''.

     SEC. 4. COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL ENTITIES.

       Part O of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399K-1. COORDINATION AMONG FEDERAL ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Interagency Coordinating Committee on Fetal Alcohol 
     Syndrome.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
     National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, shall 
     provide for the continuation of the Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome so that such Committee 
     may--
       ``(1) coordinate activities conducted by the Federal 
     Government on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, including 
     convening meetings, establishing work groups, sharing 
     information, and facilitating and promoting collaborative 
     projects among Federal agencies; and
       ``(2) develop, in consultation with the National Task Force 
     on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, priority areas for years 
     2006 through 2010 to guide Federal programs and activities 
     related to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(b) Coordination Among Federal Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding the 
     appropriate roles and responsibilities of Federal entities 
     with respect to programs and activities related to Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(2) Covered entities.--The Federal entities under 
     paragraph (1) shall include entities within the National 
     Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration, the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, the Indian Health Service, the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality, the Interagency Coordinating 
     Committee on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the National Task Force 
     on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders, as well as the Office of 
     Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the 
     Department of Education and the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention in the Department of Justice.
       ``(3) Evaluation.--The evaluation conducted by the 
     Comptroller General under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) an assessment of the current roles and 
     responsibilities of Federal entities with programs and 
     activities related to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders; and
       ``(B) an assessment of whether there is duplication in 
     programs and activities, conflicting roles and 
     responsibilities, or lack of coordination among Federal 
     entities.
       ``(4) Recommendation.--The Comptroller General shall 
     provide recommendations on the appropriate roles and 
     responsibilities of the Federal entities described in 
     paragraph (2) in order to maximize the effectiveness of 
     Federal programs and activities related to Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorders.
       ``(5) Completion.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and 
     Services Act, the Comptroller General shall complete the 
     evaluation and submit to Congress a report on the findings 
     and recommendations made as a result of the evaluation.''.

     SEC. 5. SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME.

       Section 519C(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     290bb-25c(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (15); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (11), the following:
       ``(12) provide respite care for caretakers of individuals 
     with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and other prenatal alcohol-
     related disorders;
       ``(13) recruit and train mentors for adolescents with Fetal 
     Alcohol Syndrome and other prenatal alcohol-related 
     disorders;
       ``(14) provide educational and supportive services to 
     families of individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders; and''.

     SEC. 6. PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND SERVICES IN THE 
                   EDUCATION SYSTEM.

       The Secretary of Education shall direct the Office of 
     Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to--
       (1) implement screening procedures and conduct training on 
     a nationwide Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders surveillance 
     campaign for the educational system in collaboration with the 
     efforts of the National Center on Birth Defects and 
     Developmental Disabilities under section 399H(b) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (as added by this Act);
       (2) introduce curricula previously developed by the 
     National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental 
     Disabilities and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration on how to most effectively educate 
     and support children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in 
     both special education and traditional education settings, 
     and investigate incorporating information about the 
     identification, prevention, and treatment of the Disorders 
     into teachers' credentialing requirements;
       (3) integrate any special techniques on how to deal with 
     Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders children into parent-teacher 
     or parent-administrator interactions, including after-school 
     programs, special school services, and family aid programs;
       (4) collaborate with other Federal agencies to introduce a 
     standardized educational unit within schools' existing sexual 
     and health education curricula, or create one if needed, on 
     the deleterious effects of prenatal alcohol exposure; and
       (5) organize a peer advisory network of adolescents in 
     schools to discourage the use of alcohol while pregnant or 
     considering getting pregnant.

     SEC. 7. PREVENTION, INTERVENTION, AND SERVICES IN THE JUSTICE 
                   SYSTEM.

       The Attorney General shall direct the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention to--
       (1) implement screening procedures and conduct training on 
     a nationwide Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders surveillance 
     campaign for the justice system in collaboration with the 
     efforts of the National Center on Birth Defects and 
     Developmental Disabilities under section 399H(b) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (as added by this Act);
       (2) introduce training curricula, in collaboration with the 
     National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental 
     Disabilities and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration, on how to most effectively identify 
     and interact with individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 
     Disorders in both the juvenile and adult justice systems, and 
     investigate incorporating information about the 
     identification, prevention, and treatment of the disorders 
     into justice professionals' credentialing requirements;
       (3) promote the tracking of individuals entering the 
     juvenile justice system with at-risk backgrounds that 
     indicates them as high probability for having a Fetal Alcohol 
     Spectrum Disorder, especially those whose individuals mothers 
     have a high record of drinking during pregnancy as reported 
     by the appropriated child protection agency;
       (4) educate judges, attorneys, child advocates, law 
     enforcement officers, prison wardens, alternative 
     incarceration administrators, and incarceration officials on 
     how to treat and support individuals suffering from Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders within the criminal justice 
     system, including--
       (A) programs designed specifically for the identification, 
     treatment, and education of such children; and
       (B) curricula development and credentialing of teachers, 
     administrators, and social workers who implement such 
     programs;
       (5) conduct a study on the inadequacies of how the current 
     system processes children with certain developmental delays 
     and subsequently develop alternative methods of incarceration 
     and treatment that are more effective for youth offenders 
     identified to have a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder; and
       (6) develop transition programs for individuals with Fetal 
     Alcohol Spectrum Disorders who are released from 
     incarceration.

     SEC. 8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399J of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280f-2) is amended by 
     striking ``the part'' and all that follows through the period 
     and inserting ``subsections (h) thorough (k) of section 399H, 
     $27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.
       (b) Repeal of Sunset.--Section 399K of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280f-3) is repealed.
                                  ____


       The Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act


                                research

       The adverse affects of alcohol consumption during pregnancy 
     are better understood today than they were when Fetal Alcohol 
     Syndrome (FAS) was first described in the medical literature 
     in 1968. But more research is needed. The bill would require 
     the National Institutes of Health to develop a research 
     agenda for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) that would 
     include research related to:
       Identifying the mechanisms that produce the cognitive and 
     behavioral problems associated with fetal alcohol exposure; 
     development of a neurocognitive phenotype for FAS and 
     Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND); 
     identifying biological markers that indicate fetal alcohol 
     exposure; identifying risk factors that increase 
     susceptibility to FASD; investigating new approaches for 
     sustaining recovery from alcohol dependence; developing 
     therapeutic

[[Page S8727]]

     interventions for individuals with FASD; developing screening 
     instruments to identify women who consume alcohol during 
     pregnancy; and understanding the behavioral disorders 
     associated with FASD.


              surveillance, identification, and prevention

       FASD is often difficult to identify, which complicates 
     efforts to accurately estimate its prevalence. Improved 
     surveillance of FASD is needed to better understand the scope 
     of the problem and to effectively deploy public health 
     resources. The bill would improve surveillance and prevention 
     by:
       Developing a comprehensive screening process for FASD; 
     monitoring risk factors for FASD such as alcohol consumption 
     among pregnant women and women of child-bearing age; and 
     conducting research on prevention and implementing strategies 
     for reducing alcohol-exposed pregnancies.


                           state fasd systems

       To improve surveillance, prevention, and treatment of 
     individuals with FASD, the bill would facilitate the 
     development of statewide FASD systems. To be eligible for 
     federal grants, a state would have to develop a strategic 
     plan for preventing and treating FASD, consult with public 
     and non-profit private organizations with relevant expertise, 
     including family organizations, and designate an individual 
     as the state's FASD program coordinator.
       States would be required to identify existing state 
     programs that could be used for identification, prevention, 
     and treatment of FASD and to identify barriers that 
     individuals with FASD may now experience when trying to 
     access those programs. States could use the federal funds for 
     a number of activities, including:
       Establishing statewide surveillance systems and diagnostic 
     centers; developing and implementing prevention programs, 
     including public awareness campaigns; referring individuals 
     with FASD to appropriate support services; developing and 
     sharing best practices; training health care providers; and 
     disseminating information about FASD and the availability of 
     support services.


                         community partnerships

       Responding to FASD at the community level is also 
     important. The bill would provide federal grants to 
     partnerships of health professionals, school systems, child 
     welfare offices, incarceration facilities, parent 
     organizations, Indian tribes and others within a community. 
     These community partnerships would collaborate on common 
     objectives and integrate services. Federal funds could be 
     used to:
       Identify and integrate existing services; identify services 
     not available in a community; develop community-based 
     initiatives to prevent, diagnose, treat and provide support 
     services to individuals with FASD; disseminate information; 
     develop community-wide public awareness and outreach 
     campaigns; and provide mentoring or other support for 
     families of individuals with FASD.


                             best practices

       Individuals with FASD can find themselves in a number of 
     settings and under the supervision of individuals not trained 
     to work with them. The bill would provide federal grants for 
     pilot projects to identify and implement best practices for:
       Educating children with FASD within the school system; 
     educating judges, attorneys, child advocates, law enforcement 
     officers, prison wardens, and others on how to treat and 
     support individuals with FASD within the criminal justice 
     system; and educating adoption or foster care agency 
     officials about available and necessary services for children 
     with FASD.


                            support services

       Individuals with FASD often need special support services 
     as they transition from adolescence to adulthood. The bill 
     would provide federal grants that could be used to:
       Provide housing assistance to adults with FASD; provide 
     vocational training and placement services to adults with 
     FASD; provide medication monitoring services to adults with 
     FASD; and provide training and support to organizations 
     providing family services or mental health programs and other 
     organizations that work with adults with FASD.
       The bill would also allow federal funds to be used to 
     provide respite care to caregivers of individuals with FASD, 
     recruit and train mentors for adolescents with FASD, and 
     provide education and support services to families of 
     individuals with FASD.


                   community health center initiative

       Community health centers provide primary and preventive 
     health care services in rural and urban communities that are 
     medically underserved. The bill would provide federal grants 
     to implement and evaluate a program to increase awareness and 
     identification of FASD in community health centers. 
     Participating health centers would:
       Provide training to health care providers on identifying 
     and educating women who are at risk for alcohol consumption 
     during pregnancy; provide training to health care providers 
     on screening children for FASD; and educate health care 
     providers and other health center workers on the availability 
     of support services for individuals with FASD and treatment 
     services for women at risk for alcohol consumption during 
     pregnancy.


                     public awareness and education

       Even though FASD is completely preventable, many continue 
     to consume alcohol during pregnancy. The bill would authorize 
     the development and broadcast of national public service 
     announcements to raise public awareness of the risks 
     associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy.


                      national task force on fasd

       The bill would require the National Task Force on FASD to 
     identify and report on the ten most important actions that 
     should be taken to reduce prenatal alcohol exposure and its 
     adverse outcomes, current epidemiological information, 
     innovative prevention models, short-term and long-term 
     recommendations for achieving the Healthy 2010 Objectives for 
     the Nation related to FASD, and a recommendation on whether 
     FAS and other prenatal alcohol disorders should be included 
     in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


                  coordination among federal entities

       The bill provides statutory authority for the Interagency 
     Coordinating Committee on FAS and instructs the Comptroller 
     General of the United States to evaluate and make 
     recommendations regarding the appropriate roles and 
     responsibilities of federal entities with programs and 
     activities related to FASD.


     prevention, intervention, and services in the education system

       The education system must be involved in efforts to address 
     FASD. The bill would have the Department of Education 
     implement screening procedures, introduce curricula on how to 
     effectively educate and support children with FASD, include 
     information on the danger of alcohol consumption during 
     pregnancy in existing sexual and health education curricula, 
     and adopt other strategies to assist students with FASD.


      prevention, intervention, and services in the justice system

       Many FASD adolescents and adults are incarcerated or 
     otherwise involved in the justice system. The bill would have 
     the Attorney General implement screening procedures, 
     introduce training curricula on how to effectively identify 
     and interact with individuals with FASD, track individuals 
     entering the juvenile justice system whose background 
     indicates they have a high probability of having FASD, and 
     develop transition programs for individuals with FASD who are 
     released from incarceration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2742. A bill to extend certain authority of the Supreme Court 
Police, modify the venue of prosecutions relating to the Supreme Court 
building and grounds, and authorize the acceptance of gifts to the 
United States Supreme Court; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Federal courts propose legislation to 
improve their operational efficiency. Today, joined by Senator Leahy, I 
am introducing legislation requested by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. This bill is non-controversial and I hope the Senate can 
complete action on it in a timely manner after we return from our 
August recess.
  There are three sections to this bill which I will describe for the 
benefit of my colleagues.
  Section 1. Supreme Court Police Authority to Protect Court Officials 
Off of Court Grounds. This section would extend, for an additional four 
years, a ``sunset'' provision on authority of the Supreme Court Police 
to protect the Justices and other Court officials and official guests 
away from the Court building and grounds.
  This authority was established by Public Law 97-390 (12/29/82) and 
was for a three-year period. Since 1985, the authority has been renewed 
regularly, generally with three or four year extensions and now expires 
at the end of 2004. The extension of the sunset provision would permit 
the Court Police to carry out this function until 2008. The Court 
Police regularly provide protection for the Justices away from the 
Court, and in light of the heightened security threats to symbols of 
our government, it is vital that the Police's authority to carry out 
this function continue without interruption.
  Section 2. Venue for violations of Chapter 61 of Title 40. This 
section would add the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia to the existing statute establishing venue for the prosecution 
of violations of statutes or regulations governing the Supreme Court 
building and grounds under 40 USCS Sec. Sec.  6131 et seq.
  Section 6137(b) currently permits prosecutions only in Superior 
Court. The amendment would provide an additional alternative, in light 
of the fact that there are prosecutions under these statutes where 
distinctly Federal interests are at stake.
  Prosecutions under this chapter include the following: Sale of 
articles, signs, and solicitation in Supreme Court Building and 
grounds; destruction of property in the Supreme Court

[[Page S8728]]

Building and grounds; possession of firearms, fireworks, unauthorized 
speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and 
grounds; and unauthorized parades, assemblages, and display of flags in 
the Supreme Court Building and grounds.
  Section 3. Gifts to the Supreme Court. This section would authorize 
the Chief Justice or his designee to accept, hold, administer and use 
gifts of personal property for official Court purposes. Monetary 
bequests would be turned over to the treasury.
  In 1978, Congress authorized the Director of the Administrative 
Office for United States Courts to receive gifts on behalf of the 
judiciary, recognizing at the time that the judiciary had already 
received gifts under its implied powers. [See 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 604(a)(17)(B).] Generally, the Director does not have authority 
with respect to the Supreme Court, and this provision is intended to 
recognize that the Supreme Court has the authority to receive non-
monetary gifts on its own behalf. The language of the provision closely 
tracks the 1978 legislation authorizing the Director to receive gifts 
for the judiciary.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperative effort that Senator Leahy 
and I have been able to undertake to bring this legislation to the 
Senate and am confident we can work together to ensure timely passage 
of this measure.
  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. 2742

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                   SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS 
                   OFF THE SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.

       Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2008''.

     SEC. 2. VENUE FOR PROSECUTIONS RELATING TO THE UNITED STATES 
                   SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

       Section 6137 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Venue and Procedure.--Prosecution for a violation 
     described in subsection (a) shall be in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia or in the 
     Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on information by 
     the United States Attorney or an Assistant United States 
     Attorney.''.

     SEC. 3. GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

       The Chief Justice or his designee is authorized to accept, 
     hold, administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of personal 
     property for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work 
     of the United States Supreme Court, but gifts or bequests of 
     money shall be covered into the Treasury.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 2743. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 
that only licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, and 
certain licensed dentists may perform eye surgery at Department of 
Veterans Affairs facilities or under contract with the Department; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans 
Eye Treatment Safety Act of 2004, or VETS Act, which will protect the 
eye care of our veterans by providing that only licensed physicians may 
perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities 
or under contract with the VA.
  Presently, 49 out of 50 States prohibit optometrists from performing 
surgery. Oklahoma is the only State that allows optometrists to perform 
laser surgical procedures. Recently, Oklahoma enacted a law expanding 
existing law to allow optometrists to perform nonlaser surgical 
procedures such as cataract surgery.
  Under the VA credentialing practice, optometrists have been granted 
laser surgery clinical privileges within the VA Medical Center. The 
VA's credentialing practice allows medical practitioners to be granted 
privileges to perform procedures within the VA system that they are 
authorized to perform in the State in which they are licensed. Thus, an 
optometrist licensed in Oklahoma can be granted clinical privileges to 
perform laser surgery at the VA. In 2003, the VA allowed at least three 
optometrists to perform laser eye surgery at multiple VA hospitals 
throughout the Nation.
  This practice is inconsistent with the policies of the Army, Navy, 
and Air Force, which do not allow optometrists to perform eye surgery. 
The VA, which also treats TRICARE beneficiaries, is the outlier. If a 
military retiree, a TRICARE beneficiary, needs laser eye surgery, only 
a licensed medical doctor or doctor of osteopathy could perform it, as 
required by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. However, if that same 
TRICARE beneficiary seeks treatment at a VA facility--as is his or her 
right--it is possible that an optometrist could perform the surgery. In 
this case, such person would receive a lower standard of care than the 
Department of Defense would allow in a military treatment facility. 
This VA credentialing practice regarding eye surgery creates two 
standards of care: a high standard of care for active duty personnel, 
dependents, and TRICARE beneficiaries when seen in a military treatment 
facility, and a lower standard of care for TRICARE beneficiaries and 
veterans if treated in the VA system.
  The VA's practice is questionable. Optometrists typically do not have 
the requisite training and experience to perform eye surgery. Only one 
school of optometry in the United States offers courses in laser eye 
surgery. To become certified, optometrists must complete two courses at 
this school, with less than 40 hours of training, and perform only four 
supervised surgeries. In contrast, ophthalmologists during medical 
school, internship, and residency complete between 9,000 to 12,000 
hours of training and education before practicing without supervision.
  The Veterans Eye Treatment Safety Act of 2004 provides that only 
licensed medical doctors, licensed doctors of osteopathy, or licensed 
dentists whose practice is limited to oral or maxillofacial surgery may 
perform eye surgery at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities or 
under contract with the department. This legislation is narrowly 
targeted and does not prevent optometrists from performing noninvasive, 
nonsurgical procedures--the procedures that optometrists are trained 
and qualified to perform. The bill simply ensures that only licensed 
physicians can perform invasive, surgical procedures on our veterans.
  The VETS Act has been endorsed by the Vietnam Veterans of America, 
the National Gulf War Resource Center, the American Medical 
Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American 
Osteopathic Association, and the American College of Surgeons. 
Additionally, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Blinded Veterans 
Association have written letters to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
opposing allowing optometrists to perform surgery.
  This bill is a patient safety measure that protects our veterans. It 
protects the law of 49 States, preventing the will of one from becoming 
the law of the land. We must send a clear message to the VA that 
veterans should receive the same quality eye care that ordinary 
citizens receive.
  I would like to thank Senator Cantwell, Senator Hollings, Senator 
Feinstein, and Senator Sessions for cosponsoring this important 
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill that will protect the ocular safety of our veterans--ensuring that 
they receive the same high level of care that almost all Americans and 
members of the armed forces receive.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2743

       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 ``Veterans Eye Treatment 
     Safety (VETS) Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION AS TO PERSONS WHO MAY PERFORM EYE SURGERY 
                   FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       Section 1707 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Eye surgery at a Department facility or under 
     contract with the Department may be performed only by an 
     individual who is a licensed medical doctor, a licensed 
     doctor of osteopathy, or a licensed dentist whose practice is 
     limited to the specialty of oral or maxillofacial surgery.

[[Page S8729]]

       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `eye 
     surgery' means any procedure involving the eye or the adnexa 
     in which human tissue is cut, burned, frozen, vaporized, 
     ablated, probed, or otherwise altered or penetrated by 
     incision, injection, laser, ultrasound, ionizing radiation, 
     or by other means, in order to treat eye disease, alter or 
     correct refractive error, or alter or enhance cosmetic 
     appearance. Such term does not include the following 
     noninvasive, nonsurgical procedures: removal of superficial 
     ocular foreign bodies from the conjunctival surface, from the 
     eyelid epidermis, or from the corneal epithelium; corneal 
     debridement and scraping; forceps epilation of misaligned 
     eyelashes; the prescription and fitting of contact lenses; 
     insertion of punctal plugs, diagnostic dilation or irrigation 
     of the lacrimal system; the use of diagnostic ultrasound; 
     orthokeratology; or the treatment of emergency cases of 
     anaphylactic shock (with subcutaneous epinephrine, such as 
     that included in a bee sting kit).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2744. A bill to authorize the minting and issuance of a 
Presidential $1 coin series; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Nevada, 
Senator Reid, to introduce the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2004. This 
legislation, which is modeled after the successful 50-State quarter 
program, would add the image of U.S. Presidents to the circulating 
dollar coin. I believe this bill, when enacted, will prompt more 
widespread usage of the dollar coin, earn significant funds for the 
U.S. government and spark new interest in the history of the leaders of 
our Nation.
  The United States Government currently issues a dollar coin. 
Unfortunately, many Americans don't know about the coin and most don't 
use them. In fact, the dollar coin has never lived up to its promise to 
become a primary component of the American economy. I believe as policy 
makers, it is our job to ask what this costs our economy and our 
government, why the dollar coin is not widely used, and what can be 
done to remedy it.
  With a one-dollar coin in general circulation, our economy will be 
more efficient, and our government will reap the significant benefits 
that a fully circulating coin will generate. To illustrate, millions of 
low-dollar transactions occur in our country every day. Bringing even 
the smallest efficiency to each would result in significant savings to 
the economy. For example, the vending machine industry estimates that 
the effect of a widely circulated dollar coin in its sector alone could 
be as much as $1 billion in savings: $300 million in increased sales 
and $700 million in reduced maintenance costs. Add to that the savings 
that businesses would realize by experiencing lower handling costs--
it's simply much more expensive to sort and count bills than coins--and 
one begins to get a sense of the economies that could be achieved if 
our dollar coin program were more of a success.
  In the public sector, the savings are hardly less dramatic. Informed 
estimates put the effect of a fully circulating dollar coin at as much 
as a $500 million annual infusion to the Treasury general fund. These 
funds are created by the difference between what it costs to make a 
coin or bill and what it's worth. For a dollar coin, the difference, 
which is called seigniorage, is about 80 cents. While there is no 
direct comparison for a dollar bill, as the accounting methods are 
different, the gain to the general fund is much less. Another savings 
comes from the fact that a coin can do its work for 30 years, while a 
dollar bill has a lifespan of only about 18 months before it wears out 
and needs to be replaced.
  With such clear advantages on the side of the dollar coin why doesn't 
the American public use the coin? The answers are fairly well known and 
were documented by the GAO in a 2002 report to Congress. Let me address 
some of the problems outlined by the GAO.
  First, there is the so-called ``network effect.'' This 
interdependency of demand is described by the GAO this way--
``Increasing the use of the coin is especially difficult because 
retailers will not stock the dollar coin until they see the public 
using it, the public is unlikely to use the coin until they see 
retailers stocking it, and banks and armored carriers are reluctant to 
invest in new equipment to handle the coin until there is wide demand 
for it.'' Second, there is a lack of public information about the 
savings to the government from using the dollar coin. Third, business 
users found difficulty in getting the newer ``golden'' dollar coins in 
a useable form--they are not rolled like other coins and because they 
are generally commingled with the older Susan B. Anthony dollars. 
Fourth, design mistakes made with the Susan B. Anthony dollar led many 
to confuse the coin with the quarter and spend it at a 75-cent loss. 
Finally, the most difficult problem of all, Americans prefer the dollar 
bill to the dollar coin because they can get an adequate supply of 
them, and they are readily accepted everywhere.

  The GAO summed it up with this conclusion in its 2002 report, ``. . . 
until individuals can see that the coin is widely used by others and 
that the government intends to replace the dollar bill with the dollar 
coin, they will be unlikely to use the coin in everyday transactions.''
  The bill I am introducing today will address many of these problems. 
It will do so by getting the dollar coin in people's hands and pockets. 
It will provide the information that Americans need to make rational 
decisions and it takes steps to eliminate other barriers to circulation 
of the coin. Although this legislation does not take the dollar bill 
out of circulation, it is well known that continued circulation of the 
dollar bill is expensive to businesses and consumers alike. Therefore, 
I am today writing the GAO asking that it carefully examine this issue 
and update its findings from its last comprehensive review made in 
1990.
  Now, I turn to the specifics of my legislative proposal. Beginning in 
2006, the bill would cause the images of four U.S. Presidents to appear 
on the dollar coin a year, each in the order of their service, until 
all are so honored. The reverse of the coin would feature the Statue of 
Liberty. The edge of the coin would hold important information, such as 
the date and the so-called mintmark. It is important to note that coins 
bearing the image of Sacagawea, who currently appears on the face of 
the dollar coin, will continue to be issued during the period of the 
Presidential Coin Program established by this bill. I draw my 
colleague's attention to the fact that her image will be joined by the 
images of U.S. Presidents, not displaced by them. This is only 
appropriate, especially as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis 
and Clark Expedition of which she was such an important part.
  To complement the Presidential Coin Program, my bill would also 
create a new puregold bullion coin to honor presidential spouses. At 
the same time each president's image appears on the circulating dollar 
coin, the spouse's image would appear on a one-half ounce pure gold 
coin. It is my hope that together the Presidential coin and the Spouse 
coin will spark excitement and interest in the dollar coin and get it 
into circulation. These coins will appeal both to collectors and to 
investors.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Coin Program is modeled 
after the wildly successful 50-state quarter program. As all my 
colleagues know, that program has aroused new interest in coins, coin 
collecting and the history of our nation's states. Before it began, the 
U.S. Mint was producing about $400 million in quarters a year. Demand 
in the first year of the quarter program shot up to $1.2 billion in 
quarters that year. Seigniorage from the quarter halfway through the 
50-state program has surpassed all expectations, amounting to more than 
$4 billion, close to the $5 billion that was predicted for the whole 
10-year program. I believe that the Presidential Coin Program will have 
a similar effect on the dollar coin, creating interest and familiarity 
with the dollar coin and revenues for the U.S. government.
  The bill I am introducing with Senator Reid would also take other 
important steps toward getting Americans used to the dollar coin and 
removing barriers to its circulation. For example, it would cause the 
Federal Government to use the dollar coin in all its retail operations. 
Incredibly, this is not the case now. Except for the U.S. Postal 
Service, few other Federal agencies make use of the coin. Also, the 
bill would take the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin out of circulation, 
ending the problem--identified by many business owners--of commingling 
of the new and

[[Page S8730]]

old dollar coins. There would be, however, no problem for the Sacagawea 
and Presidential dollars to circulate at the same time, as they both 
would be of the attractive ``golden'' color. The bill also would cause 
the dollar coins to be available in convenient forms, including rolls 
and small bags, so that businesses can use them easily. Now, it's hard 
to get dollar coins except in pillow-sized bags, from which they must 
be counted before they can go into cash registers.
  Finally, this legislation will create a new, pure-gold bullion, one-
ounce coin with the image of the so-called ``Indian Head'' or 
``Buffalo'' nickel. Here, I must note that the design is so popular 
that when our colleague Senator Campbell, authored legislation to re-
create that design as a limited-edition silver dollar to benefit the 
National Museum of the American Indian now under construction on the 
Mall, all half-million copies allowed sold out within two weeks. This 
will be an opportunity for collectors to get a pure-gold copy of the 
coin, but it will also be an opportunity for investors to buy an 
investment-grade coin. Other countries, including the People's Republic 
of China, make this kind of pure-gold investment vehicle available to 
their citizens, but to date the U.S. Mint gold investment-grade coins 
have only been about 90 percent pure. I'm certain that with the quality 
work of the Mint and the imprimatur of the United States Government, 
this coin will be well-accepted into the market.
  Let me conclude, by saying that I believe the bill I am introducing 
today will put the dollar coin on the map and in the pockets of 
Americans. That's good for commerce and it's good government.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator 
Sununu to cosponsor the Presidential One Dollar Coin Act of 2004. When 
enacted, this measure will provide a valuable educational tool to help 
children and adults alike learn about our presidents, will lead to 
substantial savings for consumers, and earn billions of dollars for the 
government.
  Let me begin by describing in detail how the program established by 
this legislation will work. Beginning in 2006, four presidents would be 
honored each year on dollar coins in the order of service, with their 
name, dates of service, and a number indicating the order in which they 
served on the front of the coin.
  The Statute of Liberty will appear on the reverse side of the coin, 
while the date and mintmark will appear on the edge of the coin, 
leaving room for dramatic images on the faces.
  The bill also continues the tradition that no image of a living 
president appear on coins and also seeks to address the several 
barriers to circulation that have in the past hindered more widespread 
use of the dollar coin.
  The educational benefits of this program are clear. We all know that 
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, but how 
many know the dates of his presidential service to our country? Those 
were momentous years for our young nation, and this program will put 
that kind of information in the pockets of every consumer and in the 
hands of every school child in the nation.
  This bill also will provide financial benefits to consumers and the 
government. The cost of counting and handling change is much lower than 
that of counting and handling currency. The widespread availability and 
use of a dollar coin will help lower costs for consumers in sectors of 
the economy that rely on regular low-dollar-value transactions, such as 
vending machines and transit systems.
  The Department of Treasury also estimates that the dollar coin, if in 
full circulation, would create as much as $500 million each year for 
the government. This money, which goes directly to the general fund, 
arises from the difference between the costs of making the coin and the 
amount of worth it carries in commerce. While this amount varies 
depending on a number of factors, for the Golden Dollar, it averages 
about $0.80 for each coin.
  It should be noted that the Department of Treasury estimated that the 
50 State Quarter Program would produce $2.6 billion to $5 billion in 
revenues for the government; halfway through, the program already has 
earned more than $4 billion.
  The second part of this bill would establish a program to honor 
presidential First Spouses with a nearly pure gold coin. Each coin 
would bear the likeness of a presidential spouse on one side and an 
image symbolic of the spouse's works or interests on the other. In the 
five cases in which presidents had no spouse during their term of 
office, the measure provides for an image of ``Liberty'' as was used on 
a coin during the president's term, with the reverse having an image 
related to the period of the president's term. I believe the 
presidential spouse program will build on the benefits-- both 
educational and financial--of the presidential series.
  Finally, my bill directs the U.S. Mint to produce a new, one-ounce, 
pure gold bullion coin with the famous image of the ``Indian Head'' or 
``Buffalo'' nickel. This fine looking coin is so well known and popular 
that when it was struck as a silver dollar to help finance the National 
Museum of the American Indian, all 500,000 were snapped up by consumers 
and collectors in just two weeks.
  While other countries have made coins like these, the Mint has never 
made a pure gold coin for investors and collectors, and I believe it is 
time to do so. Not only will these coins increase investment 
opportunities, they will produce earnings for the government. As my 
home state of Nevada is a principle gold producing state in the nation, 
it will also create jobs for my constituents.
  I conclude my statement by addressing an important issue that relates 
to this proposal. I understand that there are those in this body and 
elsewhere who do not wish to see the image of Sacagawea, which is now 
on the dollar coin, removed for any reason. It is their view that to do 
so shows disrespect to her and to all Native Americans. I share their 
commitment to honoring the memory of Sacagawea, which is why my bill 
provides for the continued release of Sacagawea dollar coins throughout 
the Presidential coin program and beyond. Furthermore, I believe this 
program will actually honor Sacagawea by ensuring that the dollar coin 
with her image and the images of U.S. Presidents is widely circulated 
and used by all Americans.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the rest of my colleagues to 
ensure this measure's review and passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2745. A bill to amend the Colorado Canyons National Conservation 
Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000 to rename the 
Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons 
National Conservation Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am honored to rise and introduce 
legislation that would rename the Colorado Canyons National 
Conservation Area as the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.
  I do this in recognition of my colleague in the House, Scott McInnis, 
who will join me this year in returning home to private life after 
years of dedicated public service to the people of Colorado. For the 
past two decades, Congressman McInnis has been a true champion in the 
fight to protect Colorado's public lands. In fact, no sitting Member of 
Congress has passed more legislation for the designation and protection 
of Wilderness areas.
  As Congressman McInnis nears the end of his tenure in office, I 
thought it appropriate to create a lasting symbol of Colorado's 
appreciation for his many achievements on behalf of our great State. 
The Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area is located near 
Congressman McInnis' home in Grand Junction. The site is one of 
America's most beautiful natural treasures. These canyons are preserved 
today because of the work of Congressman McInnis, who began his quest 
to protect the Colorado Canyons by seeking the input of local citizens 
and landowners. He then took this input and sought the advice of land 
managers and non-profit conservation organizations. Upon completing the 
plan, Congressman McInnis drafted the legislation to create the area 
and shepherded it through Congress.
  Simply put, the creation of the Colorado Canyons National 
Conservation

[[Page S8731]]

Area would not have been possible absent the tireless efforts of Scott 
McInnis. Recognizing the sizable McInnis legacy on behalf of all 
Coloradans, I think it only fitting and appropriate to introduce this 
lasting tribute to recognize Scott's hard work and abiding love of 
Colorado's public lands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
  S. 2747. A bill to establish a Commission on the Future of the United 
States Economy to make recommendations on public policy and the 
reorganization of the Federal Government to promote efficiency and 
economy of operation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the mid-1980's President Reagan 
joined with Democrats and Republicans to fashion an effective strategy 
to confront the challenges we then faced from the Japanese. It's time 
to reconsider our competitiveness strategy, this time in response to 
the Chinese and many other emerging free enterprise economies. The 
Reagan approach--appointing a bipartisan commission on industrial 
competitiveness, chaired by John A. Young, president of Hewlett Packard 
Co., and supported by the Democratic Congress--remains the most 
effective way to proceed, and today I am introducing legislation to do 
just that.
  Still known as the Young Commission, this distinguished group of 
leaders from large and small businesses, labor, and academia led the 
nation in a dialog on ways to strengthen the competitiveness of the 
U.S. industry in both domestic and foreign markets. Its recommendations 
and remedies were widely adopted in the late 1980's and 1990's and 
account for the unprecedented growth we experienced--much coming from 
America's high tech sector. But our competitive circumstances have 
changed and the Young Commission vision needs to be reconsidered and 
refreshed.
  The 2.7 million jobs we've lost since 2000 is a bitter reminder of 
the economic crisis we faced in the early 1980's. Back then Japan had 
emerged as a major competitor invading our markets with advanced 
products at lower prices. Sony, Hitachi, Nikon, Toyota, Honda and other 
rising Japanese industrial giants had cast a shadow of anxiety over the 
American public. Plant closings and layoffs became widespread as our 
trade deficit with Japan ballooned and production shrank with rising 
imports. And the Paul Volcker interest rates imposed to break the back 
of inflation had crushed the weaker American firms. We had two choices: 
succumb or fight.
  Fortunately, led by the kind of practical vision espoused by the 
Young Commission, the United States learned how to fight and rose to 
the challenge with objective analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, 
hard decisions about government's role, and investments in 
entrepreneurs and high technology fostering the longest expansionary 
period in our 200 year history. Wise decisions were made in the 1980s 
and we cashed in on them in the 1990's. The strategy that worked then 
is not sufficient now. World markets are now undergoing a momentous 
change that requires a re-assessment of our competitiveness strategy 
for this new century.
  As the Japanese challenge developed in the early 1980s, the response 
of our two political parties became a polarized debate about 
``industrial policy.'' Republicans favored deeper and deeper tax cuts 
to stimulate job growth which--together with massive defense spending--
sent the deficits through the roof. Some Democrats pushed for an 
Industrial Development Bank to rescue failing firms and protectionist 
policies. Neither side thought it could compromise without risking the 
support of its political base, and we faced a political deadlock on 
economic policy. Twenty years later, does all of this sound quite 
familiar?
  The Young Commission brought all sides to the table and enabled each 
to acknowledge the hard facts that shaped the debate. It proposed the 
first generation of reforms that became a bipartisan competitiveness 
agenda. Public-private collaborations instead of industrial supports, 
and research and development investments in information technology 
became a foundation for the economic boom of the 1990's. Their 
recommendations provided the roadmap that led to the longest period of 
economic growth in our history.
  Today, the challenges we face are exponentially larger and more 
complex. We've entered an information age where intangible assets such 
as innovation and knowledge are the new keys to competitive advantage. 
These intangibles--including worker skills and knowledge, informal 
relationships that feed creativity, new business methods, and 
intellectual property--are driving worldwide economic prosperity. 
According to a 1998 study by the Brookings Institution 85 percent of 
company assets are now considered intangible, a significant jump from 
38 percent in 1982.
  In an age where these knowledge-based assets are difficult to patent 
or copyright, intellectual property rights are difficult to enforce, 
and information crosses borders freely and instantaneously, the first 
Young Commission doesn't give us all the answers. We need a strategy 
where change is both inevitable and necessary, as companies leapfrog 
their own technology and continuously reap the rewards that go to 
innovators. This 21st century rat race--constant insecurity, constant 
competition, and constant change--presents an opportunity for all, yet 
it will be a nightmare for the unprepared.
  This is our fate for a good reason--the United States won the cold 
war's battle of ideas. The outcome is what we wished for--free 
enterprise is on the march, socialist state planning is discredited, 
and new competitors (principally China and India, but also Canada, 
Mexico, Ireland, Malaysia, and Taiwan) can deploy world class talent 
not fearful of international competition. American economic supremacy--
our seeming birthright since the Second World War--has come to an end. 
Now we have to fight for every morsel on our economic table.
  The competitors we now face have world class engineering and science 
talent as well as low wages. The challenge now extends beyond a concern 
over foreign competition on manufacturing to ominous trends in favor of 
global outsourcing of the services sector, including high end 
technology jobs. The drive for increased customization, speed, and 
responsiveness to customer needs has multiplied the pressures for 
productivity and quality. Our entire innovation ecosystem is under 
stress, including the ties between basic research and 
commercialization, competition for capital and technology, and adaptive 
business models. As we have done in building fighter aircraft that puts 
unheard of G force stress on pilots, we now need workers who can thrive 
on knowledge overload. Because our workforce no longer has the security 
of certainty and stability, we need to give it the confidence and tools 
to adapt continuously to innovation and change--in a global melee of 
shifting upstart competitors.
  The American economy is the most adaptable in the world--with a well 
educated workforce, efficient capital markets, and the zeal of 
generations of entrepreneurial immigrants. But we seem not to have 
noticed that the rate of global change is accelerating. The warning 
signs are everywhere. We are not just losing some high wage jobs--we 
may be losing critical parts of our innovation infrastructure, and with 
them, our long-term competitive edge in the global marketplace. As long 
as emerging nations such as China and India continue to produce more 
and more science and engineering graduates, invest in their 
infrastructure, and implement targeted industrial and trade policies to 
strengthen their research and development and attract foreign 
investment, doing nothing will slowly and silently erode our economic 
and national security. As our own giants like GE, TI, Intel, HP, and 
Microsoft cast a shadow of anxiety over American workers by going 
offshore, we must proceed with a coordinated and sustainable vision to 
strengthen our innovation infrastructure. America's dependence on 
foreign capital to finance excessive government and consumer debt is an 
ominous trend which threatens our future innovation. The much higher 
savings rate of many of our competitors gives them ready access to 
capital necessary for investing in productivity-enhancing research and 
technologies.
  To meet these challenges, we first need an injection of bipartisan 
political will and that's not easy to find in

[[Page S8732]]

Washington these days. It is time to unleash a new, bipartisan and 
updated Young Commission, charged with analyzing the impact of global 
economic changes on the American economy, including the offshore 
outsourcing problem, and offering nonpartisan proposals to preserve our 
innovation infrastructure and create more high-wage American jobs.
  The legislation I am introducing today creates a 22-member bipartisan 
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Economy to make specific 
recommendations on a broad range of issues related to the development 
of our Nations' skill-base, innovation capacity and the other factors 
needed for the knowledge and information economy. The Commission is to 
report back to Congress within 18 months.
  Numerous groups concerned about the future of the United States 
economy have begun to address the rising challenge of sustaining our 
competitive advantage in this new global economy. I first would like to 
thank Dr. Kenan Patrick Jarboe from Athena Alliance for helping to 
develop key ideas and providing invaluable advice as my office 
considered this legislation. I would also like to acknowledge the 
significant and thoughtful work the Electronic Industries Alliance has 
provided in formulating ideas for a new competitiveness agenda. I also 
trust that the major effort in progress under the National Innovation 
Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness will provide a creative 
groundwork for this important Commission.
  I request unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the 
bill and the text of the bill itself appear in the Record following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          The Commission on the Future of the U.S. Economy Act


                           Section-by-section

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This section cites the title of the Act as the ``Commission 
     on the Future of the U.S. Economy Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       This section lays out a number of findings which include:
       (1) The U.S. economy has entered an information age where 
     innovation and knowledge are the new keys to competitive 
     advantage and are creating new challenges for American 
     workers and companies.
       (2) In 1984, at the height of concerns over the condition 
     of the manufacturing sector in the U.S., President Reagan 
     appointed the bipartisan President's Commission on Industrial 
     Competitiveness (the Young Commission) that addressed the 
     issue of U.S. competitiveness in a new way and developed a 
     framework that has guided policymaking for the past two 
     decades.
       (3) There is a need for an independent, bipartisan 
     undertaking comparable to the Young Commission to review the 
     new competitive challenges facing the United States and to 
     recommend a framework to guide the making of responsive 
     public policy.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.

       This section establishes the Commission on the Future of 
     the U.S. Economy with the purpose of undertaking an analysis 
     of the competitive challenges to American companies and 
     workers and making recommendations for public policy, 
     including reorganization of the Federal government, to 
     promote efficiency and economy of operation, to foster the 
     skills and knowledge Americans need to prosper in the 21st 
     century, strengthen the entire innovation system, and 
     stimulate the creation of knowledge, inventions, partnerships 
     and other intangibles so as to maintain economic growth, 
     income generation and job creation.

     SEC. 4. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS.

       This section sets the membership at 17 voting members; nine 
     appointed by the President and two each appointed by the 
     Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the 
     Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader. In 
     addition, the President shall appoint five non-voting ex 
     officio members from among the following officials: the 
     Secretaries of the Treasury, Commerce, Labor and Defense, the 
     United States Trade Representative, the Chairman of the 
     Council of Economic Advisers, and the Director of the Office 
     of Science and Technology Policy. The President shall 
     designate one regular appointee as Chairperson. The voting 
     members shall elect a Vice Chairperson who is not affiliated 
     with the same political party as the Chairman. Members shall 
     be appointed not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of an Act making the appropriations, and any 
     vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       Regular members shall be persons who are leaders or 
     recognized experts from industry, labor unions, research 
     institutions, academia and other important social and 
     economic institutions, and have expertise in economics, 
     international trade, services, manufacturing, labor, science 
     and technology, education, business, or have other pertinent 
     qualifications or experience. Regular members may not be 
     officers or employees of the United States. Every effort 
     shall be made to ensure that the regular members are those 
     who can provide new insights to analyzing the nature and 
     consequences of a knowledge-based economy.
       The Commission shall hold its first meeting no later than 
     30 days after all voting members have been appointed.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       This section describes the duties of the Commission which 
     shall--
       (A) review the findings and recommendations of previous 
     studies and commissions (including the Young Commission and 
     the National Innovation Initiative of the Council on 
     Competitiveness);
       (B) analyze the current economic environment and 
     competitive challenges facing the U.S. workers and companies;
       (C) review the strategies of other nations for responding 
     to the competitive challenges of the new economic 
     environment, and analyze the impact of those strategies on 
     the future of the U.S. economy;
       (D) formulate specific recommendations on a broad range of 
     issues related to the development of the nations' skill-base 
     and innovative capacity within the private and public sectors 
     of the U.S. economy. By March 1, 2006 or 18 months after 
     appointment of members, whichever is later, the Commission 
     shall submit to Congress and the President a report regarding 
     the competitive challenges facing the United States, along 
     with conclusions and specific recommendations for legislative 
     and administrative actions for maintaining economic growth, 
     income generation and job creation. The Commission may also 
     submit an interim or any special reports it feels may be 
     necessary.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       This section describes the powers of the Commission, which 
     include holding hearings, taking testimony, and receiving 
     evidence. The Commission may request information from any 
     Federal department or agency; may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property; may procure 
     analysis, reports and studies from organizations or 
     individuals other than Commission staff analysis; and may use 
     the United States mails in the same manner and under the same 
     conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal 
     Government. The Commission may also receive administrative 
     support from the Administrator of General Services on a 
     reimbursable basis.

     SEC. 7. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       This section describes personnel matters for the 
     Commission. Regular members of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses and shall be compensated at a rate 
     equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule for each 
     day of service. The Commission may hire an Executive Director 
     and staff, without regard to the civil service laws and 
     regulations, not to exceed the rate payable for level V of 
     the Executive Schedule. Federal Government employees may be 
     detailed to the Commission without reimbursement and the 
     Commission may procure temporary and intermittent services to 
     support and supplement Commission staff at a rate not to 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule. Regular 
     members of the Commission do not lose any Federal retirement 
     benefits by virtue of service on the Commission.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which it submits the final report.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       This section authorized $10,0000,000 to be appropriated to 
     the Commission, to remain available until expended.

                                S. 2747

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commission on the Future of 
     the United States Economy Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States economy has entered an information 
     age in which innovation and knowledge, including worker 
     skills and creativity, are the keys to competitive advantage.
       (2) The need for bold innovation and ever-increasing 
     knowledge imposes increasingly demanding competitive 
     challenges for United States workers and companies.
       (3) In 1984, in response to concerns over the condition of 
     the manufacturing sector in the United States, President 
     Ronald Reagan appointed the bipartisan President's Commission 
     on Industrial Competitiveness (hereafter in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Young Commission'') that addressed the issue of 
     United States competitiveness in a new way and developed a 
     framework that has guided policymaking for the past 2 
     decades.
       (4) The Young Commission proposed a reorganization of the 
     performance of the economic and trade functions of the 
     Federal Government, which was never implemented.
       (5) The striking changes in world economic circumstances 
     over the 20 years since reorganization was proposed by the 
     Young Commission necessitate reevaluation of the proposal in 
     light of those changes.

[[Page S8733]]

       (6) Because the challenges facing the United States economy 
     are different in many ways from those of 20 years ago, there 
     is a need to renew the Young Commission's mandate to 
     reexamine America's competitiveness.
       (7) Many studies and reports by governmental and 
     nongovernmental organizations, such as the National 
     Innovation Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness, have 
     laid the groundwork for this reexamination.
       (8) The changed competitive challenges facing the United 
     States today--
       (A) extend beyond a concern over global competition in 
     goods and the loss of domestic manufacturing to the 
     challenges presented by the fusion of manufacturing and 
     services into complex networks and the opening of more 
     service sectors earlier to international competition;
       (B) extend beyond concerns over productivity and quality to 
     the challenges presented by the need for increased 
     customization, speed, and responsiveness to customer needs;
       (C) extend beyond issues of competitiveness of individual 
     manufacturing firms and industries and to the challenges of 
     ensuring robustness in the networks of manufacturing and 
     service firms and development of new forms of business 
     models;
       (D) extend beyond a concern over high-technology research 
     and development and to the challenges of nurturing the entire 
     innovation system, including basic research, technological 
     development, venture capital, new product development, design 
     and aesthetics, new business models, and the development of 
     new markets;
       (E) shift attention from concern over raising awareness of 
     trade to a refocusing on the problems of managing the 
     increasing complexity of globalization;
       (F) extend beyond the challenges of sustaining a flexible 
     and educated workforce to the challenges of exploring new or 
     better ways to foster the types of skills needed in a 
     knowledge and information economy;
       (G) extend beyond concern over cost of capital to the 
     challenges of achieving the dual objectives of unlocking the 
     value of underutilized knowledge assets and insuring the 
     efficiency and stability of the global financial system;
       (H) extend beyond a concern over competition from Japan and 
     the Southeast Asian Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) to 
     the challenges of integrating many countries, such as India, 
     China, and Eastern European nations, into the global economy; 
     and
       (I) include the challenges of new demographic dynamics, 
     including the aging of the so-called ``baby boom'' 
     generation, increased life expectancy, below replacement 
     fertility rates in most of the developed world, and 
     increasing populations in the developing world.
       (9) In this information age, new ideas, business models, 
     and technologies, including computer and telecommunications, 
     the Internet, and the digital revolution, have combined to 
     alter the economy structurally.
       (10) Information, knowledge, and other intangible assets 
     now power our innovation process, which is based both on 
     science-based research and informal creativity and produces 
     the productivity and improvement gains needed to maintain 
     prosperity.
       (11) The range of knowledge, information, and intellectual 
     capital-based intangible assets driving economic prosperity 
     include worker skills and know-how, informal relationships 
     that feed creativity and new ideas, high-performance work 
     organizations, new business methods, intellectual property 
     such as patents and copyrights, brand names, and innovation 
     and creativity skills.
       (12) Economic statistics and accounting principles have not 
     caught up with this new economic environment.
       (13) All sectors of the economy are affected by this new 
     economic environment.
       (14) Small and medium-size firms are especially in need of 
     ways to better develop and utilize their information, 
     knowledge, and other intangible assets.
       (15) It is vital to the future strength of the United 
     States economy that, as new ideas, scientific discoveries, 
     and knowledge pervade the domestic and international 
     economies, United States firms be able to assess, absorb, and 
     deploy these opportunities quickly for competitive advantage.
       (16) While United States firms and workers lead the world 
     in creating and using information, knowledge, and other 
     intangible assets, increasing global competition means that 
     the United States Government and the private sector must 
     continue to develop the information economy in the United 
     States in order to ensure that the people of the United 
     States prosper in this new economic environment.
       (17) There is a need for an independent, bipartisan 
     undertaking comparable to the Young Commission to review the 
     new competitive challenges facing the United States and to 
     recommend a framework to guide the making of responsive 
     public policy, including the reorganization of the Federal 
     Government to promote efficiency and economy of operation, to 
     promote private initiatives, and to guide individual 
     decisionmaking about the future of the United States economy 
     as governments, business, labor unions, and the people of the 
     United States struggle with ways to utilize information, 
     foster the development of intangible assets, and promote 
     innovation and competitiveness in the new global information 
     economy.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on 
     the Future of the United States Economy (hereafter referred 
     to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of the Commission are as 
     follows:
       (1) To analyze the worldwide competitive challenges to 
     United States companies and workers.
       (2) To make recommendations in accordance with this Act, 
     for the making of responsive public policy, including the 
     reorganization of the Federal Government--
       (A) to promote efficiency and economy of operation;
       (B) to foster the skills and knowledge the people of the 
     United States need to prosper in the 21st century;
       (C) to strengthen the entire innovation system undergirding 
     the United States economy; and
       (D) to stimulate the creation of knowledge, inventions, 
     partnerships, and other intangible assets in order to 
     maintain economic growth, income generation, and job 
     creation.

     SEC. 4. COMPOSITION AND MEETINGS.

       (a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 22 
     members as follows:
       (1) 17 voting members of whom--
       (A) 9 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (B) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate;
       (C) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate;
       (D) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (E) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) 5 non-voting ex officio members appointed by the 
     President from among the following officials:
       (A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       (B) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (C) The Secretary of Labor.
       (D) The Secretary of Defense.
       (E) The United States Trade Representative.
       (F) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       (G) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy.
       (b) Qualifications for Voting Members.--
       (1) Requirements.--Persons appointed as voting members 
     under subsection (a)(1) shall be selected from among persons 
     who--
       (A) are leaders or recognized experts in industry, labor 
     unions, research institutions, academia, and other important 
     social and economic institutions;
       (B) have expertise in economics, international trade, 
     services, manufacturing, labor, science and technology, 
     education, business, or have other qualifications or 
     experience pertinent to the duties of the Commission; and
       (C) are not officers or employees of the United States 
     Government.
       (2) Additional consideration.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, persons who are appointed as voting members 
     shall be persons who can provide new insights into analysis 
     of the nature and consequences of a knowledge-based economy.
       (c) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The President shall 
     designate one voting member of the Commission as Chairperson. 
     The voting members of the Commission shall elect a Vice 
     Chairperson from among the voting members of the Commission 
     appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, the minority 
     leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives. The Vice Chairman shall not be affiliated 
     with the same political party as the Chairman.
       (d) Initial Appointments; Vacancies.--
       (1) Initial appointments.--Members shall be appointed not 
     later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of an Act 
     making appropriations authorized under section 9.
       (2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the original appointment.
       (e) Meetings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the Chairperson.
       (2) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall hold its first 
     meeting not later than 30 days after all voting members of 
     the Commission have been appointed under subsection (a).
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the voting members of the 
     Commission shall constitute a quorum.
       (g) Voting.--Each voting member of the Commission shall be 
     entitled to 1 equal vote.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study of 
     the United States economy and the competitiveness of United 
     States companies and workers.
       (2) Scope.--In conducting the study under this subsection, 
     the Commission shall--
       (A) review the findings and recommendations of previous 
     commissions, including the Young Commission, and the studies 
     (including resulting findings and recommendations) of others 
     that are relevant to the work of the Commission, including 
     the National Innovation Initiative of the Council on 
     Competitiveness;
       (B) analyze the current economic environment and 
     competitive challenges facing United States workers and 
     companies;
       (C) review the strategies of other nations for responding 
     to the competitive challenges

[[Page S8734]]

     of the new economic environment, and analyze the impact of 
     those strategies on the future of the United States economy;
       (D) formulate specific recommendations on a broad range of 
     issues related to the development of the skill-base and 
     innovative capacity within the private and public sectors of 
     the United States economy and other priorities related to the 
     knowledge and information economy, including recommendations 
     regarding--
       (i) the reorganization of the Federal Government to promote 
     efficiency and economy of operation;
       (ii) education and training policy;
       (iii) labor policy;
       (iv) economic development;
       (v) science and technology policy and organization;
       (vi) intellectual property rights;
       (vii) telecommunications policy;
       (viii) international economic policy, including trade and 
     finance and the management of globalization;
       (ix) macroeconomic policy;
       (x) financial regulation and accounting policy;
       (xi) antitrust policy;
       (xii) public and private infrastructure development and 
     entrepreneurship; and
       (xiii) small business development;
       (E) formulate recommended policies and actions for--
       (i) transforming the education and training process in the 
     United States as necessary to ensure effectiveness for 
     facilitating life-long learning;
       (ii) upgrading the skills of the United States workforce to 
     compete effectively in the new economic environment, 
     including mathematics and science skills, critical thinking 
     skills, communication skills, language and intercultural 
     awareness, creativity, and interpersonal relations essential 
     for success in the information age;
       (iii) promoting a broad system of innovation and knowledge 
     diffusion, including nontechnological ingenuity and 
     creativity as well as science-based research and development;
       (iv) fostering the development of knowledge and information 
     assets in all sectors of the United States economy, 
     particularly those sectors of the economy in which rates of 
     productivity and innovation have lagged, and in United States 
     companies of all sizes, particularly small and medium-size 
     companies;
       (v) developing jobs that are rooted in local skills and 
     local knowledge assets in order to lessen displacement 
     resulting from ongoing global competition;
       (vi) improving access to, and lowering the cost of, capital 
     by unlocking the value to financial markets of underutilized 
     knowledge assets;
       (vii) strengthening the efficiency and stability of the 
     international financial system (taking into account the roles 
     of foreign capital and domestic savings in economic growth);
       (viii) developing policies and mechanisms for managing the 
     increasing complexity of globalization;
       (ix) adjusting to the impacts of global demographic changes 
     in the United States, other developed countries, and 
     developing countries;
       (x) improving economic statistics and accounting principles 
     to adequately measure all sectors of the new economic 
     environment, including the value of information, innovation, 
     knowledge, and other intangible assets; and
       (xi) improving understanding of how the Federal Government 
     supports and invests in knowledge and other intangible 
     assets;
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Required report.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall submit to Congress 
     and the President a report regarding the competitive 
     challenges facing the United States. The report shall include 
     conclusions and specific recommendations for legislative and 
     executive actions.
       (B) Time for report.--The report under this paragraph shall 
     be submitted not later than the later of--
       (i) March 1, 2006; or
       (ii) the date that is 18 months after the date of the 
     initial meeting of the Commission.
       (2) Optional reports.--The Commission may submit to 
     Congress and the President interim or special reports as the 
     Commission determines appropriate.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any 
     panel or regular member of the Commission, may hold hearings, 
     sit and act at times and places, take testimony, and receive 
     evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out 
     this Act.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this Act. Upon request of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (d) Analysis, Reports, and Studies.--The Commission may 
     procure analyses, reports, and studies from organizations or 
     individuals other than Commission staff, notwithstanding the 
     restrictions under section 7(e) of this Act.
       (e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (f) Support Services.--Upon request of the Chairperson of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis the 
     administrative support necessary for the Commission to carry 
     out its duties under this Act.

     SEC. 7. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services to support and supplement Commission 
     staff under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, 
     at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such 
     title.
       (f) Applicability of Certain Pay Authorities.--An 
     individual who is a member of the Commission and is an 
     annuitant or otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of 
     title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the 
     Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of section 
     8344 or 8468, as the case may be, with respect to such 
     membership.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits the report required under 
     section 5(b)(1).

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     $10,000,000 to carry out activities under this Act, to remain 
     available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 2748. A bill to prohibit the giving or acceptance of payment for 
the placement of a child, or obtaining consent to adoption; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will create a national penalty for baby selling and help ensure 
that all families experience safe and legal adoptions.
  Although the majority of adoptions are handled by reputable and 
ethical agencies, each year around the world, hundreds of thousands of 
children are sold illegally. In these tragic instances, birth mothers 
and prospective adoptive families alike are victimized by individuals 
who treat children as commodities. Baby brokers exploit couples who are 
eager, if not desperate, to adopt a child, and vulnerable women who are 
unable or unwilling to raise their children. In too many States baby 
brokering constitutes only a misdemeanor offense. The Baby Selling 
Prohibition Act of 2004 will make this horrific crime a felony.
  I am pleased to partner with Lifetime Television to help raise 
awareness about this issue and to change public policy. Lifetime's 
original movie, ``Baby for Sale,'' which is based on the troubling true 
story of a couple who

[[Page S8735]]

tried to adopt a child and got caught up in a baby selling ring, will 
go a long way toward raising the Nation's consciousness of this issue, 
and, I hope, generate support for my legislation.
  The movie ``Baby for Sale'' highlights the story of a prospective 
adoptive couple, William and Lauren Schneider, who registered with an 
online agency called ``Adoption Online.'' Through this agency, they met 
a lawyer who introduced them to a baby, Nikolett, who they were told 
was available for adoption. The Schneiders fell in love with Nikolett 
at once and wanted to begin the adoption procedures so that they could 
begin their life as a family together. However, when the lawyer asked 
them for $60,000 under-the-table to process the adoption the couple 
alerted the authorities, and ultimately uncovered a bidding war between 
multiple couples for this little girl. The public outrage surrounding 
this case led to a change in New York law last year. Under New York's 
new law, baby selling is considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
  The Baby Selling Prohibition Act of 2004 is modeled after New York's 
law. It makes profiting from the sale of a child, defined as charging 
fees beyond those that are reasonable and allowable, a felony, 
punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
  This critical legislation will prevent families from enduring the 
same agony that the Schneider's went through and will ensure that every 
adoptive child's safety and best interest is strictly maintained in all 
adoption cases.
  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. 2478

       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 ``Baby Selling Prohibition Act 
     of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1596. Accepting or charging excess amounts in 
       connection with the placement of a child or obtaining 
       consent to adoption

       ``(a) Definition of minor.--In this section, the term 
     `minor' has the same meaning as in section 25(a)(2).
       ``(b) In General.--Whoever, in connection with the adoption 
     of a minor, knowingly accepts or charges any fee in excess of 
     the allowable costs for adoption, as those costs are defined 
     under the law of the State in which the adoption is 
     finalized, shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
       ``(c) Allowable Costs.--If, under the law of any State in 
     which an adoption is finalized, the allowable costs 
     associated with the adoption of a minor are not defined, the 
     allowable costs for purposes of this section shall be--
       ``(1) maternity-related medical and costs;
       ``(2) travel, meal, and lodging costs accrued when 
     necessary for court appearances;
       ``(3) counseling fees;
       ``(4) fees to cover pre- and post-adoption counseling 
     provided by a licensed health practitioner;
       ``(5) attorney and legal fees associated with the adoption;
       ``(6) foster care for the child to be adopted; and
       ``(7) foster care for the child to be adopted, and costs 
     associated with medical care, routine care, travel, and 
     living expenses of the child to be adopted.
       ``(d) Limitation.--All costs described under subsection (b) 
     or (c) shall be reasonable and customary within the State in 
     which the adoption is finalized.
       ``(e) Applicability.--This section shall apply to all 
     individuals, intermediaries, or entities involved in the 
     adoption of a minor.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1596. Accepting or charging excess amounts in connection with the 
              placement of a child or obtaining consent to adoption.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 2749. A bill to establish a grant program to provide comprehensive 
eye examinations to children, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide financial support to ensure that uninsured children who have 
failed vision screenings are able to obtain the glasses or eye 
treatments they need.
  Almost every State in the Union has a system in place to detect 
vision problems at an early age. Indeed, 30 states and the District of 
Columbia require vision screening for children beginning with their 
entry into the school system and eleven additional states recommend 
such screenings for preschool children. But this system is incomplete. 
When children fail the screen, there is no requirement that they 
receive treatment of any kind. And if they are uninsured, their 
families often cannot afford a visit to the ophthalmologist and obtain 
the treatment they need to address the problem identified by the 
screening.
  Mr. President, taking steps to identify a problem, but to then fail 
to address it doesn't make sense; in particular when delay in treatment 
can have lifelong consequences. For example, one of the most common eye 
diseases of early childhood, amblyopia or ``lazy eye,'' responds to 
treatment 95 percent of the time when it is addressed by the age of 
three. If treatment is delayed until the age of five, however, the 
likelihood that the problem can be corrected is reduced to 10 percent. 
Children who cannot correct these refractive vision problems start 
school at an enormous disadvantage in terms of their ability to learn.
  The legislation I am introducing today would help to obviate this 
deficit. Simply put, it would authorize the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, acting through the Center for Disease Control Director, 
to provide $75 million worth of grants to states for exams and 
necessary treatment for uninsured children who have failed a vision 
screening and cannot afford follow-on treatment.
  Ample evidence underscores the need for this type of legislation. A 
study conducted by Dr. Mark Preslan and Audrey Novak of the Maryland 
Center for Sight, entitled The Baltimore Vision Screening Project found 
that strabismus--also known as cross-eyes--amblyopia and refractive 
errors, occurred in higher frequencies and remained untreated for a 
population sample of youth in schools in lower income areas. The 
study's main conclusion stated, ``Children with limited access to 
specialized eye care must be provided with a mechanism for obtaining 
these services.''
  This disparity exists at the national level as well, and our minority 
populations are especially underserved. A team of researchers from the 
University of Michigan documented a national example of differential 
access to vision treatment. Their research showed that minority 
children and uninsured children are far less likely to get complete eye 
exams or glasses. A study in January's Optometry and Vision Sciences 
demonstrated that uninsured African American and Hispanic children were 
far less likely to receive vision correction, and that this disparity 
results from lack of services as opposed to less frequent occurrences 
of eye problems in these populations.
  A study by the Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured reveals that 
uninsured children are over five times more likely to have an unmet 
need for medical care. According to a report by the Caring Foundation 
for Children, 20 percent of uninsured children have untreated vision 
problems. According to Prevent Blindness America data, 12.1 million 
school-aged children have vision impairment. Among preschool-aged 
children, more than 5 percent have a problem that can cause permanent 
sight loss if left untreated, and almost 80 percent of that 5 percent 
never get an exam. Another study by the Vision Council of America 
reported that 40 percent of children who fail a vision screen do not 
receive the recommended follow-up care. The same study found the 
average delay between a failed screening and follow-up evaluation by an 
eye-care professional was 4.1 years.
  Most of our States are taking the important first step of identifying 
young children with vision problems through mandatory vision screening. 
This legislation simply takes the next step to help provide a remedy 
for those children who cannot afford treatment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 2751. A bill to encourage savings, promote financial literacy, and 
expand

[[Page S8736]]

opportunities for young adults by establishing KIDS Accounts; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing ``The America 
Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act 
of 2004'' along with Senator Corzine. A bipartisan group of members is 
introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The 
bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account 
for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children 
of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth.
  This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the 
stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which 
has increased to a record high 68 percent. However, this growth in 
assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper-
income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many 
low-income families have not had the same financial success. A recent 
study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth 
of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a 
mere $7,900 an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable 
economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed 
to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to 
accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families.
  Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child 
is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit 
would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from 
households below the national median income would receive an additional 
deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for-
dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions 
to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow 
tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, 
but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in 
investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person 
turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building 
purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. 
Accrued funds could also be rolled over into Roth IRA accounts to 
expand investment options.
  I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of 
this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will 
help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound 
financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low-
income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS 
Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more 
important, is that KIDS Accounts creates opportunities for all 
Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and 
their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds 
and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All 
Americans will have the opportunity to see first hand that a smart 
investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth.
  I believe that this bill could be a significant step forward in the 
effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans and encourage my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Santorum in introducing the ASPIRE Act of 2004, which would expand 
opportunities for young adults, encourage savings, and promote 
financial literacy, by establishing investment accounts, known as KIDS 
Accounts, for every child in America.
  ASPIRE is based largely on a similar initiative in the United Kingdom 
developed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet despite its British roots, 
the proposal is based on the most basic of American values. By giving 
every young person resources with which to get a start in life, ASPIRE 
will help realize the American ideal of equal opportunity. And by 
making every young person an investor, the proposal would encourage 
self reliance, promote savings, and give every family a personal stake 
in America's economy.
  Under ASPIRE, an investment account would be established for every 
American child upon receiving a Social Security number. Each account 
would be funded initially with $500. Those with incomes less than the 
national median would receive an additional contribution of up to $500, 
and would receive a one-for-one government match for their first $500 
of private contributions each year. Up to $1000 of after-tax private 
contributions would be allowed annually from any source.
  Funds would accumulate tax-free and could not be withdrawn for 
purposes other than higher education until the child reaches the age of 
18. At that point, funds could be withdrawn either for higher education 
or for the purchase of a home. Funds left unspent would be saved for 
retirement under rules similar to those that apply to Roth IRAs. Once 
the account holder reaches the age of 30, the initial $500 government 
contribution would have to be repaid, though exceptions could be made 
to avoid undue hardship.
  Accounts initially would be held by a government entity that would be 
based on the successful Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which now manages 
retirement accounts for Federal employees with relatively low 
administrative costs. As with the TSP, investors would have a range of 
investment options, such as a government securities fund, a fixed 
income investment fund, and a common stock fund. However, once an 
account holder reaches the age of 18, funds could be rolled over to a 
KIDS Account held at a private institution.
  It is difficult to understate the potential impact of giving every 
American child a fun investment account of their own. For the first 
time, every child will have a meaningful incentive to learn the basics 
of investing, because they will have real resources to invest. For the 
first time, even families with modest incomes will have a significant 
incentive to save, to earn the government match. And, perhaps most 
fundamentally, for the first time, every American child will grow up 
knowing that when they reach adulthood, they will have the ability to 
invest in themselves and in their own education. In short, every child 
will have hope for a real future.

  Considering its potentially significant social and individual 
benefits, the ASPIRE Act requires an investment that is relatively 
modest. It has been estimated that, when it becomes effective, the 
bill's cost would represent only about one tenth of one percent of the 
Federal budget. Yet the proposal differs from other proposals for new 
spending or tax cuts because, for the first 18 years, it would not 
reduce overall national savings at all. In that period, virtually every 
dollar of outlays would be saved, and would be available to expand 
long-term economic growth. In fact, the proposal would lead to an 
increase in national savings because of its incentives for families to 
save more. This would help create the economic growth we need to handle 
the added burdens associated with the impending retirement of the baby 
boomers.
  Senator Santorum and I have been working on this legislation for many 
months, along with sponsors of identical legislation in the House, 
Congressmen Harold Ford, Patrick Kennedy, Thomas Petri and Phil 
English. In that process, we have been assisted by a broad range of 
experts and other interested parties, for which I am very grateful. 
However, I want to especially thank Ray Boshara and Reid Cramer of the 
New America Foundation, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the 
development of the legislation, and who have taken the lead in efforts 
to promote this and other asset building initiatives.
  I recognize that given the lateness of the session, it is unlikely 
that this legislation will see action in the 108th Congress. However, 
Senator Santorum and I are hopeful that those with an interest in the 
proposal will review the language of the bill and give us feedback in 
the coming months. We are open to suggestions for improvements and 
expect to introduce a revised version of the legislation in the next 
Congress.
  The ASPIRE Act is a big new idea based on simple, old time American 
values. It already enjoys strong bipartisan support from conservatives 
and progressives, alike, in both houses of Congress. I look forward to 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure its prompt 
enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:

[[Page S8737]]

  S. 2752. A bill to reform Federal budget procedures, to impose 
spending safeguards, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, to account for 
accurate Government agency costs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to 
report or be discharged.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Budget 
Protection Act of 2004, legislation to help bring our Federal spending 
under control. The companion to this bill, H.R. 3800, was introduced in 
the House of Representatives earlier this year by Congressman Jeb 
Hensarling of Texas, who has been joined by 103 cosponsors.
  As all of our colleagues know, our Federal budget situation has been 
under tremendous strain during the past several years. After enjoying 
several years of actual and projected surpluses in the later part of 
the last decade, we have unfortunately suffered a near perfect storm of 
events that has drastically turned the budget situation from one of 
sunny optimism to one of great concern. These events, of course, 
include the recession that followed the bursting of the high tech 
bubble and stock market adjustment, the corporate scandals, the tragic 
events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent expenditures for the 
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the need for increased spending for 
homeland security.
  The result of these events, combined with the tax cuts that were 
necessary to get the economy back on a solid path of growth, have had a 
devastating effect on the Federal budget and its outlook. While I fully 
support President Bush's initiatives for pursuing the war on terror and 
protecting our homeland, along with his plan for helping the economy 
recover, which has obviously worked, I am very concerned about our 
Federal budget and in finding a way to get it back to balance.
  Much of what has happened to our budget has been unavoidable, given 
the events of the past few years. In my view, we have simply had no 
choice but to spend the money necessary to fight the war on terror and 
improve our homeland security. Moreover, we will have to keep spending 
significant sums for these purposes. After all, providing for our 
national security has to be our first and highest priority.
  I also believe that the tax cuts of 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all 
necessary to our future prosperity. In order to get our economy growing 
again and get our people back to work, we needed the economic stimulus 
that these tax cuts provided.
  Not surprisingly, some of my colleagues point the finger solely at 
these tax cuts as the culprit for our Federal deficits. In fact, 
according to reports recently released by the Congressional Budget 
Office, the tax cuts accounted for only 24 percent of CBO's $2.9 
billion deficit projection between 2002 and 2011. CBO also estimated 
that increased spending on entitlement programs and legislated spending 
increases, particularly homeland security measures, accounted for 76 
percent of the deficit projection over this same period. The tax cuts 
did contribute to the deficit; however, they were crucial to the recent 
economic recovery we are experiencing.

  However, there are other factors that have been and are continuing to 
contribute to growing deficits that are not vital to our national 
security or future prosperity. What I am talking about here is the 
growing tendency for Congress to spend money unnecessarily on various 
other projects that have far less merit. And, I am talking about the 
fraud and waste that continues to plague our government.
  It seems that just about every time I return home to the State of 
Utah, I talk with Utah taxpayers who want to know why, given our 
deteriorating budget circumstances, Congress is not doing more to rein 
in excess spending. I find that Utahns, like other Americans, are 
generally willing to pay the high price of fighting the war on terror 
and of protecting our homeland. But no one wants to pay for wasteful 
spending or projects that are not necessary. Utahns are increasingly 
wondering why more cannot be done to ensure that their hard-earned 
dollars are not going to be wasted or misspent. I believe this bill 
goes a long ways toward addressing these concerns.
  I recognize that it is always tempting to buy now and pay later, 
extend budget deficits, and increase the size and scope of our 
government. And, I realize that a government the size of ours is always 
going to have some fraud and waste associated with it. However, this 
irresponsible spending and this fraud and waste in government are 
mortgaging our children's future and shrinking our Nation's dynamic 
private sector. High deficits and the mountain of Federal debt 
represent real obligations that hurt our economic security and our 
ability to prosper, both now and in the future.
  I believe that a large part of the problem with this unwarranted 
spending, and with this fraud and waste, is rooted in the Federal 
budget process itself. The current budget process is overly 
complicated, and in many respects, largely incomprehensible. More 
importantly, it encourages overspending. There is no doubt that its 
systemic problems contribute largely to our budget deficits.
  The Family Budget Protection Act is an opportunity to overhaul a 
Federal budget process that desperately needs revision. It is an 
opportunity to tilt the process away from more spending and fraud and 
waste toward a more responsible way of determining where the taxpayers 
hard-earned tax dollars are to be spent.
  I think Congressman Hensarling may have said it best when he noted 
that Washington clearly has a spending problem, not a taxing problem. 
It is irresponsible for us to continue to demand more money from 
taxpayers when we continue to flush much of that money straight down 
the drain by funding wasteful, useless, antiquated, or unnecessary 
government projects.
  I recognize that it is very late in the second session of the 108th 
Congress and that in this very partisan election year, not much more 
legislation is likely to be approved. I also recognize that some of the 
provisions of this bill are controversial and that the House of 
Representatives recently defeated a bill that included some of these 
provisions. However, I believe it is important to lay before the Senate 
this year a comprehensive set of budget reform provisions, and to 
introduce in this body a budget reform concept bill that can be 
debated, discussed, examined over the next few months, and built upon 
in the 109th Congress.

  Some of the major features of this legislation would accomplish the 
following:
  Provide a Joint Budget Resolution. The Family Budget Protection Act 
would change the concurrent budget resolution into a joint budget 
resolution that is signed by the President and has the force of law. 
This provision would enable both the President and Congress to commit 
to the same budget before spending any money that year. Our current 
budget procedure does not bring Congress and the President to settle on 
even a basic budget framework until the very end of the process when 
the government is on the verge of shutting down.
  Simplify the Budget. This bill would simplify the current budget into 
a one-page budget by replacing the current 20 budget functions with 
established spending levels for only four broad categories--mandatory 
spending, non-defense and defense discretionary spending, and a rainy 
day fund for emergencies.
  Establish a Rainy Day Fund. This bill would abolish the practice of 
designating spending as ``emergency spending,'' which is a practice 
often used to avoid spending safeguards. Spending for true emergencies 
would be paid for through a ``rainy day'' fund. All spending that is 
incurred through the ``rainy day'' fund must be defined as sudden, 
urgent, unforeseen, and temporary. Emergencies that exhaust the rainy 
day fund would be permissible if they were able to overcome a 
supermajority point of order lying against them.
  Set Up Government Shut-Down Protections. The Family Budget Protection 
Act would provide government shutdown protection through an automatic 
continuing resolution in the event that an agreement between Congress 
and the President on spending levels was not reached by the legal 
deadline. In order to avoid simple inaction by Congress, Federal 
agencies would receive one percent less funding each quarter the 
government operated under a continuing resolution.

[[Page S8738]]

  Provide a Two-Thirds Supermajority Vote. New pay-go rules would be 
established setting up points of order against spending not included in 
the budget. This bill would raise the bar for points of order to 
require a two-thirds supermajority vote (rather than the current three-
fifths), in both the House and the Senate, to sanction over-budget 
spending and spending in violation of the caps.
  Set Up Spending Caps. The bill would limit growth in entitlement 
spending to the current inflationary adjustment for each program and 
growth in population. The bill would also set discretionary spending 
caps that would allow spending to grow for inflation, with a firewall 
separating defense, nondefense, and emergency spending. These spending 
caps would be protected by points of order and enforced with an across-
the board sequester if breached.
  Establish Family Budget Protection Accounts. Perhaps one of the most 
common-sense provisions of the Family Budget Protection Act would be 
the establishment of Family Budget Protection Accounts. These accounts 
would allow Congress to target spending during the appropriations 
process and redirect that spending for family tax relief or deficit 
reduction at the end of the fiscal year.
  Combat Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. Under the Family Budget Protection 
Act, every voluntary entitlement program and all discretionary programs 
would be sunset in fiscal year 2008 and 2009 to allow for a thorough 
cost-benefit analysis to see whether they still merit Federal funding. 
Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare Part A, and 
Federal retiree benefits would be exempt from this sunset. The bill 
would also set up a commission to submit recommendations on how to 
eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. The commission's recommendation 
would either be approved or rejected by Congress as a package, 
eliminating votes on changes to individual programs. Unlike past 
proposals, this provision would include defense and entitlement 
spending in its assessment. The bill would also initiate enhanced 
rescission authority for the President to propose the elimination of 
wasteful spending identified in any appropriations bill. The 
President's proposal would be transmitted to Congress and provided 
expedited consideration through the legislative process.
  The runaway freight train mentality of our Federal government 
spending simply cannot continue. It is imperative that we move to make 
these common-sense budget reforms while we are still in a position to 
do so--rather than continuing to let it control us.
  I believe that strong economic growth, combined with tightly 
controlled spending, are the keys to reducing the deficit and getting 
the Federal budget in balance again. Although much more needs to be 
done, we have made great strides in restoring strong economic growth. 
Along with our continued focus on providing for our national security 
and fighting the war on terror, I suggest to my colleagues that now is 
the time to turn our attention to controlling spending. I have no doubt 
that the reforms included in the Family Budget Protection Act can make 
a significant contribution to this goal, and I recommend it to my 
fellow senators for their study and consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH:
  S. 2753. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development to insure zero-downpayment mortgages; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2753

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

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Zero Downpayment Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 2. INSURANCE FOR ZERO-DOWNPAYMENT MORTGAGES.

       (a) Mortgage Insurance Authority.--Section 203 of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (k) the following:
       ``(l) Zero-Downpayment Mortgages.--
       ``(1) Insurance authority.--The Secretary may insure, and 
     commit to insure, under this subsection any mortgage that 
     meets the requirements of--
       ``(A) this subsection; and
       ``(B) except as otherwise specifically provided in this 
     subsection, subsection (b).
       ``(2) Eligible single family property.--To be eligible for 
     insurance under this subsection, a mortgage shall involve a 
     property upon which there is located a dwelling that is 
     designed principally for a 1- to 4-family residence, and 
     that, notwithstanding subsection (g), is to be occupied by 
     the mortgagor as his or her principal residence, which shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a 1-family dwelling unit in a multifamily project and 
     an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities 
     which serve the project;
       ``(B) a 1-family dwelling unit of a cooperative housing 
     corporation, the permanent occupancy of the dwelling units of 
     which is restricted to members of such corporation and in 
     which the purchase of stock or membership entitles the 
     purchaser to the permanent occupancy of such dwelling unit; 
     and
       ``(C) a manufactured home, or a manufactured home together 
     with a suitably developed lot on which to place the 
     manufactured home.
       ``(3) Maximum principal obligation.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--To be eligible for insurance under this 
     subsection, a mortgage shall involve a principal obligation 
     in an amount not in excess of 100 percent of the appraised 
     value of the property, plus any initial service charges, 
     appraisal, inspection, and other fees in connection with the 
     mortgage as approved by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Inapplicability of other loan-to-value 
     requirements.--A mortgage insured under this subsection shall 
     not be subject to subsection (b)(2)(B), or to the 
     undesignated matter that follows such subsection.
       ``(4) Eligible mortgagors.--The mortgagor under a mortgage 
     insured under this subsection shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) First-time homebuyer.--The mortgagor shall be a 
     first-time homebuyer. The program for mortgage insurance 
     under this subsection shall be considered a Federal program 
     to assist first-time homebuyers for purposes of section 956 
     of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12713).
       ``(B) Counseling.--
       ``(i) Requirement.--The mortgagor shall have received 
     counseling, by a third party (other than the mortgagee or any 
     party related directly or indirectly to the mortgagee) who is 
     approved by the Secretary, with respect to the 
     responsibilities and financial management involved in 
     homeownership.
       ``(ii) Topics.--Counseling required under clause (i) shall 
     include providing to, and discussing with, the mortgagor--

       ``(I) information regarding homeownership options other 
     than a mortgage insured under this subsection, other zero- or 
     low-downpayment mortgage options that are or may become 
     available to the mortgagor, the financial implications of 
     entering into a mortgage (including a mortgage insured under 
     this subsection), and any other information that the 
     Secretary may require; and
       ``(II) a document that sets forth the amount and the 
     percentage by which the property subject to the mortgage must 
     appreciate for the mortgagor to recover the principal amount 
     of the mortgage, the costs financed under the mortgage, and 
     the estimated costs involved in selling the property, if the 
     mortgagor were to sell the property on each of the second, 
     fifth, and tenth anniversaries of the mortgage.

       ``(iii) 2- to 4-family residences.--In the case of a 
     mortgage involving a 2- to 4-family residence, counseling 
     required under clause (i) shall include (in addition to the 
     information required under clause (ii)) information regarding 
     the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants.
       ``(5) Option for notice of foreclosure prevention 
     counseling availability.--
       ``(A) Option.--To be eligible for insurance under this 
     section, the mortgagee shall provide the mortgagor, at the 
     time of the execution of the mortgage, an optional written 
     agreement which, if signed by the mortgagor, allows, but does 
     not require, the mortgagee to provide notice in accordance 
     with subparagraph (B) to a housing counseling entity, 
     approved by the Secertary, that has agreed to provide the 
     notice and counseling required under subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Notice to counseling agency.--Notice provided under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) be provided at the earliest time practicable after 
     the mortgagor becomes 60 days delinquent with respect to any 
     payment due under the mortgage;
       ``(ii) state that the mortgagor is delinquent and set forth 
     how to contact the mortgagor; and
       ``(iii) be provided once with respect to each delinquency 
     period for a mortgage.
       ``(C) Notice to mortgagor.--Upon notice from a mortgagee 
     that a mortgagor is 60 days delinquent with respect to 
     payments due under the mortgage, the housing counseling 
     entity shall immediately notify the mortgagor of such 
     delinquency, that the entity makes available foreclosure 
     prevention counseling that may assist the mortgagor in 
     resolving the delinquency, and of how to contact the entity 
     to arrange for such counseling.
       ``(D) Ability to cure.--Failure to provide the optional 
     written agreement required under subparagraph (A) may be 
     corrected by sending such agreement to the mortgagor at

[[Page S8739]]

     the earliest time practicable after the mortgagor first 
     becomes 60 days delinquent with respect to payments due under 
     the mortgage. Insurance provided under this subsection may 
     not be terminated and penalties for such failure may not be 
     prospectively or retroactively imposed if such failure is 
     corrected in accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(E) Penalties for failure to provide agreement.--The 
     Secretary may establish appropriate penalties for failure of 
     a mortgagee to provide the optional written agreement 
     required under subparagraph (A).
       ``(F) Limitation on liability of mortgagee.--A mortgagee 
     shall not incur any liability or penalties for any failure of 
     a housing counseling entity to provide notice under 
     subparagraph (C).
       ``(G) No private right of action.--This section shall not 
     create any private right of action on behalf of the 
     mortgagor.
       ``(H) Delinquency period.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `delinquency period' means, with respect to a 
     mortgage, a period that begins upon the mortgagor becoming 
     delinquent with respect to payments due under the mortgage, 
     and ends upon the first subsequent occurrence of such 
     payments under the mortgage becoming current or the property 
     subject to the mortgage being foreclosed or otherwise 
     disposed of.
       ``(6) Inapplicability of downpayment requirement.--A 
     mortgage insured under this subsection shall not be subject 
     to subsection (b)(9) or any other requirement to pay on 
     account of the property, in cash or its equivalent, any 
     amount of the cost of acquisition.
       ``(7) Premiums.--In conjunction with the credit subsidy 
     estimation calculated each year pursuant to the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the 
     Secretary shall review the program performance for mortgages 
     insured under this subsection and make any necessary 
     adjustments to ensure that the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 
     shall continue to generate a negative credit subsidy which 
     may include--
       ``(A) altering mortgage insurance premiums subject to 
     subsection (c)(2);
       ``(B) reviewing underwriting policies; and
       ``(C) limiting the availability of mortgage insurance under 
     this subsection.
       ``(8) Underwriting.--For a mortgage to be eligible for 
     insurance under this subsection, the mortgagor's credit and 
     ability to pay the monthly mortgage payments shall have been 
     evaluated using the Federal Housing Administration's 
     Technology Open To Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage 
     Scorecard, or a similar standardized credit scoring system 
     approved by the Secretary, and in accordance with procedures 
     established by the Secretary.
       ``(9) Approval of mortgagees.--To be eligible for insurance 
     under this subsection, a mortgage shall have been made to a 
     mortgagee that meets such criteria as the Secretary shall 
     establish to ensure that mortgagees meet appropriate 
     standards for participation in the program authorized under 
     this subsection.
       ``(10) Disclosure of incremental costs.--For a mortgage to 
     be eligible for insurance under this subsection, the 
     mortgagee shall provide to the mortgagor, at the time of the 
     application for the loan involved in the mortgage, a written 
     disclosure, as the Secretary shall require, that specifies 
     the effective cost to a mortgagor of borrowing the amount by 
     which the maximum amount that could be borrowed under a 
     mortgage insured under this subsection exceeds the maximum 
     amount that could be borrowed under a mortgage insured under 
     subsection (b), based on average closing costs with respect 
     to such amount, as determined by the Secretary. Such cost 
     shall be expressed as an annual interest rate over the first 
     5 years of a mortgage.
       ``(11) Loss mitigation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon the default of any mortgage insured 
     under this subsection, the mortgagee shall engage in loss 
     mitigation actions for the purpose of providing an 
     alternative to foreclosure to the same extent as is required 
     of other mortgages insured under this title pursuant to the 
     regulations issued under section 230(a).
       ``(B) Annual reporting.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to Congress that compares the rates of default and 
     foreclosure during such fiscal year for mortgages insured 
     under this subsection, for single-family mortgages insured 
     under this title (other than under this subsection), and for 
     mortgages for housing purchased with assistance provided 
     under the downpayment assistance initiative under section 271 
     of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12821).
       ``(12) Additional requirements.--The Secretary may 
     establish any additional requirements for mortgage insurance 
     under this subsection as may be necessary or appropriate.
       ``(13) Limitation.--The aggregate number of mortgages 
     insured under this section in any fiscal year may not exceed 
     30 percent of the aggregate number of mortgages and loans 
     insured by the Secretary under this title during the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(14) Program suspension.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     authority under paragraph (1) to insure mortgages shall be 
     suspended if at any time the claim rate described in 
     subparagraph (B) exceeds 3.5 percent. A suspension under this 
     subparagraph shall remain in effect until such time as such 
     claim rate is 3.5 percent or less.
       ``(B) FHA total single-family annual claim rate.--The claim 
     rate under subparagraph (A), for any particular time, shall 
     be the ratio of the number of claims during the 12 months 
     preceding such time on mortgages on 1- to 4-family residences 
     insured pursuant to this title, to the number of mortgages on 
     such residences having such insurance in-force at that time.
       ``(C) Applicability.--A suspension under subparagraph (A) 
     shall not preclude the Secretary from endorsing or insuring 
     any mortgage that was duly executed before the date of such 
     suspension.
       ``(15) Sunset.--No mortgage may be insured under this 
     section after September 30, 2011, except that the Secretary 
     may endorse or insure any mortgage that was duly executed 
     before such date.
       ``(16) GAO reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Zero Downpayment Act of 2004, and 
     annually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to Congress regarding the 
     performance of mortgages insured under this subsection.
       ``(17) Implementation.--The Secretary may implement this 
     subsection on an interim basis by issuing interim rules, 
     except that the Secretary shall solicit public comments upon 
     publication of such interim rules and shall issue final rules 
     implementing this subsection after consideration of the 
     comments submitted.''.
       (b) Mortgage Insurance Premiums.--The second sentence of 
     subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2)(A) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``In'' and inserting ``Except with respect to a mortgage 
     insured under subsection (l), in''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2754. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to protect social 
security cost-of-living adjustments (COLA); to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 8 months ago, the Republican leadership 
pushed through Congress a lemon of a Medicare prescription drug bill 
that has been breaking down part by part since the day it was passed.
  First, we learned drug companies were raising the prices of many 
drugs, erasing what little discounts the administration's drug card 
program might have offered.
  Next, we learned the administration concealed its cost estimates, 
misled Congress, and threatened the Medicare actuary with termination 
for trying to respond to Congressional requests for information.
  Then, we heard that some seniors who enrolled in the program were 
going to see reductions in other benefits, such as food stamps.
  Later, days after the Drug Card program began, seniors from across 
the country began to report that it was too confusing and studies 
revealed there were lower prices available from major online 
pharmacies.
  Finally, we learned that the HHS website established to help seniors 
navigate their way through the labyrinth of the myriad cards was 
riddled with false information.
  The most recent discovery, however, is the most troubling of all, 
because what we're talking about is not policy breakdown, but policy 
sabotage.
  Let me explain: Every senior has his or her Medicare Part B premium 
withdrawn from their Social Security check. But when the increase in 
health care inflation began to outpace seniors' Social Security cost of 
living adjustments, Congress protected seniors by making it impossible 
for a senior's Medicare premiums to go up more than the value of his or 
her Social Security COLA. It's called the ``hold harmless'' protection, 
and it makes a simple promise to seniors: The cost of health care will 
not come at the expense of the cost of living.
  We have now learned that behind closed doors and in the dark of 
night, Republican leaders undermined this promise. Like Part B 
premiums, the new prescription drug premiums will come out of a 
senior's Social Security check. But unlike in traditional Medicare, the 
new drug bill does not protect seniors with a ``hold harmless'' 
provision.
  It was never mentioned in the debate and no one has stepped forward 
to take responsibility in the months since. But if we don't fix the 
problem, it will eventually result in the decimation of seniors' Social 
Security annual cost of living adjustment.
  Never have these protections been more important. In the past several 
years, the consumer price index, on

[[Page S8740]]

which Social Security COLAs are pegged, has remained very low. At the 
same time, the cost of health care has been skyrocketing by double-
digit percentages. In the 4 years of this administration, the 
cumulative increase in the Medicare monthly premiums will be at least 
$26, nearly twice as much as in the prior eight years under the Clinton 
administration. In addition, the Medicare Part B premium increase for 
2005 is projected to be $114, the largest ever.

  For seniors on a fixed income, every dollar counts. The hold harmless 
protection is the only thing standing in the way of lower and lower 
Social Security checks.
  But the Republican leadership chose not to protect seniors in this 
drug bill, despite the fact that the cost of pharmaceuticals is 
increasing even faster than the cost of health care overall. Medicare 
Part D premiums are expected to rise 7.5 percent per year. The result 
will be a steady erosion of Social Security checks, and real damage to 
seniors' ability to pay their bills and keep up with inflation.
  According to a new report by the Joint Economic Committee, one in 
four seniors will lose a quarter of their COLA just on Medicare premium 
increases by 2007. In 2014, nearly two in three seniors will see the 
same level of loss. And those most vulnerable will be the ones most 
severely harmed. For an elderly woman with a monthly benefit of $500, 
the increase in Medicare premiums will take an average of 60 percent of 
her COLA from 2007 to 2010, and an average of 66 percent from 2011 to 
2014.
  Let's not mince words. This is the worst kind of bait and switch. We 
cannot stand by and allow seniors to be cheated out of their cost of 
living increases in exchange for a confusing drug benefit that fails to 
bring down the cost of drugs.
  Today, I am introducing the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 
2004 to make sure that senior citizens continue to receive a COLA that 
helps them keep pace with inflation. This bill would restore seniors' 
protections and ensure that no more than 25 percent of their annual 
COLAs could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. The 
remaining 75 percent would be secure. For a senior citizen receiving a 
$600 monthly benefit, this bill would protect more than $2,200 over the 
next 10 years. That's money seniors will need to cover increases in 
clothing, food, housing and energy prices.
  We're not talking about adding an extra benefit to Social Security. 
We're talking about protecting seniors' existing benefit from a drug 
plan that appears now to be little more than a wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
  This wasn't the prescription drug bill seniors were promised. Upon 
the passage of this bill, President Bush said, ``Some older Americans 
spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications.  
. . . Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of 
fears and hard choices. This new law will ease the burden on seniors 
and will give them the extra help they need.''
  As we have seen so often, there has been a gap between what this 
administration promised, and what it delivered. In the guise of easing 
one burden on seniors, the administration has added yet another.
  I wish the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress had 
listened more closely to some of the voices of seniors during the 
debate last Fall. One man from Nashville, Tennessee looked at the 
details of this bill and asked, ``Do you think anybody in Washington 
has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?''
  If the authors of the prescription drug bill truly understood what 
seniors on fixed incomes must go through, they never would have passed 
it.
  Democrats are fighting to make things right again. We do understand 
the struggles of America's seniors and the burden drug costs put on 
their finances. Seniors were promised a real prescription drug benefit 
for Medicare. The Republicans' prescription drug bill has proven to be 
tragically inadequate. The COLA protection bill we are introducing 
today represents an important step in repairing the damage, and 
Democrats will keep fighting until seniors get the help they were 
promised and the benefit they deserve.
  I want to thank the Joint Economic Committee Democrats for their 
efforts to identify and highlight this problem. Senator Jack Reed is 
the senior Democratic Senator on the Committee, and the lead cosponsor 
of the COLA protection bill. Senator Patty Murray joined us in 
highlighting the problem yesterday. She is also a cosponsor, along with 
five other Senate Democrats.
  This is truly a bicameral effort. My South Dakota colleague, 
Stephanie Herseth, is sponsoring the House bill. This is the first bill 
she is introducing in Congress, and I am proud that she is helping lead 
this fight for seniors in South Dakota and across the country. Many 
other House Democrats are joining her in this effort.
  Senator Reed will be inserting the JEC report into the Record. I 
encourage my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to print in 
the Record a fact sheet on the bill that was prepared by Representative 
Pelosi's office, as well as a document prepared by the House Ways and 
Means Committee staff that provides several illustrative examples of 
how the bill would work, how much retirees would save if it becomes 
law, and what percentage of Medicare enrollees will benefit. I also ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  We will continue our effort to protect America's seniors and address 
the problems created by last year's prescription drug bill when 
Congress returns in the fall.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2754

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security COLA 
     Protection Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY COLA INCREASES AGAINST 
                   EXCESSIVE MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES.

       (a) Application to Part B Premiums.--Section 1839(f) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(f) For any calendar year after 1988'' 
     and inserting ``(f)(1) For any calendar year after 1988 and 
     before 2005''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) For any calendar year (beginning with 2005), if an 
     individual is entitled to monthly benefits under section 202 
     or 223 or to a monthly annuity under section 3(a), 4(a), or 
     4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 for November and 
     December of the preceding year, if the monthly premium of the 
     individual under this section for December of the preceding 
     year and for January of the year involved is deducted from 
     those benefits under section 1840(a)(1) or section 
     1840(b)(1), and if the amount of the individual's premium is 
     not adjusted for January of the year involved under 
     subsection (i), the monthly premium otherwise determined 
     under this section for the individual for that year shall not 
     be increased pursuant to subsection (a)(3) to an amount that 
     exceeds 25 percent of the amount of the increase in such 
     monthly benefits for that individual attributable to section 
     215(i).''.
       (b) Application to Part D Premiums.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1860D-13(a)(1) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww-113(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``(D) and (E),'' and 
     inserting ``(D), (E), and (F),'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) Protection of social security cola increase.--For any 
     calendar year, if an individual is entitled to monthly 
     benefits under section 202 or 223 or to a monthly annuity 
     under section 3(a), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement 
     Act of 1974 for November and December of the preceding year 
     and was enrolled under a PDP plan or MA-PD plan for such 
     months, the base beneficiary premium otherwise applied under 
     this paragraph for the individual for months in that year 
     shall be decreased by the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     the amounts described in the following clauses (i) and (ii) 
     exceeds 25 percent of the amount of the increase in such 
     monthly benefits for that individual attributable to section 
     215(i):
       ``(i) Part d premium increase factor.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in this clause, the 
     amount of the increase (if any) in the adjusted national 
     average monthly bid amount (as determined under subparagraph 
     (B)(iii)) for a month in the year over such amount for a 
     month in the preceding year.
       ``(II) No application to full premium subsidy 
     individuals.--In the case of an individual enrolled for a 
     premium subsidy under section 1860D-14(a)(1), zero.
       ``(III) Special rule for partial premium subsidy 
     individuals.--In the case of an individual enrolled for a 
     premium subsidy under

[[Page S8741]]

     section 1860D-14(a)(2), a percent of the increase described 
     in subclause (I) equal to 100 percent minus the percent 
     applied based on the linear scale under such section.

       ``(ii) Part b premium increase factor.--If the individual 
     is enrolled for such months under part B--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     the amount of the annual increase in premium effective for 
     such year resulting from the application of section 
     1839(a)(3), as reduced (if any) under section 1839(f)(2).
       ``(II) No application to individuals participating in 
     medicare savings program.--In the case of an individual who 
     is enrolled for medical assistance under title XIX for 
     medicare cost-sharing described in section 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii), 
     zero.''.

       (2) Application under medicare advantage program.--Section 
     1854(b)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(b)(2)(B)), as 
     in effect as of January 1, 2006, relating to MA monthly 
     prescription drug beneficiary premium, is amended by 
     inserting after ``as adjusted under section 1860D-
     13(a)(1)(B)'' the following: ``and section 1860D-
     13(a)(1)(F)''.
       (3) Payment from medicare prescription drug account.--
     Section 1860D-16(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-116(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) payment under paragraph (5) of premium reductions 
     effected under section 1860D-13(a)(1)(F).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Payment for cola protection premium reductions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to payments provided under 
     section 1860D-15 to a PDP sponsor or an MA organization, in 
     the case of each part D eligible individual who is enrolled 
     in a prescription drug plan offered by such sponsor or an MA-
     PD plan offered by such organization and who has a premium 
     reduced under section 1860D-13(a)(1)(F), the Secretary shall 
     provide for payment to such sponsor or organization of an 
     amount equivalent to the amount of such premium reduction.
       ``(B) Application of provisions.--The provisions of 
     subsections (d) and (f) of section 1860D-15 (relating to 
     payment methods and disclosure of information) shall apply to 
     payment under subparagraph (A) in the same manner as they 
     apply to payments under such section.''.
       (c) Disregard of Premium Reductions in Determining 
     Dedicated Revenues Under MMA Cost Containment.--Section 
     801(c)(3)(D) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
     and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Such premiums shall 
     also be determined without regard to any reductions effected 
     under section 1839(f)(2) or 1860D-13(a)(1)(F) of such 
     title.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Part b premium.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to premiums for months beginning with January 2005.
       (2) Part d premium.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     apply to premiums for months beginning with January 2007.
       (3) MMA provision.--The amendment made by subsection (c) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

 Democrats Fight to Protect Social Security COLA: Report Shows GOP Rx 
              Drug Law Would Lead to Social Security Cuts

       Approximately 30 million middle income seniors are enrolled 
     in Social Security and Medicare, and rely on the annual 
     Social Security cost of living increases (COLAs) that help 
     them keep up with the rising cost of groceries, food and 
     housing. Yet medical inflation is rising rapidly, and 
     Medicare premium increases will soon consume the entire 
     Social Security COLA. If nothing is done, escalating drug 
     prices will lead to real cuts in the Social Security benefit 
     as a result of new Part D premium increases in 2007 and 
     beyond. Today, Democrats are unveiling a bill to limit how 
     much rising Medicare premiums can impact seniors' COLAs.
       Social Security COLAs are vital to seniors and the 
     disabled. Millions of Americans rely on their Social Security 
     check each month to make ends meet. Each fall, millions of 
     retirees wait anxiously to learn what the Social Security 
     COLA will be for the coming year--because each dollar is 
     needed to balance their budget.
       Republican Medicare bill will dramatically reduce Social 
     Security COLAs. Under the GOP Rx drug law, some seniors will 
     have an additional Medicare premium (``Part D'') deducted 
     from their Social Security check. With both the new Medicare 
     Part D premium (for prescription drugs) and the existing Part 
     B premiums (for physician and other outpatient care) deducted 
     from a retiree's Social Security check, Social Security COLAs 
     will be significantly eroded. According to a new report by 
     the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee, when 
     the new drug benefit is in place in 2007 almost one-quarter 
     of Social Security beneficiaries will spend over 25 percent 
     of their COLA just on increases in Medicare premiums--and the 
     number will increase to 64 percent (22 million seniors and 
     people with disabilities) in 2014. For an elderly woman with 
     a monthly benefit of $500, the increase in Medicare premiums 
     will absorb almost 60 percent of the COLA from 2007-2010, and 
     69 percent from 2011-2014.
       Making a bad problem worse. The goal of the Social Security 
     COLA is to maintain the purchasing power of the benefit check 
     in the face of rising prices. But that objective is 
     undermined if Medicare premiums, which are typically deducted 
     from Social Security checks, increase rapidly. Medical 
     inflation and increased utilization of outpatient services is 
     already increasing Part B premiums, but current law ensures 
     at least that total Social Security benefits do not go down. 
     By refusing to extend this same protection to the new Part D 
     premiums, and refusing to control drug prices, Republicans 
     have made a difficult situation even worse. While the Social 
     Security COLA only increases at the rate of inflation, the 
     premiums beneficiaries face under Part D will increase by the 
     rate of increase in drug prices. According to CBO 
     projections, Part D premiums will increase by an average of 
     7.5 percent a year from 2006 to 2014--a far greater rate of 
     increase than that expected for Part B or the Social Security 
     COLA.
       Current protection needs improvement. The 2004 Medicare 
     Trustees Report projects that monthly Part B premiums will 
     rise by a record $11.50 for 2005--a one-year increase of more 
     than 17 percent. Given the increased pressures to increase 
     physician payments and the trend of shifting more services to 
     outpatient settings, which increase Part B premiums--and the 
     new costs of Part D--it is important to act now to protect a 
     portion of the COLA for seniors' basic needs.
       Democrats' bill will protect Social Security. Democrats' 
     ``Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004'' would ensure 
     that no more than 25 percent of a beneficiary's annual COLA 
     could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. Doing 
     so would guarantee that seniors and the disabled retain at 
     least 75 percent of the COLA to cover price increases in 
     other goods and services, such as food, clothing, housing and 
     energy costs. In 2007, the legislation would help over 14 
     million Social Security recipients. By 2014, it will help 
     more than two-thirds of seniors and people with disabilities, 
     approximately 23 million Americans.
                                  ____


                   How the COLA Protection Bill Works

       Example 1. Widow with $500 in monthly Social Security 
     benefits in 2004
       Her annual Social Security benefit is $6,000, and the COLA 
     will increase her income by $162 in 2005 (a 2.7 percent 
     increase).
       However, Medicare Part B premiums are projected to rise by 
     at least $114 that year. Without the bill's protection, a 
     premium increase of $114 will eat up 70 percent of her COLA.
       With the bill's protection, only 25 percent of her COLA 
     will be absorbed by Medicare premium increases, leaving 75 
     percent ($122 per year) to cover other increases in her cost 
     of living. The bill preserves an additional $74 of COLA to be 
     used for other expenses.
       By 2009, the bill will save $197 of her COLA. In 2014, $545 
     of her COLA will be protected. Over 10 years, the projected 
     total savings for this beneficiary will reach $2,615.
       Example 2. Retired couple with $1,100 in combined monthly 
     Social Security benefits in 2004.
       Their annual benefits are $13,200: $8,400 for the husband 
     and $4,800 for the wife. A 2.7 percent COLA would increase 
     their income by $356 in 2005.
       However, the Medicare Part B premiums paid by this couple 
     are projected to rise by at least $228 in 2005. Without the 
     bill's protection, a premium increase of $228 will eat up 64 
     percent of their combined COLA.
       With the bill's protection, only 25 percent of their COLAs 
     will be absorbed by Medicare premium increases, leaving 75 
     percent ($267 per year) to cover other increases in their 
     cost of living. The bill preserves an additional $139 of COLA 
     to be used for other expenses.
       By 2009, the bill will protect $358 of their COLA. In 2014, 
     $1,016 of their COLA will be protected. Over 10 years, the 
     projected total savings for this couple will reach $4,829.
       How much would others save?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Savings      Average
             Annual benefit amount                over 10       annual
                                                   years      savings\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$7,200 ($600 per month).......................       $2,213         $221
$9,000 ($750 per month).......................        1,611          161
$9,600 ($800 per month).......................        1,410         140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The particular amount in each year could differ from this average
  because each year, the amount of protection provided by the bill would
  depend on the interaction between the Medicare premium increase and
  that individual's COLA increase. If the premium increase is large
  while the COLA is small, savings would be larger. If the premium
  increase is modest while the COLA is large, then savings would be
  smaller.

       What fraction of those who pay Medicare premiums would 
     benefit from the bill?
       2005: 90 percent (This is a year when many beneficiaries 
     will need protection to prevent their COLA from being 
     swallowed by Medicare premium increases, because the premium 
     increase is projected to be the largest ever); 2007: 47 
     percent; 2009: 64 percent; 2011: 68 percent; 2014: 67 
     percent.
                                   Ways and Means Democratic Staff
                                            July 20, 2004, 10 a.m.

                   Joint Economic Committee Democrats

           Representative Pete Stark (D-CA)--Senior Democrat

      Rising Medicare Premiums Undermine the Social Security COLA


              new medicare law could cut benefits for some

                   (Economic Policy Brief--July 2004)

       Unlike most private pensions and other forms of retirement 
     annuity income, Social

[[Page S8742]]

     Security, benefits include an annual cost-of-living 
     adjustment (COLA) that is designed to prevent an erosion of 
     benefits due to inflation. Unfortunately, rising health care 
     costs and last year's Medicare law threaten this valuable 
     cost-of-living protection.


                               background

       In 1975 Congress replaced ad hoc increases in Social 
     Security benefits with an automatic COLA based on the 
     previous year's change in the consumer price index (CPI). The 
     CPI is an index of prices paid by the typical consumer for a 
     representative bundle of goods and services. The goal of the 
     COLA is to ensure that Social Security benefits keep pace 
     with increases in the price of food, clothing, and other 
     necessities--including medical care--so that seniors and 
     other beneficiaries can maintain a stable quality-of-life.
       Participants in Medicare Part B, which covers doctors' 
     services, pay a monthly premium that is deducted from their 
     Social Security check. So too will most participants in 
     Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug program. The size 
     of the premiums is based on projected costs for those 
     respective programs. During periods of rapidly rising health 
     care costs, increases in Medicare premiums can represent a 
     significant fraction of the overall Social Security COLA for 
     many Social Security beneficiaries. With the latest 
     Medicare changes, some may even see their benefits cut as 
     their premium increases outpace their COLAs.
       Current law puts a limit on the extent to which growth in 
     Medicare Part B premiums can erode the purchasing power of an 
     individual's Social Security benefit. The ``hold harmless'' 
     provision guarantees that the increase in a person's Part B 
     premium will not be larger than that person's COLA. This 
     ensures that the dollar amount of the benefit received after 
     deducting the Part B premium will never be reduced, but it 
     does not guarantee that the purchasing power of that benefit 
     will not fall. In fact, the entire COLA could be consumed. 
     The latest Medicare legislation does not apply even this 
     ``hold harmless'' protection to the Part D prescription drug 
     premium. Thus, seniors are exposed to the possibility that 
     large increases in medical costs, especially unchecked 
     prescription drug costs, could eat up a large piece of their 
     Social Security COLA and even cut their Social Security 
     benefit.


   recent experience with colas and medicare part b premium increases

       During the past three years, rapidly rising health 
     expenditures have been accompanied by large increases in 
     Medicare premiums. Based on current projections, the 
     cumulative increase in the monthly Part B Medicare premium 
     during the four years of the Bush Administration will be at 
     least $26, nearly twice as much as the total increase of 
     $13.40 over the entire eight years of the Clinton 
     Administration. At the same time that Medicare premiums have 
     been rising rapidly, inflation has been very low. As a 
     result, Social Security COLAs have been relatively modest, 
     and many beneficiaries have seen a substantial portion of 
     their COLA consumed by the increases in Medicare premiums.
       In 2004, for example, Social Security beneficiaries 
     received a COLA of 2.1 percent ($2.10 for each $100 of 
     monthly benefit). At the same time, the monthly premium for 
     Medicare Part B increased from $58.70 to $66.60, an increase 
     of $7.90 or 13.5 percent. Table 1 shows what part of the COLA 
     was consumed by the increase in the Part B premium for 
     individuals receiving different levels of monthly benefit.

TABLE 1.--IMPACT OF MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES ON SOCIAL SECURITY COLAS,
                                  2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fraction of
                                               COLA after        COLA
                                2004 Social     deducting    absorbed by
    Monthly Social Security       Security     increase in     Medicare
   benefit in 2004 (dollars)        COLA        medicare       premium
                                 (dollars)      premiums      increases
                                                (dollars)     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
384...........................         7.90            0.00          100
500...........................        10.28            2.38           77
750...........................        15.43            7.53           51
1,000.........................        20.57           12.67           38
1,250.........................        25.71           17.81           31
1,500.........................        30.85           22.95          26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JEC Democratic staff, based on Congresssional Budget Office
  projections.

       Individuals with 2004 monthly Social Security benefits of 
     less than $384 received a COLA in 2004 that was less than the 
     increase in Medicare premiums. Because of the ``hold 
     harmless'' provision, their premium increase was limited to 
     the amount of their COLA. Still, for these individuals (an 
     estimated 1.4 million people), their entire Social Security 
     COLA was wiped out, leaving them nothing to pay for increases 
     in all other goods and services they consume.
       Individuals with a monthly benefit of $1,000 (roughly the 
     average benefit of retired men) had to devote nearly 40 
     percent of their COLA to the increase in their Medicare 
     premium. Those with a monthly benefit of $750 (roughly the 
     average benefit of retired women) needed half their COLA to 
     cover the increase in Medicare premiums. And those with a 
     monthly benefit of $500 (roughly the average benefit of wives 
     of retired workers) needed more than three-quarters of their 
     COLA to pay for the increase in their Medicare premium.


            The Impact of Part D Prescription Drug Premiums

       Current forecasts indicate that the Medicare Part B premium 
     increase in 2005 will be the largest dollar amount ever.\1\ 
     As a result, seniors can expect another year like 2004, when 
     increases in Medicare premiums will absorb a large percentage 
     of their COLA. CBO's current projections call for the rate of 
     increase in Medicare premiums to abate after 2005, but those 
     projections do not reflect possible legislative changes that 
     would increase physician payments, resulting in higher 
     premiums. Furthermore, beginning in 2006, seniors 
     participating in the Part D prescription drug program will 
     have an additional Medicare premium for that program deducted 
     from their Social Security check.
       Using CBO's projections of the Social Security COLA and 
     Medicare premium costs, the Joint Economic Committee 
     Democratic staff has estimated the portion of the COLA that 
     will be absorbed by increases in Medicare premiums incoming 
     years. For a person with a monthly benefit of $500 (in 2004 
     dollars), the annual increase in combined Part B and Part D 
     premiums will absorb almost three-fifths of the annual COLA, 
     on average, during the 2007-2010 period. Medicare premiums 
     will absorb over two-thirds of the COLA in the 2011-2014 
     period. Increases in Medicare premiums will absorb a lesser 
     but still significant fraction of the COLA for individuals 
     with larger monthly benefits (Table 2). Because there is no 
     ``hold harmless'' protection, up to 2 percent of 
     beneficiaries could experience benefit cuts.

    TABLE 2.--AVERAGE IMPACT OF MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASES ON SOCIAL
                 SECURITY COLAS, 2007-2010 AND 2011-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Average fraction of COLA
                                            absorbed by Medicare Part B
 Monthly Social Security benefit  (2004    and Part D premium increases
                dollars)                             (percent)
                                         -------------------------------
                                             2007-2010       2011-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500.....................................              59              69
1,000...................................              24              34
1,500...................................              16             23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: JEC Democratic staff, based on Congressional Budget Office
  projections.

       Although the rising cost of Medicare Part B and Part D 
     premiums can absorb a very large fraction of the annual 
     Social Security COLA for those with modest benefit checks, 
     the problem is not confined to them. CBO estimates that in 
     2007, the first year that increases in Part D premiums will 
     have an impact, 6.9 million people, or nearly 25 percent of 
     those who have Medicare premiums withheld from their Social 
     Security benefit will see at least one-quarter of their 
     COLA absorbed by increases in combined Part B and Part D 
     premiums. By 2014, 64 percent of beneficiaries, or 22.2 
     million people, will lose at least 25 percent of their 
     COLA to increases in their Medicare premium.


                               Conclusion

       For Social Security beneficiaries, the annual COLA is an 
     important protection against rising prices eroding the real 
     purchasing power of their benefit. In the past three years, 
     however, rapidly rising health care costs have undermined 
     this protection by driving up Medicare Part B premiums, which 
     are automatically deducted from participants' monthly Social 
     Security check.For many participants, the increase in 
     Medicare premiums has absorbed a large fraction of their 
     annual COLA, leaving little to deal with the rising costs of 
     all the other goods and services the COLA is meant to cover. 
     That problem will be aggravated when the new premiums for 
     Part D prescription drug coverage take effect, unless 
     policymakers take action to address this gutting of Social 
     Security COLA protection.


                                Endnote

       1. If past practice is followed, the Social Security COLA 
     percentage increase and the increase for Medicare premiums 
     will be announced in mid-October. Me calculations used in 
     this paper assume an increase in the 2005 monthly Part B 
     premium of $9.50. That is higher than the current CBO 
     baseline estimate of $8.70, but the JEC Democratic staff 
     believes that CBO's estimate will increase when it updates 
     its baseline in August. The Medicare actuaries are currently 
     predicting an even higher increase of $11.50 in the monthly 
     premium.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with the distinguished 
Democratic Leader and Senator Murray in introducing the ``Social 
Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' I would also ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the Record the report by the Joint Economic 
Committee Democratic staff entitled, ``Rising Medicare Premiums 
Undermine the Social Security COLA.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you. Mr. President, Social Security is the bedrock of 
this country's social safety net and our most effective antipoverty 
program for seniors and the disabled. A valuable feature of Social 
Security is the annual cost of living adjustment, or COLA, which was 
enacted to ensure that the

[[Page S8743]]

real purchasing power of beneficiaries' checks would be preserved, and 
not eaten away by inflation. I would also point out that such COLA 
protection is missing from most private pensions.
  Sadly, what the JEC Democrats' report has revealed is that large 
increases in health care costs and the poor design of the new Medicare 
prescription drug plan have created a situation in which rising 
Medicare premiums are undermining the Social Security COLA. The problem 
is already serious, and we have not even begun to experience the impact 
of the prescription drug premium of the new Medicare Part D program 
that will take effect in 2006.
  The study shows, for example, that in the years 2011-2014, a person 
with a monthly Social Security benefit of $500 (in today's dollars) 
would see 69 percent of her COLA consumed by increases in Medicare Part 
B and Part D premiums. That leaves far too little of the COLA to cover 
increases in prices of other necessities such as food, energy, and 
other medical expenses. Even people with larger monthly benefits would 
see their COLAs substantially eroded by the increases in Medicare 
premiums.
  Finally, the study shows that by 2014, if there is no legislation to 
address this problem, 64 percent of beneficiaries who have their 
Medicare premiums deducted from their Social Security checks will lose 
at least 25 percent of their Social Security COLA to increases in those 
premiums.
  The JEC Democratic staff study makes a compelling case that we have a 
serious problem on our hands. That is why I am happy to cosponsor ``The 
Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004.'' This legislation will 
preserve the essential safety net Social Security provides seniors, by 
making sure that at least 75 percent of their Social Security COLA is 
protected from increases in Medicare premiums and available to offset 
increasing cost of other goods and services seniors need in order to 
maintain an adequate quality-of-life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 2755. A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to ban 
abusive credit practices, enhance consumer disclosures, protect 
underage consumers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is often said that small things can make 
a very large difference in our society. That saying certainly fits the 
subject I have come to speak briefly about this afternoon. That little 
thing in question that I am talking about is 3\1/8\ inches wide, 2\1/8\ 
inches long, and no thicker than one's fingernail. But it has a 
monumental impact on how millions of Americans live their lives each 
and every day. The object to which I am referring, of course, is the 
credit card.
  We have come a long way from the day in 1950 when the Diner's Club 
issued the first universal credit card that allowed its holders to use 
credit at certain very select restaurants in New York City. Today, the 
credit card has become an indispensable part of how we do business in 
the United States, and across the globe, for that matter.
  For many Americans, the main appeal of the credit card is convenience 
and flexibility. They allow us to go out and eat, go to a shopping 
mall, to the movies, and stop off at the grocery store on the way home, 
without folding a single bill or fumbling for loose change in their 
pockets. Credit cards allow people to shop for products on the Internet 
in a matter of seconds.
  But for more and more Americans, credit cards serve a very different 
purpose. As the name implies, these cards provide access to credit. We 
are living in a time when real wages are failing to keep up with price 
increases, when health care costs and college tuition are on the rise. 
Millions of Americans are having difficulty making ends meet. For 
Americans who are strapped for cash, credit cards are much more than a 
convenience. They have become the only way they can afford basic 
necessities, such as food, gas, clothing, and medical care.
  These Americans are not paying by credit card because they want to; 
they are doing so because they have no other choice. It is this 
function of credit cards that make them so appealing to American 
consumers, but I must also say it is this function that presents the 
greatest danger to them as well.
  Today, the level of credit card debt in the United States is at 
record heights. Total consumer debt in America is over $2 trillion. Out 
of that, $735 billion is credit card debt. The average American 
household has over $9,000 worth of credit card debt. Let me repeat 
that. The average family living in the United States has over $9,000 of 
credit card debt. In comparison, the average family household income is 
just above $40,000.
  Due in large part to credit card debt, more Americans are filing for 
bankruptcy. Last year, over 1.6 million families declared they were 
bankrupt. For every one family that actually does file for bankruptcy, 
there are seven more whose debt suggests that they, in fact, should do 
the same.
  Credit card debt does not affect all Americans equally. It is a 
growing burden that is disproportionately being borne by middle-income, 
low-income, and working-poor families. According to a recent report, 
during the 1990s, on average, the American family saw its credit card 
debt go up by 53 percent. The debt of middle-class families, those 
earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, went up 75 percent. For 
the older Americans, senior citizens, their average credit card debt 
went up 149 percent. Finally, for very low-income families, those 
making less than $10,000 a year, credit card debt grew by a shocking 
184 percent.
  Why is this happening? Why are millions of Americans drowning in 
credit card debt? There are some who would describe the numbers I just 
quoted as a matter of personal responsibility, that some Americans are 
spending way beyond their means and ultimately are paying the price.
  I do believe personal responsibility is extremely important, but many 
of the victims of credit card debt today are not in that state because 
they bought a home entertainment system, an expensive vacation, or a 
plasma TV set.
  Take Roberto Towler. Roberto was a professional accountant who was 
very careful to always pay his bills on time. In early 2000 he was 
forced to take 2 months off from work because of a back injury. The 
lost salary meant he had much less cash on hand than before. He had no 
alternative but to use his credit card for toiletries, clothes for his 
children, and groceries. He eventually was able to return to work and 
scale back the use of his credit card, but he found himself barely able 
to pay back his debt. Eventually Roberto was forced to file bankruptcy 
with $22,000 of credit card debt.
  Many Americans have stories just like Mr. Towler. They work hard, 
they play by the rules, but after a few twists of fate suddenly find 
themselves in a tremendous debt. For those caught in the quicksand of 
debt, a credit card appears to be a lifeline. But, in reality, it only 
pulls them in deeper and deeper.

  We often speak of the ill and infirm as living on borrowed time. 
These people are living on borrowed money.
  In the middle of all this are credit card companies. If we demand 
responsibility from individuals, and we should, and we do demand it, 
then we also ought to demand it from corporations as well. 
Responsibility is not limited to those who are consumers alone.
  The reason I am here today is because a good deal of the blame for 
the crisis in credit card debt we are seeing in America lies in the 
practices of credit card companies.
  I am not someone who takes regulatory reform lightly. I am not a 
believer in regulation that stifles innovation or efficiency. But at 
the same time, when we see practices that are truly hurting working 
families around the country, I believe we have an obligation to act. 
Just what kind of practices are we talking about? Let me spell it out.
  Let's start with interest rates. I am not naive about this. I 
certainly do not expect credit card companies to be terribly benevolent 
when it comes to interest rates. But what I expect, and what all 
Americans deserve, is honesty and fairness.
  We have all seen print ads and commercials that advertise 
fantastically low interest rates, sometimes as low as zero percent. But 
what these commercials don't tell you is that these teaser rates, as 
they are called, often expire and rise considerably only after a few 
months.

[[Page S8744]]

  If you slip up even once by failing to make a minimum monthly 
payment, your interest rate may go up even faster. Just one mistake can 
be enough to drive an interest rate up by nearly 30 percentage points. 
Of course that information is usually hidden in the fine print of a 
lengthy disclosure statement.
  Most Americans would assume that their interest rates will stay low 
as long as they make their minimum monthly payments. Not so. Today, 
credit card companies don't just look at the bill that you pay them, 
they look at your entire financial picture in deciding how high your 
interest rate ought to be, how high a rate they ought to charge you.
  I learned of a doctor in Illinois who had always paid his credit card 
bills on time and stayed within his credit card limits. Then one day he 
took a look at his bill and discovered that the interest rate on his 
credit card had jumped from 6 percent to nearly 17 percent. He asked 
the credit card issuer, why? The company said that he was now a higher 
risk.
  What was the reason?
  He had taken out a mortgage on his new home.
  This is incredible to me. There are few things more rewarding to a 
family than buying their first home. We celebrate home ownership here 
in America. Apparently for credit card companies it's a reason to 
celebrate as well, because it's an excuse to charge higher interest 
rates.
  Interest rates, of course, are not the only way credit card companies 
make money. In recent years, more and more companies have found another 
way to increase their bottom lines, by assessing exorbitant fees for 
the most minor of offenses. Miss a payment by a single day and you may 
be charged $30 or even $40 for that mistake. Gone are the grace periods 
that gave consumers some reasonable leeway.
  Over the past 2 years, the amount of money generated by credit card 
fees has simply skyrocketed. In fact, the term ``skyrocketed'' may be 
something of an understatement. In 1996, the fees raised $1.7 billion 
for credit card companies. That's 1996. Last year the credit card 
companies raised $11 billion in fees alone, only 8 years later.
  You might think that if credit card companies know that someone is a 
risk they would take some action to limit that person's spending, such 
as lowering their credit line. Or perhaps they might not issue a card 
to that person in the first place.

  But there is a little secret the credit card companies don't want 
Americans to know. They are actively soliciting and signing up 
customers who are tremendous credit risks. They are soliciting these 
people not in spite of the risk, but because of it.
  Contrary to what one might think, customers who cannot afford to pay 
their bills on time are the credit card companies' best customers--not 
their worst. Unbelievably, these customers who do pay on time are known 
within the credit card industry as ``deadbeats.''
  Let me repeat that. Those who pay their credit card bills on time are 
known within the industry as ``deadbeats.'' Why is this? Because when 
people fail to pay their bills on time, that means more profits for the 
credit card industry, in the form of more interest charges and penalty 
fees.
  How much more of a profit? Let's say you are the average American, 
with $9,000 in credit card debt, which is the case today. Let's say you 
stopped accumulating any more debt and decided you would pay it off by 
making the minimum monthly payment of 2 percent. Let's say further that 
your interest rate is 15 percent--which is just about the average 
today, I might add.
  How long would it take you to pay off that debt? Five years? Ten 
years? Twenty years? It would take 39 years to pay off your debt. Over 
the course of those 39 years, you would pay $14,000 in interest 
payments alone, in addition to the $9,000 you owe. This is all 
assuming, of course, that your interest rate wouldn't rise over those 
years and that you wouldn't be hit with unexpected fees.
  Credit card companies know this. They know their greatest chance of 
financial profit lies in those customers who have the least chance of 
paying their bills on time. That is why they continue to solicit these 
customers and that is why those who do pay on time are known within the 
industry as the deadbeats.
  Last year, credit card companies mailed out 5 billion solicitations 
to about 200 million individuals in the United States. The average 
person received about one offer every other week. The average household 
received more than one per week. I guarantee that a great many of these 
people do not have sparkling credit ratings, yet these companies 
continue to send out offer after offer, hoping that yet another 
customer will take the bait.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from the July 6, 2004 edition of the Wall Street Journal 
entitled ``Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees from Riskiest Card 
Holders.''
  This goes into the topic in greater detail.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Wall Street Journal Online, July 6, 2004]

    Growing Profit Source for Banks: Fees From Riskiest Card Holders

                         (By Mitchell Pacelle)

       When Jennifer Reid opened her credit-card statement in 
     April, she discovered how expensive it was to make full use 
     of her credit.
       The 42-year-old X-ray technologist had run through $10,000 
     of her $12,000 credit line on an MBNA Corp. card. In April, 
     her annual interest rate abruptly jumped to 24.98%, up from 
     19.98% the prior month and far above the initial single-digit 
     rate.
       ``I don't understand,'' she recalls telling an MBNA 
     customer-service representative on the phone, complaining 
     that she hadn't been late with a single payment. The 
     representative agreed but pointed out that she had run up 
     more than $5,000 of debt on two other cards. Also, she was 
     making only slightly more than the minimum suggested monthly 
     payments on her MBNA card. He said the company now saw her as 
     a credit risk and feared it would take her forever to pay off 
     her debts. ``Isn't that what you want consumers to do?'' she 
     snapped back.
       That's a question more financially strapped bank customers 
     are asking these days. For consumers who pay off their 
     credit-card balances each month, shop aggressively for 
     interest rates as low as 0%, and take advantage of generous 
     credit-card rewards programs, consumer credit has never been 
     cheaper. But for others like Ms. Reid, who went into debt so 
     she could move to a better job in Florida from South 
     Carolina, the trend is in the other direction.
       Card users, consumer advocates and some industry experts 
     complain that banks are attempting to squeeze more and more 
     revenue from consumers struggling to make ends meet. Instead 
     of cutting these people off as bad credit risks, banks are 
     letting them spend--and then hitting them with larger and 
     larger penalties for running up their credit, going over 
     their credit limits, paying late and getting cash advances 
     from their credit cards. The fees are also piling up for 
     bounced checks and overdrawn accounts.
       ``People think they are being swindled,'' says industry 
     consultant Duncan MacDonald, formerly a lawyer for the 
     credit-card division of Citigroup Inc. Penalty fees aren't 
     new, but they are becoming more important to the 
     industry's bottom line and are being borne by the people 
     who can least afford to pay them, he contends.
       Cardweb.com, a consulting group that tracks the card 
     industry, says credit-card fees, including those from 
     retailers, rose to 33.4% of total credit-card revenue in 
     2003. That was up from 27.9% in 2000 and just 16.1% in 1996. 
     The average monthly late fee hit $32.01 in May, up from 
     $30.29 a year earlier and $13.30 in May 1996, the company 
     said. In 2003, the credit-card industry reaped $11.7 billion 
     from penalty fees, up 9% from $10.7 billion a year earlier, 
     according to Robert Hammer, an industry consultant.
       ``As competitive pressure builds on the front-end pricing, 
     it has pushed a lot of the profit streams to the back end of 
     the card--to these fees,'' says Robert McKinley, chief 
     executive of CardWeb.com. Over the past two years, he said, 
     ``it's become much more aggressive.'' At industry 
     conferences, he notes, talk often turns to ``what the market 
     will bear.''
       Banks say that penalties and fees are a necessary component 
     of new models for pricing financial services. Gone are the 
     days when banks collected hefty annual fees on all credit 
     cards and charged fat interest rates to all customers. Now, 
     the banks say, they must rely on risk-based pricing models 
     under which customers with the shakiest finances pay higher 
     rates and more fees.
       ``We look at teaser rates as an area that we have to be 
     competitive in,'' said Richard Srednicki, a top credit-card 
     executive at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., during a conference 
     call with investors last fall. He said the bank tries to 
     ``mix and match how we compete'' on interest rates and fees 
     ``in order to make the kinds of returns that we're looking 
     for.''
       An MBNA spokesman declined to comment on Ms. Reid's 
     experience but noted that one of the most important 
     considerations in setting a credit card's interest rate is 
     ``how a customer manages his account.'' If a customer's 
     financial circumstances change for

[[Page S8745]]

     the worse, he said, the bank has to raise the rate ``as a way 
     of balancing that greater risk.''
       Such variable pricing has been embraced in recent years by 
     airlines, mortgage lenders and others. What raises the 
     hackles of bank customers, however, is that many don't 
     discover the rate changes and penalty fees until they have 
     already been hit with them. Those who complain are directed 
     to disclosure statements that most consumers never read. 
     These disclosures, says Mr. MacDonald, have ballooned from 
     little more than a page 20 years ago to 30 pages or more of 
     small print today.
       Federal Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke Jr., one 
     of the nation's top bank regulators, warned bankers at a 
     conference last fall that ``no retail banking activity 
     generates more consumer complaints'' than credit-card 
     practices, ``and where there are persistent and serious 
     complaints, there is a fertile seedbed for legislation.''
       Mr. Hawke raised the case in which a customer presents a 
     credit card at the cash register and the bank approves the 
     transaction even though it knows that the purchase will 
     push the customer over his credit limit. ``If, as a 
     practical matter, the line has been increased, is it 
     unfair or deceptive for the creditor to continue to impose 
     an overline `penalty'?'' he asked.
       Until the early 1990s, most banks offered one main credit-
     card product. It typically carried an annual interest rate of 
     about 18% and an annual fee of $25. Cardholders who paid late 
     or strayed over their credit limit were charged modest fees. 
     Profits from good customers covered losses from those who 
     defaulted.
       Then card issuers, in an effort to grab market share, began 
     scrapping annual fees and vying to offer the lowest annual 
     interest rates. They junked simple pricing models in favor of 
     complex ones they say were tailored to cardholders' risk and 
     behavior. Eager to sustain growth in a market approaching 
     saturation, they began offering more cards to consumers with 
     spotty credit.
       By the late 1990s, banks were attracting consumers with low 
     introductory rates, then subjecting some of them to a myriad 
     of ``risk-related fees,'' such as late fees and over-limit 
     fees. A 2001 survey by the Federal Reserve showed that 30% of 
     general-purpose credit-card holders had paid a late fee in 
     the prior year.
       Like Ms. Reid, more customers are seeing red when they 
     discover the penalties on bank statements. Credit-card late-
     payment charges have risen to as high as $39 for some 
     customers of Bank of America Corp., MBNA, and Providian 
     Financial Corp., and fewer banks grant grace periods. 
     Cardholders who exceed their credit limits face ``over 
     limit'' fees as high as $39 a month.
       In a survey of 140 credit cards this year, the advocacy 
     group Consumer Action said 85% of the banks make it a 
     practice to raise interest rates for customers who pay late--
     often after a single late payment. Nearly half raise rates if 
     they find out that a customer is in arrears with another 
     creditor.
       Since the banks disclose the fees in the fine print of 
     their mailings, they have had little to fear from regulators 
     and the courts. Consumer lawyers have lost a string of 
     lawsuits challenging such practices. A little-noticed April 
     ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court said credit-card companies 
     don't have to include various penalty fees when they 
     calculate the ``finance charge'' listed on a customer's 
     monthly statement.
       And bank regulators have been reluctant to promulgate new 
     regulations. The Federal Reserve Board and four other 
     regulatory groups recently disappointed consumer groups by 
     failing to take a strong stand against ``bounce protection'' 
     plans. These programs allow customers to overdraw their 
     checking accounts in exchange for a fee each time they do it 
     that can exceed $30. Critics call bounce protection little 
     more than an expensive short-term loan since the overdrawn 
     amount must be covered quickly.
       Banks are charging as much as $32 per transaction when 
     customers write a check or make a debit-card purchase without 
     enough money in their accounts to cover the payment. Five 
     years ago, $20 was more typical.
       Alicia Flynn, who works in the billing department of a San 
     Francisco hospital, used her Bank of America debit card on 
     Jan. 28 of last year to make four small purchases, including 
     a $2.27 cup of cafeteria soup. But several checks she and her 
     husband had written also hit their account that day. When the 
     bank tallied up the account later that day, it posted some of 
     the checks before the debit- card charges, which had already 
     been cleared at the register. That left the account 
     overdrawn by $40.17. The Flynns were hit with separate $28 
     ``insufficient fund'' fees for two checks and all four 
     debit-card transactions, hitting the maximum daily penalty 
     of $140.
       ``It is somewhat like having a meter maid put five parking 
     citations on your car for one parking violation,'' complains 
     Mrs. Flynn's husband, Richard Flynn.
       Mr. Flynn later learned that subtracting the biggest check 
     first is standard procedure for Bank of America. In response 
     to his complaint letter, a Bank of America representative 
     enclosed a copy of a booklet she said every customer received 
     when opening an account, and directed Mr. Flynn to page 54. 
     It describes the policy and warns customers that ``this 
     method may result in additional overdraft fees.''
       A bank spokesman maintains that most customers want large 
     checks to clear first because they tend to be for important 
     items such as a rent payment. The $28 penalty fee, he said, 
     is intended to ``make sure that customers don't run their 
     balances so close to zero,'' and is priced ``to assign a cost 
     of the risk it exposes the bank to.''
       Banking fees have long been a subject of legislation and 
     litigation. One decision that has helped banks boost their 
     penalty fees came in 1996, when the Supreme Court said states 
     can't regulate such charges if they're levied by out-of-state 
     banks.
       The 1968 federal Truth in Lending Act was enacted to 
     promote ``awareness of credit costs on the part of 
     consumers.'' It required ``meaningful disclosure of credit 
     terms'' but didn't say anything specifically about credit-
     card fees. In the act, Congress directed the Federal Reserve 
     Board to enact regulations. The Fed responded with Regulation 
     Z, which requires credit-card issuers to disclose the cost of 
     credit as a dollar amount, known as the ``finance charge,'' 
     and as an annual percentage rate. Fees for late payments and 
     the like were not to be included in either calculation.
       As a college student in the mid-1990s, Sharon R. Pfennig 
     signed up for a card with a $2,000 credit limit. In 1997, 
     buying clothing at a mall, she blew past her credit limit by 
     $192. Household International Inc. began tacking on a $20 
     over-limit fee each month. Ms. Pfennig stopped using the card 
     and continued to make her $45 minimum monthly payments. But 
     the monthly penalty fee, coupled with the $35 to $40 she paid 
     each month as interest on her debt, caused her balance to 
     continue climbing. Her monthly over-limit fee then jumped to 
     $29, and her fee total eventually ballooned to about $700.
       In 1999, Ms. Pfennig filed a lawsuit in Ohio federal court 
     against Household and MBNA, which had purchased the Household 
     credit-card portfolio that contained her account. The lawsuit 
     accused Household of misrepresenting the true cost of credit 
     by not including over-limit fees in its disclosed ``finance 
     charges'' on her monthly statement. The suit said this 
     practice, which adhered to Regulation Z, nonetheless violated 
     the Truth in Lending Act.
       An appeals court agreed with Ms. Pfennig but the Supreme 
     Court, ruling April 21 of this year, sided with the credit-
     card company. It said Regulation Z is reasonable and 
     companies that follow it are in compliance with the law.
       ``I'm getting completely disheartened,'' said Sandusky, 
     Ohio, consumer lawyer Sylvia Goldsmith, who represented Ms. 
     Pfennig before the high court.
       In the Pfennig case, MBNA and Household defended the 
     treatment of fees under current disclosure regulations as 
     simpler for both consumers and banks. ``This bright-line rule 
     ensures that creditors disclose over-limit fees in an 
     understandable and consistent manner, permitting consumers to 
     compare such fees across time and across credit-card issuers 
     in a meaningful way,'' the two banks noted in a Supreme Court 
     brief.
       For now, the only way for consumers to know what they're 
     getting into is to plow through the disclosure materials they 
     receive when they open bank accounts or get new credit cards. 
     Most never do--as Mr. Flynn, the disgruntled Bank of America 
     customer, admits. ``We just opened a simple bank account, and 
     they gave us a 78-page booklet, small print, and they expect 
     us to read and understand it,'' he complains.
       Ms. Reid, the Florida cardholder, says she is far more 
     careful now about studying her credit-card mail. ``I read eve 
     single solitary word now. I hope one of these days I won't 
     have to have a credit card at all.''

  Mr. DODD. What I find most troubling about this trend is that credit 
card companies have set their sights on the most vulnerable members of 
our society when it comes to debt--low-income individuals, the elderly, 
mentally retarded, and most recently, our children.
  Go to any college campus in America and you are bound to come across 
a table where an enthusiastic sales person is offering free T-shirts, 
or sports bags, or Frisbees--almost anything in exchange for signing up 
as a credit card customer. According to a report on CBS News, the 
average college student is offered 8 cards in his or her first semester 
in college--8 credit cards. By the end of college, the average 
graduating senior has 6 credit cards in his or her name.
  Why are credit card companies targeting college students so 
frequently? Because of their limited experience with financial matters, 
students tend to accumulate debt very quickly, and as a result, more 
and more of our young people are falling deeper and deeper into the 
financial hole from which they cannot escape.
  In 1998, 67 percent of college students had a credit card. Today, 83 
percent have credit cards. In 1998, the average college student 
graduated with $1,800 in credit card debt. Today the average college 
senior graduates with $3,000 in credit card debt.
  I was shocked to learn that the fastest growing segment of our 
population that is forced to declare bankruptcy is people under the age 
of 25. Think of

[[Page S8746]]

that. The fastest growing group of people declaring bankruptcy are 
people under the age of 25.
  When we think about bankruptcy, we generally envision middle-aged 
Americans with failed businesses, investments gone bad, perhaps medical 
bills that have spiraled out of control. The answer is not so. It's 
college kids, recent graduates.
  Some time ago, a piece on ``60 Minutes II'' told a story of one 
student's circumstance, Sean Moyer. I have told the story on the floor 
before but I think it deserves being repeated.
  Sean's life began to spin out of control as a result of huge debts 
racked up in 3 years of college. He could not get loans to go to law 
school, as he dreamed. His parents couldn't afford to pay his way.
  Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts. He had 
two jobs, one at the library, another as a security guard in a Holiday 
Inn, but he still could not pay the collectors who continually harassed 
him with letters and phone calls. In 1998, Sean Moyer took his own 
life.
  Three years after his son's death, his mother still gets pre-approved 
credit card offers in Sean's name. According to his mother, one company 
preapproved Sean for a $100,000 credit card line.
  How is the credit card industry doing as a result of these practices? 
These companies are thriving. Credit Card Management, an industry 
publication, reported that 2003 was the most profitable year for credit 
cards since the magazine began tracking the industry in 1992.
  What makes matters even more astonishing is that this is happening 
when interest rates are at an all-time low. Yet, for millions of 
Americans, the interest rates they read about in the newspapers, those 
set by the Federal Reserve, bear absolutely no relationship whatsoever 
to interest rates that appear on their credit card bills.
  Still, the industry wants more. In recent years, while they have been 
encouraging consumers to accumulate debt, credit card companies have 
simultaneously been lobbying Congress to change bankruptcy laws to make 
it harder and harder for people to have their debts forgiven. This 
amounts to a two pronged attack on working families in America--get 
people into as much debt as possible, and then change the rules of the 
game so they can't get rid of that debt.
  It is time we stood up for consumers. It is time we restored a sense 
of responsibility to this industry.
  I am here today to introduce the Credit Card Accountability, 
Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2004, also known as the Credit 
CARD Act. This bill takes aim at what I consider to be some of the more 
egregious abuses of consumers by credit card companies.
  This bill takes some simple, common-sense steps to stop abusive 
practices, educate cardholders, and stiffen the penalties on 
corporations that violate the law.
  First of all, I think we can all agree that it is reasonable for a 
consumer to be clearly notified if his or her interest rates are going 
up. That is not a radical idea, that is just common sense. My bill 
would require clear disclosure of any rate changes so there aren't any 
surprises for the average consumer.
  I also don't believe a company should be able to retroactively change 
the interest rate on debt that already exists. If you want to raise 
interest rates, fine, but raise them on future debt, not existing debt. 
Our bill would prohibit any retroactive interest rate changes.
  Second, I believe that companies should be rewarding people for 
responsible card use--not penalizing them. If you pay your bills on 
time, your interest rate shouldn't go up. If you pay off your balances 
in full, your company shouldn't be able to charge you any new fees. If 
you decide to cancel your card, your interest rate shouldn't go up. I 
am pointing out these facts because that is exactly what happens. My 
bill would codify all of these common-sense principles into law.
  Third, my bill would protect some of the most vulnerable in our 
society--our Nation's youth--by implementing new requirements for 
issuing credit cards to people under the age of 21. We are not going to 
prohibit college students from getting cards, but we are going to make 
sure that companies can't simply give away cards to millions and 
millions of students who they know will rack up years and years worth 
of debt and potentially face bankruptcy and financial ruin before their 
working lives have barely begun.
  If you apply for a credit card and you are under 21, under this bill 
you will need one of three things: A signature of a parent or guardian 
who is willing to take responsibility for your debt; information 
indicating that you have some other means of repaying any debt; or a 
certification that you have completed a credit counseling course. And 
if you are a credit card company that offers cards to students under 
21, you will be required to comply with these requirements--or face 
serious penalties.
  Finally, this bill requires companies to be honest with consumers by 
introducing some new disclosure requirements. The most important one is 
a box--prominently located on every single bill--containing four simple 
pieces of information: The total balance on your account; your minimum 
monthly payment; how long it will take to pay your bill if all you pay 
is the minimum monthly payment; and finally, how much you will have to 
pay over time--in both interest and principal--if you only make the 
minimum payments.
  The reason for these disclosures is simple, and to many, probably 
obvious: To allow consumers to know exactly what it means to carry a 
debt, so they can decide whether or not to do so.
  The Credit CARD Act also contains a number of additional disclosure 
requirements to bring more transparency to an industry that has clearly 
reaped benefits from the use of fine print and lengthy and confusing 
policy statements.
  We are not asking for much here--only that companies be fair and 
straightforward with consumers. Let us see some real disclosures so 
Americans can understand what their bill means, how much they are being 
charged, and why.
  No one wants credit cards to disappear. I certainly believe credit 
cards are tremendously valuable and worthwhile as long as they are 
handled responsibly. And no one wants people who need and deserve 
credit to have no way to get it. But we can't simply stand by as more 
and more Americans fall deeper and deeper into debt with no way out. We 
need to take some responsible action so that the credit card can still 
be a useful financial tool without being a ticket to financial ruin.
  If we are going to pass bankruptcy bills in the Senate that demand 
more responsibility from consumers, shouldn't we demand more 
responsibility from creditors, as well? This bill, the Credit CARD Act, 
does just that, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it.
  I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the 
Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 2756. A bill to extend a certain high priority corridor in the 
States of Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, transportation is a key element of 
economic growth for rural Colorado. Providing access to the national 
highway system through a well developed transportation corridor will 
boost economic opportunity and bring new dollars to the area as the 
flow of commerce increases through traffic, tourism and, hopefully, new 
industry.
  Previously, I introduced legislation to create the Heartland 
Expressway, a connecting highway of high priority roads on the national 
highway system. However, a few had concerns about this legislation, so 
the supporters went back to the drawing board. So, tonight I rise to 
introduce a bill that reflects the compromise that each of the impacted 
states have come to.
  Through Ports-to-Plains and Heartland Expressway, we can bring 
greater prosperity through trade and industry to the State of Colorado, 
while improving the safety and condition of our highways.
  Based on the recommendation of the Eastern Colorado Mobility Study, 
authored by the Colorado Department of Transportation, the corridor 
will serve a wide variety of trucks and autos, bringing new dollars and 
boosting the economy.
  The Heartland Expressway will result in user cost savings to 
businesses, have

[[Page S8747]]

fewer environmental impacts than other corridor alternatives, and will 
enhance or improve existing--and may even promote the construction of 
new corridors and intermodal facilities--that will enhance the mobility 
of freight services within and through eastern Colorado.
  The Heartland Expressway will penetrate and promote economic 
development in Denver, throughout north and southeast Colorado, into 
Wyoming, and through Scotsbluff, NE to Rapid City, SD.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD:
  S. 2757. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting 
requirements to apply to the judicial branch of the Federal Government, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD.
  S. 2758. A bill to provide for certain financial reporting 
requirements to apply to the legislative branch of the Federal 
Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills 
that would ensure fiscal accountability throughout the Judicial and 
Legislative Branches of the Federal Government: the Judicial Branch 
Financial Accountability Act of 2004 and the Legislative Branch 
Financial Accountability Expansion Act of 2004. These bills would 
strengthen the financial management of both branches by requiring them 
to prepare annual financial statements and have them independently 
audited.
  These bills also build on S. 2680, the Financial Accountability 
Expansion Act of 2004, that Senator Akaka and I introduced on July 16, 
2004, to expand independent audit requirements to the remainder of the 
executive branch that currently is not covered under the Chief 
Financial Officers Act or the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act. Taken 
together, this legislative package would ensure--for the first time--
that all agencies and entities in the entire United States Government 
are subject to stringent financial audit requirements.
  Congressional efforts to improve financial management and to reduce 
the waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars began almost 25 years 
ago with the enactment of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 
of 1982, which intended to strengthen internal controls and accounting 
systems. Another important financial management reform initiative was 
the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO) of 1990. Among other things, the 
CFO Act created 24 CFO and deputy CFO positions in cabinet departments 
and major executive branch agencies, and required the annual 
preparation and audit of financial statements.
  I would briefly like to mention that the Department of Homeland 
Security, which has 180,000 employees and a budget of over $30 billion, 
is the only cabinet level department not now subject to the CFO Act. In 
order to address this problem, on August 1, 2003, I was joined by 
Senator Akaka in introducing S. 1567, the Department of Homeland 
Security Financial Accountability Act, which would subject the 
department to the same financial management practices currently 
required of all other major Federal agencies. The Senate passed S. 1567 
in November 2003, and the House of Representatives passed its version, 
H.R. 4259, on July 20, 2004. It is my hope and expectation that final 
congressional action on this legislation will occur in the near future.
  The CFO Act improved the financial management of cabinet departments 
and major Federal agencies; however, it did not address the fiscal 
policies and practices of the rest of the executive branch. Therefore, 
in 2002, I was the Senate sponsor of the Accountability of Tax Dollars 
Act (ATDA). This legislation, which became law on November 7, 2002, 
amended the CFO Act to require agencies with budget authority of over 
$25 million to prepare annual financial statements and have them 
independently audited. Due to the enactment of the ATDA, an additional 
76 agencies are now subject to requirements for annual audited 
financial statements.
  The ATDA also provided authority to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to waive or exempt certain agencies from 
the act's requirements. The OMB director may waive these requirements 
during the first 2 years of implementation if an agency lacks the 
budgeted resources or requires additional time to develop financial 
management practices and systems. The OMB director may exempt agencies 
with budget authority under $25 million if it is determined that there 
is an absence of risk associated with the agency's operations.
  To improve upon the legislative changes Congress enacted in 2002, the 
Financial Accountability Expansion Act of 2004, which I introduced last 
week, would further expand the requirements of the CFO Act to every 
remaining entity in the executive branch. Each executive branch agency 
or entity, regardless of its size or budget authority, would be subject 
to the financial oversight and accountability that annual, 
independently audited financial statements provide. In order to assist 
small agencies that may not have adequate financial resources or 
personnel to comply with these requirements, this bill would authorize 
the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into one or more contracts on 
behalf of the agency, or multiple agencies through ``bundling,'' for 
the preparation and independent audit of the financial statement.
  To begin the process of expanding audit requirements through the 
Executive Branch, on July 19, 2004, I was joined by Senator Akaka in 
introducing S. 2688, the Executive Branch Financial Accountability 
Reporting Act of 2004, which would require the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a report to the relevant 
congressional committees that lists all Federal entities not currently 
required to prepare annual, independently audited financial statements. 
We were pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee favorably 
reported this bill on July 21, 2004, and we intend to work with our 
colleagues to expedite Senate passage of this important legislation.
  Although significant progress has been made in strengthening 
financial accountability of the executive branch, similar audit 
requirements in the judicial and legislative branches are woefully 
inadequate or completely lacking. At a hearing held on July 8, 2004, by 
the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Management, the 
Budget, and International Security, which I chair, we heard surprising 
testimony that the judicial branch does not conduct annual audits of 
its financial statements. Similarly, many entities in the legislative 
branch do not prepare annual financial statements, and many that do 
prepare financial statements do not have them independently audited.
  As part of the Contract with America in the 104th Congress, the 
financial statements of the House of Representatives have been annually 
audited by an independent accounting firm. While several other 
legislative branch entities voluntarily comply with the requirements of 
the CFO Act--the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional 
Budget Office--these agencies of Congress are not statutorily required 
to do so. I find it disturbing that the United States Senate does not 
hold itself to the same standards of financial accountability that it 
imposes on the executive branch of government. The financial activities 
of all entities established by and within the legislative branch--such 
as the Senate Disbursing Office, the Capitol Police, the Library of 
Congress, the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Botanic 
Garden, and the Architect of the Capitol--should be subject statutorily 
to the oversight provided by an independent financial statement audit.

  In fiscal year 2004, the Congress appropriated over $3.5 billion for 
the legislative branch and approximately $5.2 billion for the judicial 
branch. To ensure that these two co-equal branches of government are 
subject to independent audit requirements similar to the executive 
branch, the legislative package I introduce today includes two bills to 
strengthen the financial management practices of the Federal courts and 
legislative entities.
  The Judicial Branch Financial Accountability Act of 2004 that I 
introduce today would require the Federal judiciary to have independent 
audits of annual financial statements covering

[[Page S8748]]

all accounts and activities. In deference to a co-equal branch of 
government, the bill would require the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, the principal policy-making body for the administration 
of the U.S. Courts, to determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of 
International Trade, and other judicial branch entities, should submit 
separate financial statements, or whether there should be a single 
consolidated statement that is independently audited.
  To ensure that judicial branch entities have the procedures and 
resources in place to comply with the requirements of this act, this 
bill would require the submission of a report regarding the act's 
implementation to the appropriate committees in the Senate and House of 
Representatives. This report is to be submitted not later than 90 days 
after the date of the bill's enactment, and is to include any 
legislative recommendations that may be necessary to carry out the 
provisions of the act. Similar to the requirements imposed by OMB on 
executive branch entities, this bill would require the completion and 
public release of the audited financial statement not later than 45 
days after the end of the fiscal year.
  The second bill I introduce today--the Legislative Branch Financial 
Accountability Expansion Act of 2004--would require that each House of 
Congress and each legislative agency or other entity prepare financial 
statements that must be independently audited. In order to ensure that 
entities in the legislative branch have the procedures and resources in 
place that are necessary to fulfill this requirement, the bill requires 
each House of Congress and each legislative agency or other entity to 
submit a report to the appropriate committees in the Senate and House 
of Representatives regarding the implementation of the act. The report 
is to be submitted within 90 days of the date of enactment, and is to 
include whether the establishment of a special office is necessary to 
carry out the act's requirements, as well as any legislative 
recommendations that may be necessary.
  Within 60 days after the submission of this report, each House of 
Congress is to establish an office to prepare the financial statement. 
Each legislative agency or other entity is also required to establish 
an office, or designate an individual if that is more appropriate, to 
prepare the financial statement. An independent audit of the financial 
statement is to be completed and made public within 45 days after the 
close of the applicable fiscal year.
  I am sensitive to how other co-equal branches of the Federal 
Government conduct their fiscal affairs. Therefore, these bills defer 
to the leadership of these branches to determine the most appropriate 
means of implementing annual independent audits of financial 
statements. In light of these sensitivities, I recognize that these 
bills represent the first step toward improving the financial 
accountability of the entire Federal Government. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to provide the best legislative solution to 
ensure full and equal accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the texts of the bills were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2757

       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 ``Legislative Branch Financial 
     Accountability Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--The Senate and the House of 
     Representatives each shall annually have a financial 
     statement prepared in accordance with United States generally 
     accepted accounting principles, and have the statement 
     independently audited, for the preceding calendar year 
     covering all the accounts and associated activities of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively.
       (b) Financial Statement.--Each financial statement shall 
     reflect the organizational structure of the Senate and House 
     of Representatives, respectively, and shall cover accounts 
     and financial information for all entities of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives, respectively. Joint activities 
     shall be reflected in the financial statement of a House of 
     Congress to the extent that the House funds the activities.

     SEC. 3. AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Each agency under subsection (b) shall 
     annually have a financial statement prepared in accordance 
     with United States generally accepted accounting principles, 
     and have the statement independently audited, for the 
     preceding fiscal year covering all the accounts and 
     associated activities of the agency.
       (b) The agencies referred to under subsection (a) are the--
       (1) Library of Congress;
       (2) Congressional Budget Office;
       (3) General Accountability Office;
       (4) Government Printing Office;
       (5) United States Botanic Garden;
       (6) Architect of the Capitol;
       (7) United States Capitol Police; and
       (8) any other entity of the legislative branch established 
     by Congress and not required by statute to have annual 
     financial statements independently audited.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a report described under subsection 
     (b)--
       (1) shall be submitted by the Committee on Rules and 
     Administration of the Senate, with respect to the entities of 
     the Senate, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate;
       (2) shall be submitted by the Committee on Administration 
     of the House of Representatives, with respect to entities of 
     the House of Representatives, to the Committee on Government 
     Reform of the House of Representatives; and
       (3) shall be submitted by each legislative agency or entity 
     under section 3 to the--
       (A) Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (B) Committee on Administration of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Content.--Each report under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a plan for implementation of this Act, including 
     whether the establishment of an office is necessary to carry 
     out this Act; and
       (2) recommendations, including legislative actions and 
     amendments to this Act, if necessary, to effectively carry 
     out this Act.

     SEC. 5. PREPARATION AND AUDIT OF STATEMENTS.

       (a) Preparation.--
       (1) Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the submission 
     of the report under section 4, the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate in consultation with the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in 
     consultation with the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, shall establish offices in the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, respectively, that shall 
     prepare the financial statements for each House required by 
     this Act in accordance with United States generally accepted 
     accounting principles.
       (2) Legislative agencies and entities.--Not later than 60 
     days after the submission of the report under section 5, the 
     head of each legislative agency or entity shall designate an 
     individual or establish an office that shall prepare the 
     financial statements required by this Act in accordance with 
     United States generally accepted accounting principles.
       (b) Audit.--With respect to the financial statements of 
     each House of Congress and each legislative agency or other 
     entity, the Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation 
     with the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives in consultation with the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives, and the head of each 
     legislative agency or other entity, respectively, shall 
     provide, by contract, for an independent audit of the 
     financial statements required by this Act in accordance with 
     generally accepted government auditing standards. Not later 
     than 45 days after the end of the applicable fiscal year, 
     whether calendar or fiscal, and each year thereafter, each 
     House of Congress and head of legislative agency or entity 
     shall complete and make available to the public the 
     independently audited financial statement.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act in fiscal year 2005, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect in the 
     applicable fiscal year, whether calendar or fiscal, during 
     which the office referred to in section 5 is established.
       (b) Administrative Provisions.--Sections 1, 4, 5, and 6 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

                                S. 2758

       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 ``Judicial Branch Financial 
     Accountability Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Judiciary shall annually have 
     independently audited financial statements prepared for 
     fiscal year 2005, and each fiscal year thereafter, covering 
     all the accounts and associated activities of the judicial 
     branch.

[[Page S8749]]

       (b) Separate Statements.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall determine whether to have separate 
     financial statements for the--
       (1) Supreme Court of the United States;
       (2) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;
       (3) United States Court of International Trade;
       (4) Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
       (5) Federal Judicial Center;
       (6) Judicial retirement funds;
       (7) United States Sentencing Commission; or
       (8) other courts or services paid from the appropriations 
     for ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 
     Services''.

     SEC. 3. PREPARATION AND AUDIT OF STATEMENTS.

       (a) Preparation.--The Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts shall prepare the financial statements required 
     by this Act in accordance with United States generally 
     accepted accounting principles.
       (b) Audit.--
       (1) In general.--The Judicial Conference of the United 
     States shall provide, by contract, for an independent auditor 
     to audit the financial statements required by this Act in 
     accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
     standards.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 45 days after the end of the 
     defined fiscal year, whether calendar or fiscal, and each 
     year thereafter, the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts shall complete and submit an independently 
     audited financial statement that shall be--
       (A) available to the public; and
       (B) submitted to--
       (i) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a report described under subsection 
     (b) shall be submitted by the Judicial Conference to--
       (1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Content.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a plan for implementation of this Act; and
       (2) recommendations, including legislative actions and 
     amendments to this Act, if necessary, to effectively carry 
     out this Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act in fiscal year 2005, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Children's 
Health Improvement and Protection (CHIP) Act today, along with my 
fellow Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, and Snowe. This bill will ensure 
that children continue to receive health care coverage through the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, which is especially important as 
the Nation's economy struggles to recover and State budgets are 
stretched perilously thin.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, has shown great 
success in reducing the number of children without health insurance. 
Last year, 5.8 million children were enrolled in CHIP, children who 
otherwise would have limited access to critical screening and 
diagnostic services and needed medical care. In 2003, 125,000 children 
in Massachusetts participated in CHIP and other Stats had similar 
success.
  The need for CHIP has always been clear. We know that children 
without health insurance are more than three times less likely to have 
a regular source of health care than insured children. They are more 
than four times as likely to delay needed medical care because of cost. 
And they are more than twice as likely as insured children to forego 
needed prescription drugs and eyeglasses.
  Despite the clear evidence that health insurance provides children 
with a healthier start, continued success of the CHIP program is in 
jeopardy. A number of States have budget shortfalls that will short-
change CHIP programs over the next several years. Last year, the 
Congress acted to prevent $2.7 billion in Federal funding for CHIP from 
reverting to the Treasury. However, this funding was a short-term 
solution for long-term financing problems that will persist until CHIP 
is reauthorized in 2007. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has 
projected that over 200,000 children are still at risk for losing their 
health coverage if additional steps are not taken.
  This bill will provide the needed steps to support and expand the 
CHIP program. The Children's Health Improvement and Protection Act of 
2004 prevents $1.07 billion in Federal CHIP funds that are scheduled to 
expire from reverting to the Treasury. In addition, this bill 
reallocates some of these funds to States that most need them. Seventy 
percent of the expiring fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 funds would be 
redistributed to needy States and the remaining 30 percent of the funds 
would be retained by the States that currently have them.
  States that were unable to spend all of their fiscal year 2002, 2003, 
and 2004 CHIP allotments after 3 years would be able to keep half of 
the unspent funds. The other 50 percent would be redistributed to 
States that have fully spent their allotments during the 3-year period 
they were available. Any retained or redistributed funds would be 
available for 2 years. After that, our bill establishes a second 
redistribution for unspent funds, using the same 70-30 redistribution 
scheme I described previously.
  Passage of CHIP was a great step forward in ensuring every child a 
healthy start in life. It would be a grave mistake and a misplaced set 
of priorities to weaken this program that so many of us worked to enact 
and that is helping so many children. It makes no sense to have funds 
expire and revert to the Treasury when we know that many States are 
still facing severe deficits that have led to waiting lists or 
``freezes'' in their CHIP programs. This bill will allow States to 
maintain their CHIP programs and allow them to grow. The health of the 
Nation reflects the health of our children and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the Senate to get this very important 
legislation passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, and Ms. 
        Snowe):
  S. 2759. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
modify the rules relating to the availability and method of 
redistribution of unexpended SCHIP allotments, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and 
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, to introduce legislation that 
will protect the health and well-being of America's children by 
restoring funds to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In 
1997, Senator Chafee and I worked together to create the Children's 
Health Insurance Program as part of the Balanced Budget Act. I am proud 
of the work we have done over the years to make improvements to this 
critical program, which helps so many of our nation's children.
  Since its inception, the CHIP program has been an unqualified 
success. It has directly contributed to the decline in the number of 
children without health insurance in recent years. Last year, 5.8 
million children were enrolled in CHIP, including over 35,000 children 
in my home state of West Virginia.
  However, the continued success of the CHIP program is in serious 
jeopardy. A number of States are projected to have insufficient Federal 
funding to sustain their existing CHIP programs over the next several 
years. On September 30, 2004, $1.07 billion in Federal CHIP funds are 
scheduled to expire and revert to the national treasury, despite 
growing unmet need in a number of States. If Congress does not act to 
preserve these funds, States will have no choice but to cut coverage 
for low-income children.
  Last year, we acted to protect children's health care by passing 
legislation to prevent $2.7 billion in Federal funding for CHIP from 
reverting to the treasury. While this legislation went a long way to 
address immediate CHIP funding shortfalls, it did not address the long-
term financing problems that will persist until CHIP is reauthorized in 
fiscal year 2007. The legislation we are introducing today would solve 
the current CHIP financing problems and preserve health care coverage 
for children through reauthorization, when Congress will have to 
consider a better Federal financing mechanism for the program.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senators Chafee, Kennedy, and Snowe in 
introducing legislation that represents a comprehensive approach to 
shoring up CHIP financing through reauthorization, thereby preventing a 
devastating

[[Page S8750]]

enrollment decline and facilitating continued CHIP growth. Our bill 
would extend the availability of the $1.07 billion in expiring CHIP 
funds and target some of the funds to the States that need them the 
most. It would also establish redistribution rules that will keep CHIP 
money in the CHIP program through fiscal year 2007.
  The Children's Health Protection and Improvement Act will allow 
States to continue offering health care to our Nation's children--the 
most vulnerable population among us. It will ensure that healthy 
children have access to preventative check-ups and exams and that sick 
children can get the medication and treatment they need. This 
legislation enjoys bipartisan support and is endorsed by the National 
Governor's Association (NGA).
  I urge my colleagues to make enactment of this critical legislation a 
priority. Congress must act on this legislation this year. We must do 
this when we return. I recognize that we have very few legislative days 
left, but this must be at the top of our list because our children 
cannot afford to wait. We must guarantee the continued success of the 
CHIP program and sustain the significant progress CHIP has made over 
the years in reducing the ranks of uninsured children.
  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. 2759

       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 ``Children's Health Protection 
     and Improvement Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. CHANGES TO RULES FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND EXTENDED 
                   AVAILABILITY OF 1998 THROUGH 2004 SCHIP 
                   ALLOTMENTS.

       Section 2104(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(g)), as amended by Public Law 108-74 (117 Stat. 892), 
     is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``, 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001'' and inserting ``Through 2004''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``or for fiscal year 2002 by the end of 
     fiscal year 2004, or for fiscal year 2003 by the end of 
     fiscal year 2005, or for fiscal year 2004 by the end of 
     fiscal year 2006,'' after ``fiscal year 2003,''; and
       (II) by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002, 
     2003, or 2004'';

       (ii) in clause (i)--

       (I) in subclause (III), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (II) in subclause (IV), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(V) the fiscal year 2002 allotment, the amount specified 
     in subparagraph (E)(i) (less the total of the amounts under 
     clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (E)(ii) for the State to 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (E)(iii);
       ``(VI) the fiscal year 2003 allotment, the amount specified 
     in subparagraph (F)(i) (less the total of the amounts under 
     clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied by the ratio of 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (F)(ii) for the State to 
     the amount specified in subparagraph (F)(iii); or
       ``(VII) the fiscal year 2004 allotment, the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (G)(i) (less the total of the 
     amounts under clause (ii) for such fiscal year), multiplied 
     by the ratio of the amount specified in subparagraph (G)(ii) 
     for the State to the amount specified in subparagraph 
     (G)(iii).''; and

       (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting 
     ``2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (ii), by inserting ``but subject to paragraph 
     (4)'' after ``subsection (e)'';
       (ii) in clause (iii)--

       (I) by inserting ``but subject to paragraph (4)'' after 
     ``subsection (e)''; and
       (II) by striking ``and'' at the end;

       (iii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vii); and
       (iv) by inserting after clause (iii), the following:
       ``(iv) notwithstanding subsection (e) but subject to 
     paragraph (4), with respect to fiscal year 2002, shall remain 
     available for expenditure by the State through the end of 
     fiscal year 2006;
       ``(v) notwithstanding subsection (e), with respect to 
     fiscal year 2003, shall remain available for expenditure by 
     the State through the end of fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(vi) with respect to fiscal year 2004, subsection (e) 
     shall apply; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal 
     year 2002.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(V)--
       ``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2002, 
     less the total amount remaining available pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(v);
       ``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is 
     the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title 
     in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 exceed the State's 
     allotment for fiscal year 2002 under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for 
     all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph 
     (A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2002, of the amounts 
     specified in clause (ii).
       ``(F) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal 
     year 2003.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(VI)--
       ``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2003, 
     less the total amount remaining available pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(vi);
       ``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is 
     the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title 
     in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 exceed the State's 
     allotment for fiscal year 2003 under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for 
     all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph 
     (A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2003, of the amounts 
     specified in clause (ii).
       ``(G) Amounts used in computing redistributions for fiscal 
     year 2004.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(VII)--
       ``(i) the amount specified in this clause is the amount 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) for fiscal year 2004, 
     less the total amount remaining available pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(vii);
       ``(ii) the amount specified in this clause for a State is 
     the amount by which the State's expenditures under this title 
     in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 exceed the State's 
     allotment for fiscal year 2004 under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) the amount specified in this clause is the sum, for 
     all States entitled to a redistribution under subparagraph 
     (A) from the allotments for fiscal year 2004, of the amounts 
     specified in clause (ii).'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2004''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``Of'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``Of'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
       (iii) in clause (iii), by striking ``Of'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to paragraph (4), of'';
       (iv) in clause (iv), by striking ``Of'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to paragraph (4), of''; and
       (v) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Fiscal year 2002 allotment.--Subject to paragraph 
     (4), of the amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this 
     section for fiscal year 2002 that were not expended by the 
     State by the end of fiscal year 2004, 50 percent of that 
     amount shall remain available for expenditure by the State 
     through the end of fiscal year 2006.
       ``(vi) Fiscal year 2003 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted 
     to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 2001 that 
     were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year 
     2005, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
       ``(vii) Fiscal year 2004 allotment.--Of the amounts 
     allotted to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 
     2004 that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal 
     year 2006, 50 percent of that amount shall remain available 
     for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 
     2007.'';
       (4) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``or fiscal year 2001'' and inserting 
     ``fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, or 
     fiscal year 2004,''; and
       (B) by striking ``or November 30, 2003,'' and inserting 
     ``November 30, 2003, November 30, 2004, November 30, 2005, or 
     November 30, 2006,''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Additional extended availability of fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002 allotments.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 1998, 1999, and 2000 allotments.--With 
     respect to any amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this 
     section for fiscal years 1998, 1999, or 2000 that were 
     redistributed to a State under paragraph (1), or whose 
     availability to a State was extended through the end of 
     fiscal year 2004 under paragraph (2), that were not expended 
     by the State by the end of fiscal year 2004, the following 
     rules shall apply:
       ``(i) 30 percent of such amounts shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
       ``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed 
     to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal 
     year 2002 allotments under this section in the same ratio as 
     unexpended fiscal year 2002 allotments are redistributed 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(V) to such States and the amounts 
     redistributed under this clause shall remain available for 
     expenditure through the end of fiscal year 2007.
       ``(B) Fiscal year 2001 allotments.--With respect to any 
     amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this section for 
     fiscal year 2001 that were redistributed to a State under 
     paragraph (1), or whose availability to a State was extended 
     through the end of fiscal year 2005 under paragraph (2), that 
     were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year 
     2005, the following rules shall apply:

[[Page S8751]]

       ``(i) 30 percent of such amounts shall remain available for 
     expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2007.
       ``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed 
     to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal 
     year 2003 allotments in the same ratio as unexpended fiscal 
     year 2003 allotments are redistributed under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i)(VI) to such States and the amounts redistributed 
     under this clause shall remain available for expenditure 
     through the end of fiscal year 2007.
       ``(C) Fiscal year 2002 allotments.--With respect to any 
     amounts allotted to a State pursuant to this section for 
     fiscal year 2002 that were redistributed to a State under 
     paragraph (1), or whose availability to a State was extended 
     through the end of fiscal year 2006 under paragraph (2), that 
     were not expended by the State by the end of such fiscal 
     year, the following rules shall apply:
       ``(i) 30 percent of those amounts shall remain available 
     for expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 
     2007.
       ``(ii) The remainder of such amounts shall be redistributed 
     to States that have fully expended the amount of their fiscal 
     year 2004 allotments in the same ratio as unexpended fiscal 
     year 2004 allotments are redistributed under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i)(VII) to such States and the amounts redistributed 
     under this clause shall remain available for expenditure 
     through the end of fiscal year 2007.''.

     SEC. 3. CONTINUED AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE 
                   CERTAIN FUNDS FOR MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.

       Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as added by Public Law 108-74 (117 Stat. 
     895) and amended by Public Law 108-127 (117 Stat. 134), is 
     amended by striking ``or 2001'' and inserting ``2001, 2002, 
     2003 or 2004''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Rockefeller 
and others today in introducing a bipartisan proposal to extend and 
redistribute expiring State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
funds.
  This legislation will allow States to retain $1.07 billion in funds 
originally allocated for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, and 
currently scheduled to revert to the Federal Treasury on September 30, 
2004. The bill also applies a 70-30 redistribution formula to the 1998-
2000 allotments. States with surplus funds scheduled to revert in 
September will keep 30 percent of the money and cede 70 percent to 
States that have exhausted their allotments. Additionally, the bill 
will continue the current law redistribution rules through 2007. It 
allows States unable to spend all of their fiscal year 2002, 2003, and 
2004 SCHIP allotments within the 3-year limit, to keep half of the 
unspent funds. The other 50 percent would be redistributed to States 
that have exhausted their allotments.
  This proposal will prevent States from losing unexpended SCHIP 
allotments and allows States like Rhode Island, with efficient programs 
and a high-level of need, to receive redistributed money. Without this 
proposal, the overwhelming success of State SCHIP programs and quality 
health coverage to millions of uninsured children will be jeopardized.
  Preserving the expiring funds is essential to guaranteeing that more 
than 200,000 children will not lose their health insurance coverage 
between now and 2007. At a time when our Nation's uninsured rate has 
climbed to 43.6 million, it makes little sense to take away Federal 
funding from States that are desperately trying to enroll needy 
children. This legislation is crucial to many States including my State 
of Rhode Island. Without this remedy, Rhode Island is set to run out of 
SCHIP funds by 2005. At 5 percent, Rhode Island currently has the third 
lowest uninsured rate of any State in the Nation for children. This 
bill will enable Rhode Island to continue offering health coverage to 
this vulnerable population.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Rockefeller and me in supporting 
this important legislation. It is a crucial step toward ensuring that 
our Nation's children will have long-term access to quality health 
insurance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 2762. A bill to encourage the use of indigenous feedstock from the 
Caribbean Basin region with respect to ethyl alcohol for fuel use; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
close a loophole under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, trade 
preference program which could allow large quantities of Brazilian 
ethanol to be shipped to the United States duty-free. This loophole 
allows companies to use the CBI program as a passthrough to get duty-
free treatment for Brazilian ethanol. This could end up displacing U.S. 
production and hurting Iowa's ethanol producers. I want to help make 
sure that does not happen.
  Also, when the Caribbean Basin Initiative was enacted during the 
Reagan administration, the purpose of the program was to encourage 
trade and development with the region. I support the CBI program. 
However, I believe that the program should encourage meaningful 
economic development in the region. Unfortunately, one special interest 
provision in the statute permits ``wet'' ethanol from Brazil to be 
shipped to the CBI region and merely dehydrated, thus qualifying for 
duty-free access to the U.S. market. The dehydration process which 
occurs in the CBI region is not very complicated. It simply removes a 
small percentage of water from ``wet'' ethanol, thereby converting it 
into ``dry'' ethanol. Such ``dry'' ethanol is provided duty-free access 
to the U.S. market. I do not believe that such simple processing is 
substantial enough to warrant the benefit of getting duty-free access 
to the U.S. market. In keeping with the original intent of the CBI, I 
believe that more meaningful economic activity should occur in the CBI 
region before a product qualifies for duty-free treatment.
  My bill would limit the opportunity to exploit this special interest 
provision. It would introduce a fixed cap on the amount of ethanol that 
can take advantage of the passthrough provision. The amount of the cap 
is based on the historical volume of ethanol exports from the CBI 
region over the past 20 years. Thus, my bill will permit the continued 
duty-free importation of some ethanol that is simply dehydrated in the 
CBI region, based on historical trade amounts. However, my bill would 
put a stop to the unlimited future growth of such duty-free imports.
  It is my belief that this modification should not impact any of the 
CBI companies that are currently operating ethanol plants in the 
region. At the same time, my bill will encourage greater investment and 
development in the CBI region because ethanol that is produced from 
scratch in the CBI region, using CBI inputs, will continue to be 
eligible for duty-free access to the U.S. market under the CBI program. 
If ethanol is made from scratch in the CBI region then it will qualify 
for duty-free treatment.
  In sum, my bill only addresses new investments in dehydration plants, 
whose sole purpose is to merely dehydrate Brazilian ethanol. Our tariff 
preference programs should not be granting economic incentives in the 
form of tariff preferences for such passthrough operations. In my mind, 
that is not what the CBI program is for, and it is not fair for Iowa's 
ethanol producers.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2762

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

     SECTION 1. ETHYL ALCOHOL FOR FUEL USE.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 423(c)(3) of 
     the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2703 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) The local feedstock requirement with respect to any 
     calendar year is--
       ``(i) 0 percent with respect to the base quantity that is 
     entered;
       ``(ii) 30 percent with respect to the 35,000,000 gallons of 
     dehydrated alcohol and mixtures entered in excess of the base 
     quantity; and
       ``(iii) 50 percent with respect to all dehydrated alcohol 
     and mixtures entered after the amount specified in clause 
     (ii) is entered.''.
       (b) Base Quantity.--Clause (i) of section 423(c)(3)(C) of 
     the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (19 U.S.C. 2703 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(i) The term `base quantity' means, with respect to 
     dehydrated alcohol and mixtures entered during any calendar 
     year--

       ``(I) 90,000,000 gallons in the case of dehydrated alcohol 
     and mixtures produced in a distillation facility located in a 
     beneficiary country that was established before, and in 
     operation on July 1, 2004; and
       ``(II) 0 gallons in the case of dehydrated alcohol and 
     mixtures produced in any other distillation facility located 
     in a beneficiary country.''.

[[Page S8752]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar years beginning after 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 2763. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to clarify the 
treatment of accelerator-produced and other radioactive material as 
byproduct material; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Dirty Bomb 
Protections Acts along with Senators Gregg and Reid. This bill directs 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, to control key materials that 
could be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately, some of these materials 
are currently exempt from Federal control.
  This bill follows a prior bill that I introduced with Senator Gregg 
in 2002, which was the first bipartisan legislation to propose improved 
domestic controls on materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.'' 
This legislation was supported and acclaimed by international dirty 
bomb experts. It provided for the safeguarding of radioactive material 
against use by terrorists. The bill required proper tracking, recovery, 
storage and export controls for radioactive material.
  Since then, the IAEA Board of Governors accepted and its General 
Conference endorsed the revised ``IAEA Code of Conduct on the Safety 
and Security of Radioactive Sources,'' which reflects many of the 
elements in that bill. The heads of state and government of the eight 
major industrialized democracies, G8, and over 30 other countries have 
committed to implement the code. And at the Sea Island Summit earlier 
this year, G8 leaders urged all states to implement the code and 
recognize it as a global standard.
  Passage of the Dirty Bomb Protections Act would allow the U.S. to 
fully implement the commitments of the code by providing the NRC with 
authority to control a set of substances for which they currently lack 
authority, including Radium-226 and other naturally occurring 
radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside 
of Federal control. To control these materials, the bill instructs the 
NRC to: (1) promulgate final implementing regulations governing such 
byproduct material; and (2) prepare and give public notice of a 
transition plan for State assumption of regulatory responsibility for 
such material.
  I believe this bill represents an important step forward in our war 
against terror and our efforts to control access to materials that 
could be used to produce a dirty bomb. The language is identical to 
language that passed the EPW Committee unanimously last year. I look 
forward to working with Senator Inhofe and other Members of the Senate, 
as well as the NRC, to advance this important legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Carper, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Reid, Mrs. 
        Dole, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Chafee):
  2764. A bill to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Act of 2002; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation 
which I believe is vital to our economic security. I am proud to 
introduce this legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act 
of 2004, with Senators Bennett, Schumer, Jack Reed, Hagel, Dole, 
Bunning, Crapo, Chafee, Harry Reid, and Ben Nelson.
  As my colleagues know, the Senate hasn't been a model of legislative 
productivity this year. It has been a very difficult year--there has 
been partisan gridlock on a whole host of issues.
  It is against this backdrop, the day that we adjourn for 6 weeks for 
the August recess which includes both conventions and campaigning, that 
I am proud to speak about an issue that has broad bipartisan support. 
That issue is an extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.
  This critically important legislation has a history of bipartisan 
support and I am pleased to say that the robust support on both sides 
of the aisle still exists as we consider an extension of the program.
  The original TRIA legislation was not an easy undertaking. But we 
persevered, negotiated, and had a frank exchange of views over numerous 
months and in the end, even though it was at times a laborious, 
difficult process, we produced a bipartisan bill that garnered 86 votes 
in this body on this critically important issue.
  I worked closely with Democratic Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Reed, 
and Corzine as well as Senators Bennett, Hagel, Phil Gramm, and many 
others on the Republican side to get this critical bill passed. That is 
the model that the Senate should follow more often and that is the 
model that we are following as we introduce a 2-year extension of the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act today which will provide continued 
economic security and stability and avoid potential chaos in the 
aftermath of a terrorist attack.
  The September 11 tragedy resulted in disbelief, devastation, and 
economic dislocation. An attack on our country seemed unimaginable. Few 
believed any significant major terrorist attack would occur, no less 
the one as horrific and devastating as the one on 9/11.
  September 11 changed everything, most visibly, of course, national 
and homeland security policy. But September 11 also fundamentally 
changed the way insurers looked at terrorism risks which suddenly 
started to resemble an act of war. As a result, after
9/11 the insurance market for terrorism nearly completely dried up. 
Coverage was unavailable. Many financial transactions weren't able to 
proceed. And construction workers and other hard-working Americans 
suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.
  In short, we wrote TRIA for a very simple reason: hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs and billions of dollars of business 
investment hung in the balance.
  We worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill including 
significant support from this administration which deserves its fair 
share of credit for enactment of the legislation in November 2002.

  TRIA was created as a 3-year Federal program to help make sure the 
part of the commercial insurance marketplace, disrupted by 9/11, could 
work again. Most Americans don't even know that TRIA provides a crucial 
economic safety net for virtually every sector of our economy. 
Transportation, real estate, utilities, construction, travel and 
tourism, and financial institutions are just a few of the sectors that 
need TRIA to protect them against the economic devastation that would 
come because of a terrorist attack.
  Under TRIA, the Government shoulders a share of the financial risk of 
future attacks. This makes sense--these attacks are against us as 
Americans, against our democracy, our way of life.
  But TRIA also required insurers to offer terrorism coverage on 
commercial policies. In addition, insurance companies would have to 
bear an escalating financial burden in future years.
  TRIA is working. This public-private ``shared loss'' mechanism is 
making terrorism insurance available to all businesses at a reasonable 
cost. Under TRIA, in the event of another terrorist attack, private 
insurers will still shoulder tens of billions of dollars of terrorism 
related risk.
  What TRIA does is act as a backstop to the private commercial 
property-casualty insurance system. It gives the market some certainty 
by establishing, by law, a limit to insured terrorism losses for the 
insurance industry and the Federal Government.
  The Mortgage Bankers Association recently surveyed its 40 largest 
commercial/multi-family mortgage banking firms. A substantial majority 
of them believe that TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more 
available and less expensive.
  But the Mortgage Bankers also noted that failure to extend TRIA would 
probably hurt the commercial real estate market. If we let TRIA expire, 
we will see the same uncertain environment we saw before TRIA.
  TRIA does not expire until the end of 2005. Now some may wonder why I 
am choosing today to join with Senator Bennett and others to introduce 
this legislation to extend the program.
  The answer is that we cannot wait until next year.
  The economic safety net that TRIA provides will begin to come apart 
as

[[Page S8753]]

early as this fall if Congress does not act.
  In the next few months, commercial insurers and their policyholders 
will begin negotiating new policies. But any 12-month policy taken out 
after Jan 1 will include at least some time where TRIA doesn't exist if 
we let it expire.
  If we let TRIA expire, business consumers are going to have a hard 
time getting the coverage they need. That can only hurt our economy, 
and I'm sure that all Senators share the goal of growing our economy.
  If we don't act this year, insurers will have to evaluate every 
policy as if the backstop will not exist for part of the coverage 
period.
  Senator Bennett and I and other colleagues propose a 2-year extension 
this year. That will help avoid destabilizing the insurance market, 
and, in turn, the national economy. It will give Congress, insurers, 
businesses, and Government officials time to gather all available, 
relevant data.
  Collecting that data--without fear of market disruption--will help 
all of us develop a more permanent solution for managing our Nation's 
economic exposure to catastrophic terrorism.
  I know there is plenty of partisan tension in the Senate this year. 
But keeping our country safe from the economic devastation of a 
terrorist attack is a critical priority. It is too important to be 
affected by partisan politics. We didn't let that happen last time, and 
I hope everyone can work on a bipartisan basis and follow the 
bipartisan model--rare in this body these days--to make sure it doesn't 
happen this time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with my friend and colleague Senator Dodd to temporarily extend the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. Senator Dodd was the author of the 
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA, which was enacted in 2002, and I 
am joining with him in a bipartisan effort to extend this critically 
important legislation this year.
  As a result of the devastating attacks of 9/11 and a nonexistent 
terrorism reinsurance market in its wake, TRIA was enacted to provide a 
temporary economic safety net to our private insurance market. This 
temporary backstop helped economic growth get back on track after the 
shock of 9/11. Under current market conditions TRIA is essential to the 
continued growth of nearly every sector of our economy--transportation, 
energy, real estate, construction, travel and tourism, lodging, health 
care, financial institutions, public entities, manufacturing, and 
retail.
  TRIA came into existence for a very simple reason: hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs--and billions of dollars in business 
transactions--hung in the balance due to uncertainty in the insurance 
markets. The September 11 attacks fundamentally altered the way 
insurers looked at terrorism risks. As a result, the insurance market 
for terrorism dried up; coverage was unavailable; many types of 
financial transactions were unable to proceed; hard-working Americans 
suddenly found themselves economic victims of terrorism.
  With broad, bipartisan support, Congress enacted TRIA in November 
2002. TRIA was designed to be a temporary, 3-year program to bring 
stability and functionality back to an essential sector of the 
commercial insurance marketplace which ceased to exist after 9/11.
  Fortunately, TRIA is working as intended. Terrorism insurance is 
available to all businesses at a reasonable cost. Under TRIA, in the 
event of further terror attacks, private insurers will cover tens of 
billions of dollars of terrorism-related risk. TRIA acts as a backstop 
to the private commercial property-casualty insurance system and 
provides some market certainty by establishing statutory caps for 
insured terrorism losses.
  TRIA has enabled billions of dollars of real estate and other 
business transactions previously stalled to go forward without 
threatening the solvency of the commercial enterprises involved or 
their insurers. A recent Mortgage Bankers Association, MBA, survey of 
its 40 largest commercial/multifamily mortgage banking firms revealed 
that a substantial majority of those survey respondents believe that 
TRIA has made terrorism insurance both more available and less 
expensive. Failure to extend TRIA with the uncertainties that still 
exist in the insurance marketplace would likely have an adverse impact 
on the commercial real estate market by recreating the pre-TRIA 
environment that had led to rating agency downgrades of commercial 
mortgage-backed securities due to lack of adequate terrorism insurance.
  TRIA does not currently expire until year-end 2005--which may cause 
some to wonder why we are introducing legislation today to extend the 
program by 2 years now. In truth, the economic safety net that TRIA 
provides will begin to fray as early as this fall if Congress does not 
act. Because insurers are now required to make terrorism coverage 
available throughout the life of the program--a decision rendered by 
the Treasury Department earlier this summer--there is a very real 
mismatch between TRIA's hard end-date and the commercial insurance 
policies that will be written in the next few months.
  TRIA currently has a ``hard'' end date, which means that the backstop 
expires December 31, 2005. However, insurance policies that rely on 
TRIA are written every day of the year, generally for a 12-month term, 
although some commercial property policies covered by TRIA are 
multiyear. Therefore, policies written after January 1, 2005, will have 
a coverage term that extends beyond the life of the TRIA Federal 
backstop. As a result, insurers will have no choice but to evaluate 
every policyholder considered for coverage during this period as if the 
backstop does not exist for part of the coverage period.
  Because commercial insurers must make terrorism coverage available 
for policies written at any time during 2005, insurers and 
policyholders will be exposed to risk that they continue to be unable 
to carry during the part of the coverage term that runs beyond TRIA. 
Policyholders, state insurance regulators and insurers understand that 
this potential mismatch between policy periods and TRIA's expiration 
makes it absolutely critical that Congress acts this year to extend 
TRIA beyond December 31, 2005.
  Failure to extend TRIA beyond its current sunset date of December 31, 
2005, will create tremendous uncertainty and potential market upheaval 
for both commercial policyholders and insurers beginning as early as 
this fall, when annual policies for coverage starting after January 1, 
2005, are considered and negotiated.
  Insurers and their policyholders already are beginning to negotiate 
terms, prices and provisions for policy contracts that will renew 
beginning in January 2005 and extend into 2006. Unless TRIA is extended 
in 2004, policyholders whose coverage extends into 2006, and their 
insurers, will not know whether TRIA's financial backstop will exist 
for the full term of their coverage. This will make it difficult, if 
not impossible, to accurately price such coverage and is likely to 
dramatically reduce the availability of terrorism insurance to business 
consumers. Such an outcome can only harm the economic recovery 
underway.
  A full 2-year extension this year will help avoid destabilizing the 
insurance market, and, in turn, the national economy, and will enable 
Congress, insurers, businesses and Government officials to gather all 
available relevant data--including market data from all three years of 
TRIA as insurer deductibles rise from 7 percent of prior year 
commercial premiums in 2003 to 15 percent of such premiums in 2005. 
Congressional action now will avoid a premature expiration of the 
Federal backstop in 2005 and help ensure the economic recovery 
maintains its pace.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am very pleased to join Senators Dodd and Bennett and 
others in introducing a bill to extend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 
of 2002 for 2 years. I was actively engaged in the formulation of the 
act and this bill.
  This is important, urgently needed legislation. There is a strong 
consensus among the affected parties that the act should be extended 
now. The act, without the extension, would expire at the end of 2005.
  There is a mismatch. Unless TRIA is extended this year, it will be 
very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately price coverage on 
policies that extend into 2006. This will likely significantly reduce 
the availability of terrorism coverage. That lack of coverage could 
adversely affect the economy and the economic recovery.

[[Page S8754]]

  TRIA is working. The General Accounting Office has found that: ``TRIA 
has improved the availability of terrorism insurance, especially for 
some high-risk policyholder.''
  Fortunately, there have been no terrorism events on U.S. soil since 
9/11. We all know that we are under a constant threat and TRIA 
continues to be necessary.
  I noted on the Senate floor when TRIA was passed in 2002 that 
Government is going to have to play a larger role. TRIA establishes a 
public-private partnership on terrorism insurance. The private sector 
could not solve this problem alone in 2002, plain and simple, and it 
still cannot do so. We can quibble about how much and where that 
Federal role should be, but it is definitely needed.
  This nonpartisan bill is essentially a 2-year extension of TRIA. The 
changes that are made are minor, they include: extending the ``make 
available'' provision; including group life insurance policies under 
the act; gradually adjusting the aggregate industry loss level used to 
determine mandatory recoupment; providing for a 1 year ``soft landing'' 
for policies written before December 31, 2007; and requiring a study 
addressing long-term solutions to terrorism exposure. These are 
worthwhile modifications.
  The bottom line is a simple one, and that is, our No. 1 goal should 
be keeping the economy on track in this brave new post-9/11 world. If 
that means altering the balance between Government and private 
involvement, so be it.
  TRIA has worked in New York City. It has translated into thousands of 
jobs and desperately needed economic activity for the city, the region, 
and the entire country. If G-D forbid, there is another terrorism 
catastrophe in this country I have no doubts that the Government will 
provide the needed aid. TRIA addresses part of that effort in an 
orderly manner. Our clear hope is that we will never again experience 
catastrophes that make this bill necessary.
  I am hopeful that this bill can be quickly considered by the Banking 
Committee, passed by the Senate and House, and enacted into law this 
year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mrs. Dole):
  S. 2765. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and International 
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 to clarify the conditions 
under which the Secretary should enter into negotiations to correct 
currency manipulations by other countries; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I respectfully request that the attached 
bill be printed in the Record as introduced. If you have any questions 
about this request, please contact Rob Weissert at 4-0216.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2765

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                   POLICY.

       (a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``(1) have material global account 
     surpluses; and (2)''.
       (b) Report.--Section 3005(b) of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 
     U.S.C. 5305(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) a detailed explanation of the test the Secretary uses 
     to determine if a country is manipulating the rate of 
     exchange between that country's currency and the dollar for 
     purposes of preventing effective balance of payments 
     adjustments or gaining an unfair advantage in international 
     trade.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2766. A bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
negotiate for lower prices for Medicare prescription drugs and to 
eliminate the gap in coverage of Medicare prescription drug benefits, 
to reduce medical errors and increase the use of medical technology, to 
increase services in primary and preventive care by non-physician 
providers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce the Prescription Drug and Health Improvement Act of 2004, 
which is legislation designed to reduce the high prices of prescription 
drugs. Americans, specifically senior citizens, pay the highest prices 
in the world for brand-name prescription drugs. With 43 million 
uninsured Americans and many more senior citizens without an adequate 
prescription drug benefit, filling a doctor's prescription is 
unaffordable for many people in this country. The United States has the 
greatest health care system in the world; however, too many seniors are 
forced to make difficult choices between life-sustaining prescription 
drugs and daily necessities.
  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2003 
per capita spending on prescription drugs rose approximately 12 
percent, with a similar rate of growth expected for this year. Much of 
the increase in drug spending is due to higher utilization and the 
shift from older, lower cost drugs to newer, higher cost drugs. 
However, rapidly increasing drug prices are a critical component.
  High drug prices, combined with the surging older population, are 
also taking a toll on State budgets and private sector health insurance 
benefits. Medicaid spending on prescription drugs increased at an 
average annual rate of nearly 20 percent between 1998 and 2001. Until 
lower priced drugs are available, pressures will continue to squeeze 
public programs at both the State and Federal level.
  To address these problems, my legislation would reduce the high 
prices of prescription drugs to seniors by: one, allowing the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, HHS, to negotiate prescription drug 
prices with manufacturers; and two, eliminate the coverage gap in the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill's $400 billion price tag 
over the next 10 years would be offset by, three, reducing medical 
errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and, four, increasing 
the use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health 
care.
  Prescription Drug Negotiation: This legislation would repeal the 
prohibition against interference by the Secretary of HHS with 
negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and prescription 
drug plan sponsors and instead authorize the Secretary to negotiate 
contracts with manufacturers of covered prescription drugs. It will 
allow the Secretary of HHS to use Medicare's large beneficiary 
population to leverage bargaining power to obtain lower prescription 
drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Price negotiations between the Secretary of HHS and prescription drug 
manufacturers would be analogous to the ability of the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to negotiate prescription drug prices with 
manufacturers. This bargaining power enables veterans to receive 
prescription drugs at a significant cost savings.
  In my capacity as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I 
introduced the Veterans Prescription Drugs Assistance Act, S. 1153, 
which was reported out of committee on June 20, 2004.
  This legislation would broaden the ability of veterans to access the 
Veterans Affairs Prescription Drug Program. All Medicare-eligible 
veterans will be able to purchase medications at a tremendous price 
reduction through the Veterans Affairs' Prescription Drug Program. In 
many cases this would save veterans who are Medicare beneficiaries up 
to 90 percent on the cost of commonly prescribed medications. Similar 
savings would be available to America's seniors from the savings 
achieved using the HHS bargaining power, like the Veterans Affairs 
bargaining power for the benefit of veterans.
  Medicare Coverage Gap Elimination: The bill would eliminate the 
coverage gap, also known as the ``doughnut hole,'' for beneficiaries in 
the Medicare prescription drug program. Beginning in January 2006, 
Medicare beneficiaries with an individual income of over $13,470 and 
couples with an income over $18,180, 150 percent of the poverty level, 
will pay a monthly premium, approximately $35, a $250 deductible, and 
coinsurance of 25 percent up to an initial coverage limit of $2,250, 
but then do not receive coverage until they exceed $5,100 of total 
spending. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries will have to make out-
of-pocket payments for prescription drug purchases from $2,250 to

[[Page S8755]]

$5,100 in total spending. After $5,100 in total spending, the 
coinsurance payment for those beneficiaries is 5 percent. Medicare 
beneficiaries below 150 percent of the poverty level do not have a gap 
in drug coverage. My legislation would eliminate the gap in coverage 
for those over 150 percent of the poverty level in the Medicare 
prescription drug program, by extending the 25 percent beneficiary 
coinsurance payment from $2,250 to $5,100 in total spending.
  This provision comes at an expected cost of $400 billion over 10 
years, which will be paid for through savings from reducing medical 
errors, increasing the use of medical technology, and increasing the 
use of non-physician providers in primary and preventive health care.
  Reducing Medical Errors and Increasing the Use of Medical Technology: 
The bill provides grants for demonstration programs to test best 
practices for reducing errors, testing the use of appropriate 
technologies to reduce medical errors, such as electronic medication 
systems, and research in geographically diverse locations to determine 
the causes of medical errors. The implementation of automated 
prescription drug dispensers will prevent adverse drug reactions, which 
in turn can cause further illness resulting in increased care needed to 
correct the error. The utilization of electronic records will reduce 
the incidence of repeat medical tests, which will result in significant 
cost savings.
  On November 29, 1999, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, issued a report 
entitled ``To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System.'' The IOM 
report estimated that anywhere between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized 
Americans die each year due to avoidable medical mistakes. However, 
only a fraction of these deaths and injuries are due to negligence. 
Most errors are caused by system failures. The IOM issued a 
comprehensive set of recommendations, including the establishment of a 
nationwide, mandatory reporting system; incorporation of patient safety 
standards in regulatory and accreditation programs; and the development 
of a non-punitive ``culture of safety'' in health care organizations. 
The report called for a 50-percent reduction in medical errors over 5 
years.
  After the report was issued, I held a series of three Labor, Health 
and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee hearings on medical 
errors: Dec. 13, 1999--to discuss the findings of the Institute of 
Medicine's report on medical errors; Jan. 25, 2000--a joint hearing 
with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to discuss a national error 
reporting system and the VA's national patient safety program; Feb. 22, 
2000--a joint hearing with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee to discuss the administration's strategy to reduce medical 
errors.
  After hearing from Government witnesses and experts in the field on 
medical errors, I included $50 million in the fiscal year 2001 Senate 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education for a patient safety 
initiative. In the Senate report, I also directed the Agency for 
Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, to: one, develop guidelines on 
the collection of uniform error data; two, establish a competitive 
demonstration program to test ``best practices''; and three, research 
ways to improve provider training.
  The committee also directed AHRQ to prepare an interim report to 
Congress concerning the results of the demonstration program within 2 
years of the beginning of the projects. The fiscal year 2002 Senate 
report directed AHRQ to submit a report detailing the results of its 
initiative to reduce medical errors. HHS combined both reports into 
one, which it submitted to me earlier this year.
  Since fiscal year 2001, the Labor/HHS Subcommittee has included 
within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funding for 
research into ways to reduce medical errors. The fiscal year 2002 
appropriation was $55 million, in fiscal year 2003 another $55 million 
was provided, and in fiscal year 2004 the appropriation was increased 
to $79.5 million.
  The bill seeks to assist development of private sector technology 
standards to reduce medical errors by examining information technology, 
providing grants, and coordinating implementation by private sector 
entities. This would help ensure that this Federal investment will help 
further the national health information infrastructure by sharing the 
information collected through these demonstration projects with other 
health facilities nationally. These efforts would help reduce medical 
errors and bring the Nation's health systems into the 21st century with 
a projected cost savings of $150 billion over 10 years.
  Primary and Preventive Care Services: The bill includes provisions 
for the use of nonphysician providers such as nurse practitioners, 
physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by increasing 
direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid without regard to the 
setting where services are provided. The services provided by non-
physician providers would insure that patients would receive benefits 
and services to which they are entitled without compromising the high 
standards of medical care. The use of these health care professionals 
would provide a significant cost savings to health care systems.
  The bill creates a medical student tutorial program providing grants 
to encourage students early on in their medical training to pursue a 
career in primary care and provides grant assistance to medical 
training programs to recruit such students. This program is 
advantageous for medical students by providing valuable primary care 
experience, while offering services at a lower cost to primary care 
facilities. The savings from this provision is estimated at $250 
billion over a 10-year period.
  I believe this bill can provide desperately needed access to 
inexpensive, effective prescription drugs for America's seniors. The 
time has come for concerted action in this arena. I urge my colleagues 
to move this legislation forward promptly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2767. A bill to provide an economic stimulus; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Small Business Economic Stimulus Act of 2004. In recent months, there 
have been clear signs that America's economic downturn has ended and 
that we are entering a period of renewed growth and prosperity. Yet not 
all of the economic news has been good. As I travel through 
Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many companies that they cannot 
afford to make needed investments in equipment or research at this 
time. As they postpone such investments, they also push off into the 
future the economic growth and opportunity that would flow from them. 
As a result, I continue to meet far too many Pennsylvanians who are out 
of work. Thus while the economy is improving, it is still incumbent 
upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to aid this recovery 
and grow jobs. There is more we can do.
  The bill I introduce today, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act 
of 2004, will help American companies take the steps they need to grow 
and hire. Since small businesses create approximately 75 percent of new 
jobs in America, my bill focuses on the needs of small business in 
particular. My bill has three parts. Part one renews and extends three 
tax provisions which are crucial to encouraging new investments in R 
and equipment. Part two provides greater resources to trade offices and 
trade promotion with a particular emphasis on programs that will enable 
America's small businesses to better compete in foreign markets. Part 
three creates a structure for association health plans which will 
enable small businesses to negotiate less expensive health plans for 
their employees, thereby saving money while continuing to provide 
coverage. Together, these provisions amount to a targeted, measured, 
yet crucial shot in the arm for American small business and the 
American economy.
  The bill I introduce today will permanently extend the research and 
development tax credit. The R tax credit, which expired on June 30, 
has proven to be of enormous value to American business. We all 
understand the importance of research and development to the American 
economy. Most leading American companies owe their market dominance to 
the innovations coming from R labs. Yet R is expensive, and it is 
often among the

[[Page S8756]]

first items to be cut when budgets get tight. The R tax credit serves 
America by providing an economic incentive to companies to continue to 
invest in the R that will provide the growth and opportunities of the 
future.
  Studies have shown that the R tax credit significantly increases 
research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of $1 of the 
research credit creates approximately $1 of additional private research 
and development spending in the short-run, and as much as $2 of extra 
R spending in the long run. This is good for the American economy and 
the American taxpayer. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent 
research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing 
by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years.
  In addition, the extension of the R tax credit will have benefits 
beyond the purely economic. For example, the research and development 
tax credit has proven to be critical to the U.S. biomedical research 
arena. The tax credit has contributed to many successes in U.S. 
scientific research and innovation, such as rapid progress in finding 
cures for life threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer and multiple 
sclerosis. Today's diseases--Alzheimer's, AIDS, heart, liver and kidney 
disease, prostate cancer and arthritis--are complex and are in the 
final stages for research breakthroughs. If we allow the incentives to 
invest in medical progress to lapse, the consequence may be irrevocable 
and society may rue that decision for years to come.
  Given the importance of the R tax credit, it makes little sense for 
Congress to continue to renew it for short terms. The investment of 
funds in research and development is not a temporary fix but something 
that should be consistently encouraged. Towards this end, my bill 
permanently extends the R tax credit. Such a permanent extension will 
send a strong signal to American companies that the value of R is 
recognized here in Washington. The permanent extension will also 
provide greater certainty to companies seeking to make plans years in 
advance.
  My legislation will also renew two less well known but important tax 
provisions which encourage capital investments. My bill extends for 
another year a provision that allows companies to take an immediate 50-
percent depreciation on purchases of qualified equipment and machinery. 
This accelerated depreciation is currently set to expire in December, 
2004; equipment purchased thereafter would be subject to standard 
depreciation tables. My bill provides that necessary equipment 
purchased between December 2004 and December 2005 will continue to 
qualify for the accelerated depreciation.
  The availability of accelerated depreciation--especially at the high 
rate of 50 percent--makes an enormous difference to companies 
contemplating large capital investments. Companies which simply could 
not afford these investments under standard depreciation face a 
dramatically altered balance sheet once the accelerated depreciation is 
factored in. Investments that did not previously make economic sense 
will now be economically advantageous. As these investments are made, 
companies will grow and hire. This change in the balance sheet will 
reap a concrete benefit in jobs and growth.
  In addition, my legislation extends the section 179 exclusion at the 
current level of $100,000 through December 2007. This is another 
esoteric sounding provision that will produce very real economic 
benefits. Under this provision, companies can immediately expense, that 
is, recognize as an expense to be deducted from revenues for tax 
purposes, up to $100,000 invested in equipment and machinery. The 
standard section 179 deduction is only $25,000. Once again, this 
provision will have the effect of making investments economically 
advantageous when they otherwise would not be. The greater capital 
investment thereby fostered will lead to greater growth and job 
opportunities.
  Beyond these tax incentives, my bill also seeks to help American 
business through our trade policy. My legislation focuses on two 
programs in particular which help small businesses find markets for 
their products abroad. My bill includes an increase in funding of $27 
million for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, USTDA. The USTDA has 
proven to be critical to small businesses seeking to sell their 
products abroad. The USTDA helps American businesses study and identify 
opportunities in foreign markets so that they can determine which 
options will be profitable. To a small American business facing a very 
large global economy, the USTDA serves as an accessible and inexpensive 
international sales department.
  USTDA's unique public-private partnership truly extends the 
effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars. Historically, $35 worth of exports 
are generated for every dollar invested by USTDA. As a result, $21 
billion in U.S. exports have been shipped overseas in concert with 
USTDA's programs.
  My legislation also includes $5 million in funding to promote the 
benefits available under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982. This 
legislation was enacted to stimulate U.S. exports by authorizing the 
Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review to 
groups of small businesses. A certificate of review protects the holder 
and the members identified in the certificate from State and Federal 
Government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust 
actions for the export conduct specified in the certificate and carried 
out in compliance with its terms and conditions.
  Given the realities of international trade, these antitrust 
exemptions are crucial. In order to compete in a challenging foreign 
market such as China, for example, it is extremely advantageous to have 
a full-time sales representative on the ground there. Yet few small 
businesses can afford to hire full-time representatives and send them 
to China. The antitrust exemptions in the Export Trading Company Act of 
1982 would enable a group of small businesses to band together to hire 
a sales representative, open an office, and pursue the other 
necessities of international trade.
  The Export Trading Company Act is good legislation which solves a 
critical problem. Yet few American businesses exploring international 
trade are aware of the opportunities under this act, let alone take 
advantage of them. As a result, the enormous economic opportunities 
created by this law continue to go unrealized. I think that a minimal 
investment in marketing and promoting this act will pay for itself many 
times over in increased exports, growth and jobs.
  Finally, my bill includes a provision that will enable small 
businesses to join together to negotiate more affordable health care 
plans for their employees. This provision will provide an enormous 
economic boost to America's businesses--with the saving they gain from 
better health insurance rates they can invest, grow and hire. Yet this 
provision also provides clear benefits beyond the purely economic. By 
making health insurance more affordable, this provision will help 
reverse the growth in the ranks of the uninsured.
  According to a poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 
Americans worry more about rising health care costs than they do about 
terrorist attacks. There is a reason for such concern. More than 43 
million Americans under age 65 lack health insurance coverage. The 
ranks of the uninsured consist primarily of working families with low 
and moderate incomes--not just the unemployed. Nearly 26 million 
individuals are employed and still are without health care coverage.

  My bill will give small businesses the same market-based advantages 
when negotiating health insurance for their employees that large 
companies and unions currently enjoy. As independent entities, small 
businesses have little leverage when they negotiate with health 
insurance providers, and the situation they face is often one of take 
it or leave it. Even when small businesses band together in local 
purchasing pools, the group is often not large enough to attract new 
insurance companies with less expensive plans.
  My act will allow small businesses to join together in large national 
pools under the auspices of bona fide associations and either purchase 
insurance from a provider or self-insure the same way that large 
employers and unions do. For example, the American Restaurant 
Association could negotiate a plan on behalf of the hundreds of 
thousands of employees who work for its member businesses. Once the 
plan is in place, each individual restaurant could

[[Page S8757]]

choose to participate in this plan at much better rates than they could 
ever have negotiated on their own.
  I thank Senator Snowe for her leadership and hard work on this issue 
of association health plans. On March 6, 2003, Senator Snowe introduced 
S. 545, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This long and 
very detailed bill addresses all of the issues needed to make 
association health plans a reality. I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 
545 on June 9, 2003, and I have included the text of S. 545 in my bill.
  It is my sincere hope that the economic recovery will continue and 
will pick up steam in the months to come. There is great reason for 
optimism. But our optimism must not blind us to the continuing problems 
that Americans face. There are measures that Congress can take--today--
which will help our businesses to grow, hire new employees, and provide 
health insurance to these employees at a more affordable rate. These 
measures will, in the long run, more than pay for themselves. We must 
take these steps and do our part. I hope that my colleagues will join 
me in supporting the Economic Stimulus Act of 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2768. A bill to provide competitive status to certain Federal 
employees in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is the third occasion on which I 
have spoken to the Senate about the life and accomplishments of the 
late Thomas P. O'Hara, an Alaskan hero.
  Thomas P. O'Hara was a protection ranger and pilot for the National 
Park Service, assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the 
Bristol Bay region of western Alaska. On December 19, 2002, Ranger 
O'Hara and his passenger, a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, were on 
a mission in the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. Their plane 
went down on the tundra.
  When the plane was reported overdue, a rescue effort consisting of 14 
single-engine aircraft, an Alaska Air National Guard plane, and a Coast 
Guard helicopter quickly mobilized. Many of the single-engine aircraft 
were piloted by Tom's friends. The wreckage was located late in the 
afternoon of December 20. The passenger survived the crash, but Ranger 
Tom did not.
  Tom O'Hara was an experienced pilot with 11,000 hours as a pilot-in-
command. He was active in the communities of Naknek and King Salmon 
where he grew up, flying children to Bible camp and coaching young 
wrestlers. Tom provided a strong link between the residents of Bristol 
Bay and the National Park Service.
  Although Tom O'Hara was a most valued employee of the National Park 
Service, he did not enjoy the same status as National Park Service 
employees with competitive career status. Tom was hired under a special 
hiring authority established under the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, ANILCA, which permits land management agencies like 
the National Park Service to hire, on a noncompetitive basis, Alaskans 
who by reason of having lived or worked in or near public lands in 
Alaska, have special knowledge or expertise concerning the natural or 
cultural resources of public lands and the management thereof.
  Tom O'Hara possessed this knowledge and offered it freely to the 
National Park Service. But because he was hired under this special 
authority, his opportunities for transfer and promotion within the Park 
Service were limited, even though his service was exemplary.
  As a lasting memorial to Tom O'Hara's exemplary career, I am 
introducing legislation today that will grant competitive status to 
ANILCA local hire employees who hold permanent appointments with the 
Federal land management agencies after the completion of 1 year of 
satisfactory service. In Tom's honor, the short title of this 
legislation is the Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land Career Opportunity Act 
of 2004.
  It is my sincere hope that the enactment of this legislation will 
encourage other Alaskans, particularly Alaska Natives, to follow in Tom 
O'Hara's footsteps and seek lifelong careers with the Federal land 
management agencies.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2768

       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 ``Thomas P. O'Hara Public Land 
     Career Opportunity Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. COMPETITIVE STATUS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN 
                   THE STATE OF ALASKA.

       Section 1308 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Competitive Status.--An individual appointed to a 
     permanent position under subsection (a) shall, after the 
     completion of 1 year of service, be considered to have 
     competitive status and shall enjoy the rights, privileges, 
     and benefits of employees holding competitive status, 
     including the rights, privileges, and benefits relating to 
     promotion and transfer.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Nelson 
        of Nebraska):
  S. 2769. A bill to provide that imported ethanol shall not count 
toward satisfaction of any renewable fuel standard that may be enacted; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recent media reports indicate that at 
least two companies are actively considering plans to import Brazilian 
ethanol into the United States duty-free through the Caribbean Basin. 
These reports have generated understandable anxiety within the farm 
community.
  Cargill, the Minnesota-based agri-business giant, has confirmed that 
it is considering importing 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol 
into the United States each year. And it has been reported that 
Chevron-Texaco, one of the largest oil companies in the United States, 
is planning construction of a plant that will enable it to import 50 
million to 100 million gallons of ethanol.
  Farmers in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest are concerned that 
such import schemes could threaten the growth of the domestic ethanol 
industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major 
domestic energy source. They should be concerned. These import plans 
would establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and 
dramatically undercut the ability of the pending Renewable Fuels 
Standard to enhance our national energy security and boost farm income.
  The key to the next growth spurt in the domestic ethanol industry is 
bipartisan legislation I wrote with Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) that 
would set mandatory annual production targets for ethanol for the next 
10 years. Senator Lugar and I proposed the Renewable Fuels Standard, or 
RFS, 4 years ago as a means to grow the domestic ethanol industry in a 
way that both encourages investment in new community-sized ethanol 
facilities and expands markets for farmers. We remain hopeful that this 
proposal will clear Congress before adjournment this year.
  Under our proposed RFS, domestic ethanol demand would grow from 3 
billion gallons per year in 2004 to more than 5 billion gallons in 
2012, providing ethanol plants and farmers with a steady growth 
schedule that encourages investment in this domestic industry. This RFS 
would create over 214,000 jobs, increase farm income by $1.3 billion 
annually, and save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year.
  Plans to import ethanol threaten these benefits by injecting an 
element of market uncertainty into the RFS discussion that could dampen 
investment in community-sized ethanol facilities. Ethanol importation 
would put the producers of Brazilian sugarcane in direct competition 
with American corn growers. That is why today Senators Lugar, Hagel, 
Nelson, and I are introducing legislation to clarify that ethanol 
imports will not count toward the RFS targets. This bill will ensure 
that farmers and domestic ethanol investors will get the full benefit 
of the RFS, and it tells Cargill and Chevron accountants not to count 
on the new demand created by the Renewable Fuels Standard to justify 
any scheme to import ethanol.

[[Page S8758]]

  I understand that corporate executives feel an obligation to their 
shareholders. My obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol 
producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means 
to establish greater control over their economic and energy future.
  I have fought my entire public career against outright opposition and 
indifference from the giant corporate interests whose balance sheets 
don't consider the value-added contribution of local economic 
development. This situation is no different. As a result of our 
efforts, Chevron won't get to import as much oil and refine and sell as 
much high-priced gasoline as they may like, and Cargill won't get to 
import ethanol and compete against South Dakota producers.
  The RFS program is designed to stimulate domestic production and 
enhance U.S. energy security, not to create a market opportunity for 
foreign ethanol. The bill I am introducing today will help make sure 
that rural communities are able to attract investment capital to 
produce clean burning energy, create quality jobs for their kids, and 
expand local tax bases to accommodate better schools and community 
services.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2769

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

     SECTION 1. DISQUALIFICATION OF IMPORTED ETHANOL FOR THE 
                   PURPOSE OF ANY RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD.

       For the purpose of any renewable fuel standard that may be 
     enacted after the date of enactment of this Act, ethanol that 
     is imported, or that is derived from any matter that is 
     imported, shall not count toward satisfaction of the 
     renewable fuel standard.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 2770. A bill to establish a National Commission on American Indian 
Trust Holdings; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all painfully know, the United 
States has broken its word to Indian people, disregarded its treaty 
obligations, and breached its fiduciary trust responsibility. 
Litigation has been filed, and administrations of both political 
parties say the right thing, but then do not follow through to redress 
legitimate grievances. The concepts of sovereignty and government-to-
government dialog are acknowledged, only later all too frequently to be 
ignored.
  This sad history was elevated to a new level of concern this spring 
by the resignation of Mr. Alan Balaran as Special Master in the Cobell 
class action against the Department of the Interior. On April 5, 2004, 
Mr. Balaran made some very serious charges against the Department of 
the Interior in his official letter of resignation. He alleged that 
energy companies, abetted by the Department of the Interior, routinely 
pay Indian people less than they pay others for oil and gas easements. 
He further alleged that Interior officials regularly put the interests 
of private companies ahead of the Department's fiduciary responsibility 
to Indian people.
  These are disturbing charges leveled by an individual knowledgeable 
about the long history of trust mismanagement. Congress must get to the 
bottom of this situation to fully satisfy our own fiduciary 
responsibility to Indian people.
  It is clear that neither the executive branch nor the Congress's 
hands are clean on the trust management issue. And this not a partisan 
failure. It is a governmentwide failure that requires independent 
review.
  I am, therefore, today introducing legislation to create a National 
Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings. This Commission will be 
unique in several respects. First, it will be composed of 10 prominent 
U.S. citizens. Two individuals will each be appointed by the President, 
Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, Speaker of the House, 
and House minority leader to place the Commission beyond politics. 
Second, it will have the resources to hire the technical expertise 
needed. Professionals with expertise in land and resources management, 
accounting, Federal Indian policy, and trust law, among other 
disciplines will be included.
  The Commission will build upon past efforts without duplicating past 
efforts.
  Finally, the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of 
reporting to the President and the Congress within 1 year on: One, how 
to recoup, if possible, any damages that have resulted from the breach 
of fiduciary responsibility; and, two, how to prevent any such breaches 
in the future. We are looking for specific recommendations on how to 
fairly account for past mistakes, how to find closure on the trust 
issue, and how to prevent those mistakes from again happening in the 
future.
  The overall goal of the Commission is to fully and completely examine 
the very serious charges made by Mr. Balaran, as outlined in his letter 
to Judge Lamberth. The Commission would also be authorized to examine 
other breaches of trust and to report back to the Congress and such 
executive departments as may seem appropriate.
  Many words have been spoken over many years about trust 
responsibility and the breach of trust and fiduciary obligations, but 
very little concrete action has resulted from these words. Mr. 
Balaran's charges should be a wake-up call to all civic-minded 
Americans to demand that fairness be restored to the administration of 
Indian trust accounts. I sincerely hope that, given the track record of 
the past 10 years, an independent panel of distinguished Americans will 
be given an opportunity to succeed where the executive and legislative 
branches have fallen short. Their review will at least get to the 
bottom of Mr. Balaran's charges. And perhaps we can use the results of 
this examination to generate momentum for exploring the larger trust 
issues.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Balaran's letter of resignation and 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    April 5, 2004.
     Re: Cobell v. Norton, No. 96-1285.

     Hon. Royce C. Lamberth
     U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, 
         DC.

       Dear Judge Lamberth: I hereby tender my resignation as 
     Special Master in the Cobell case, effective the close of 
     business on April 5, 2004.
       This is an extraordinarily important case. I have been 
     privileged to work on it. For the past several months, 
     however, my efforts have been undermined by a series of 
     motions lodged by the Department of the Interior--one of 
     Cobell's two co-defendants--seeking my disqualification.
       It is evident Interior will continue filing such motions, 
     preventing the case from moving forward. The agency's 
     motivation is clear. In recent months, I have reported 
     evidence of a practice--abetted by Interior--of energy 
     companies routinely paying individual Indians much less than 
     they pay non-Indians for oil and gas pipeline easements 
     across the Southwest. I also have uncovered evidence that 
     Interior fails to diligently monitor oil and gas leasing 
     activities on individual Indian lands. To prevent further 
     investigation into these matters, Interior seeks my removal 
     from the Cobell case.
       The timing of Interior's efforts to disqualify me is not 
     coincidental. Interior filed its May 2003 disqualification 
     motion shortly after I found the agency withheld salient data 
     from its quarterly reports to the Court. The agency accused 
     me, of improperly retaining the services of a former Interior 
     contractor to obtain information germane to that 
     investigation. You found this accusation frivolous, 
     suggesting it was Interior that acted improperly by impeding 
     my investigation and that Interior had an ulterior motive for 
     seeking my removal. You were correct.
       Interior's disqualification attempts stemmed from events 
     that took place several months earlier, beginning with my 
     March 6, 2003 visit to the Office of Appraisal Services of 
     the Navajo Regional Office in Gallup, New Mexico. There, in 
     the presence of the Department of Justice and Interior 
     counsel, the Chief Appraiser admitted that he appraised oil 
     and gas easements running across individual Indian lands for 
     amounts considerably less than the appraised value of 
     identical interests held by non-Indians. The Chief Appraiser 
     also admitted destroying evidence of his 20-year practice of 
     doing so. Interior has never denied that the Chief Appraiser 
     destroyed valuable trust information or that energy companies 
     pay individual Indians a fraction of what they pay similarly 
     situated non-Indians as a result of these inadequate 
     appraisals. (Nor has the agency taken any

[[Page S8759]]

     disciplinary action against the Chief Appraiser. To the 
     contrary, it has gone to great lengths to protect him by 
     retaining the services of two attorneys to defend his conduct 
     during a recent deposition.)
       On August 20, 2003, I issued a report chronicling my 
     findings. This report was just the beginning. I soon began to 
     uncover evidence that Interior was putting the interests of 
     private energy companies ahead of the interests of individual 
     Indian beneficiaries.
       On September 19, 2003, for example, I visited Minerals 
     Management Service's (MMS) Office of Minerals Revenue 
     Management (MRM) in Dallas--the repository of Interior's oil 
     and gas audit files. My visit was prompted by two events: (1) 
     the March 2003 report of Interior's Office of the Inspector 
     General, revealing that MMS officials not only fabricated oil 
     and gas audit files but were rewarded for their efforts; and 
     (2) Justice's denial of my repeated requests for access to 
     these files. As you noted in your March 15, 2004 decision 
     denying Interior's disqualification motion, since August 
     1999, I have visited dozens of sites to ensure that Interior 
     was safeguarding trust documentation in accordance with your 
     directives. Interior not only approved of these visits, but 
     encouraged its employees to cooperate with me fully during my 
     inspections. My visit to Dallas was different. After only two 
     hours, during which I uncovered chaotic recordkeeping 
     practices and missing audit files, NMS officials informed me 
     that Justice ordered that I leave.
       The reason for this dramatic shift in policy is obvious. 
     Whereas my previous investigations exposed random incidents 
     of unprotected trust documents in remote Interior locations, 
     my recent findings implicated the agency's systemic failure 
     to properly monitor the activities of energy companies 
     leasing minerals on individual Indian lands. The consequences 
     of these findings could cost the very companies with which 
     senior Interior officials maintain close ties, millions of 
     dollars. (In that regard, I direct you to the recent 
     Inspector General Report of Investigation (PI-SI-02-0053-I), 
     discussing the relationship between Interior's most senior 
     officials and energy company executives.) Interior did not 
     want this information to come to light and for the first and 
     only time during my five-year tenure as Special Master, 
     ordered me to leave a site.
       Just one week after my Dallas site visit, in a motion filed 
     on September 26, 2003, Interior issued the following 
     ultimatum: either you rule on its disqualification motion by 
     October 15, or the government would file a mandamus petition 
     in the Court of Appeals, seeking to have that Court 
     disqualify me. At that time, the government knew you were 
     beginning a six-defendant criminal trial on October 1, 2003, 
     that involved multiple counts of murder, drug offenses, and 
     racketeering, making it impossible for you to rule on the 
     disqualification issue by the October 15 ``deadline.'' 
     Interior was just going through the motions and, in mid-
     October, filed its mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals.
       It is evident that Interior, supported by the Department of 
     Justice, is committed to removing me from this case. It is 
     also plain that the agency's efforts to unseat me bear no 
     relationship to the reasons it offers in its disqualification 
     motion, but rather to my discovery of significant problems 
     with its appraisal and record-keeping practices. A full 
     investigation into these matters might well result in energy 
     companies being forced to repay significant sums to 
     individual Indians. Interior could not let this happen,
       Justice has been much too long in coming for the hundreds 
     of thousands of Native Americans whose land the government 
     has supposedly held in trust, in some cases for over a 
     century. Billions of dollars are at stake. It is past time to 
     get systems in place that will enable the Departments of the 
     Interior and Treasury to track trust data accurately in the 
     future, as well as render an honest and reliable accounting 
     in the present. In this respect, my presence in the case has 
     become a distraction. And while I am confident that 
     Interior's disqualification motions would ultimately be 
     denied, I have no doubt that were I to continue as Special 
     Master, the agency's efforts to disqualify me would persist 
     and accelerate. Given this, I will be of no practical service 
     to the Court. I hope that, with my resignation, the parties 
     will be able to move rapidly toward fundamental reforms. I 
     also hope that, understanding this background, my successors 
     will be more efficacious.
       Finally, on a personal note, you are a courageous, 
     decisive, and diligent judge who strives to do justice in 
     each and every case. It has been my honor to have served with 
     you. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alan L. Balaran,
     Special Master.
                                  ____


                                S. 2770

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

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON AMERICAN INDIAN TRUST 
                   HOLDINGS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has entered into treaties with Indian 
     tribes under which the United States made various commitments 
     to Indian tribes and Indian people;
       (2) the United States functions, by treaty and statute, as 
     a trustee for Indian tribes and individual Indians;
       (3) the United States has a fiduciary obligation to Indian 
     tribes and Indian people and, in accordance with that 
     obligation, must use the highest standard of care to protect 
     the assets of Indian tribes and individual Indians;
       (4) the United States has failed Indian tribes and 
     individual Indians and abridged its treaty and other 
     obligations relating to the handling of trust fund management 
     and historical accounting;
       (5) mismanagement of Indian trust assets by the United 
     States is a longstanding problem that spans many 
     administrations;
       (6) the complexity and longevity of that mismanagement 
     neither mitigates the injustice visited on Indian tribes and 
     the 300,000 individual Native Americans whose accounts have 
     been shortchanged nor absolves the United States of its 
     responsibility to correct the situation in a timely manner;
       (7) in 1996 a civil action, Cobell v. Norton, Civ. No. 96-
     1285 (RCL), was brought in the United States District Court 
     for the District of Columbia to attempt to obtain an order 
     compelling the United States to account for the trust funds 
     managed by the United States on behalf of individual Indians 
     and take all necessary action to bring the United States into 
     compliance with its fiduciary duties;
       (8) those funds are generated from Indian trust land 
     royalties resulting from leases of that land to oil, 
     agricultural, timber, mining, and other interests;
       (9) on April 5, 2004, Mr. Alan L. Balaran, the Special 
     Master in the Cobell case, tendered his resignation to the 
     Honorable Royce C. Lamberth;
       (10) in his letter of resignation, Mr. Balaran stated 
     that--
       (A) there is evidence that energy companies, assisted by 
     the Department of the Interior, routinely pay individual 
     Indians much less than they pay non-Indians for oil and gas 
     pipeline easements;
       (B) the Special Master had uncovered evidence that the 
     Department fails to diligently monitor oil and gas leasing 
     activities on Indian land; and
       (C) there is evidence that the Department has been putting 
     the interests of private energy companies ahead of the 
     interests of individual Indian beneficiaries, notwithstanding 
     their fiduciary obligation to Indian tribes and Indian 
     beneficiaries; and
       (11) the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, and other regions of 
     the United States are rich in other trust assets such as 
     timber, agriculture, mining, and other resources.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Balaran letter.--The term ``Balaran letter'' means the 
     letter dated April 5, 2004, from Special Master Alan L. 
     Balaran to the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National 
     Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings established by 
     subsection (c).
       (3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (c) Establishment of Commission.--There is established the 
     National Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings.
       (d) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 2 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom the 
     President shall designate as Chairperson of the Commission;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (C) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (E) 2 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Qualifications; initial meeting.--
       (A) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to 
     the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government or any State or local government.
       (B) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent 
     United States citizens, with national recognition and 
     significant depth of experience in such professions as land 
     and resource management.
       (3) Deadline for appointment.--All members of the 
     Commission shall be appointed not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Quorum.--Six members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum.
       (5) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in 
     the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (e) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (A) fully examine the allegations made in the Balaran 
     letter;
       (B) fully examine whether grazing, leasing, and other trust 
     asset interests have been managed equitably and in a manner 
     consistent with Federal trust law (including regulations);
       (C) fully examine such other alleged breaches of the 
     fiduciary responsibility owed by the United States to Indian 
     tribes and individual Indians that come to the Commission's 
     attention as the Commission considers appropriate;
       (D) build on the investigations of other entities, and 
     avoid unnecessary duplication, by

[[Page S8760]]

     reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 
     earlier studies of the management by the Department of Indian 
     trust assets and trust funds; and
       (E) not later than 1 year after the date as of which all 
     members of the Commission have been appointed, submit to the 
     President and Congress a report that states the findings of 
     the Commission and makes recommendations for corrective 
     measures that can be taken to--
       (i) recoup any losses suffered by Indian tribes or 
     individual Indians as a result of breaches of fiduciary duty 
     by the Department; or
       (ii) prevent any breaches of fiduciary duty in the future.
       (2) Relationship to previous studies.--When investigating 
     facts and circumstances relating to the management of Indian 
     trust assets and trust funds, the Commission shall--
       (A) first review the information compiled by, and the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations that resulted 
     from, previous studies (including congressional 
     investigations); and
       (B) after that review, pursue any appropriate area of 
     inquiry if the Commission determines that--
       (i) earlier studies had not investigated that area;
       (ii) the earlier investigation of that area had not been 
     complete; or
       (iii) new information not reviewed in the earlier studies 
     had become available with respect to that area.
       (3) Followup review.--At least once every 2 years after the 
     date on which the Commission submits the report under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) reconvene to examine the effectiveness of any actions 
     taken in response to the report in achieving the goals 
     described in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1)(D); and
       (B) submit to the President and Congress a report that 
     describes the findings of the Commission and makes any 
     further recommendations as the Commission considers 
     appropriate.
       (f) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission may--
       (i) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and 
     administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this section; and
       (ii) subject to subparagraph (B)(i), require, by subpoena 
     or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses 
     and the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
     memoranda, papers, and documents, as the Commission or such 
     designated subcommittee or designated member may determine 
     advisable.
       (B) Subpoenas.--
       (i) Issuance.--

       (I) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this 
     subsection only--

       (aa) by the agreement of the Chairperson; or
       (bb) by the affirmative vote of 6 members of the 
     Commission.

       (II) Signature.--Subject to subclause (I), subpoenas issued 
     under this subsection may be issued under the signature of 
     the Chairperson or any member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     Chairperson or by a member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission.

       (ii) Enforcement.--

       (I) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or 
     where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear at any designated place to 
     testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       (II) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of 
     any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when 
     summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, 
     by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting 
     such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who 
     may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, 
     under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the 
     United States attorney had received a certification under 
     sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 
     192 through 194).

       (2) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in Acts of appropriation, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge the 
     duties of the Commission.
       (3) Information from federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a 
     Federal agency such information as the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (B) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the agency shall 
     provide the information to the Commission.
       (4) Assistance from the secretary of the interior.--The 
     Secretary of the Interior shall provide to the Commission on 
     a reimbursable basis administrative support and other 
     services for the performance of the functions of the 
     Commission.
       (5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other agencies of the United States.
       (g) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--A member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (3) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws (including 
     regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable 
     the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (B) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of 
     an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (C) Compensation.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of the 
     executive director and other personnel without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates.
       (ii) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the 
     executive director and other personnel shall not exceed the 
     rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (4) Detail of federal government employees.--
       (A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may 
     be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
       (B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall 
     be without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (5) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do 
     not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic 
     pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of that title.
       (h) No Effect on Cobell Case.--Nothing in this section 
     limits the findings, remedies, jurisdiction, authority, or 
     discretion of the court in the civil action Cobell v. Norton, 
     Civ. No. 96-1285 (RCL) (D.D.C.).
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (j) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date on 
     which the Commission submits the report of the Commission 
     under subsection (e)(1)(D).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2771. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the 
quality of care for cancer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2771

       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 ``Quality of Care for 
     Individuals With Cancer Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

             TITLE I--MEASURING THE QUALITY OF CANCER CARE

Sec. 101. Development of core sets of quality of cancer care measures.

                  TITLE II--ENHANCING DATA COLLECTION

Sec. 201. Expansion of national program of cancer registries.
Sec. 202. Reauthorization of national program of cancer registries.
Sec. 203. Relationship to certification.

    TITLE III--MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER CARE AND 
                                OUTCOMES

Sec. 301. Partnerships to develop model systems for monitoring and 
              evaluating quality of cancer care and outcomes.

          TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL

Sec. 401. Comprehensive cancer control program.

[[Page S8761]]

         TITLE V--IMPROVING NAVIGATION AND SYSTEM COORDINATION

Sec. 501. Enhancing cancer care through improved navigation.
Sec. 502. Cancer care coordination.

           TITLE VI--ESTABLISHING PROGRAMS IN PALLIATIVE CARE

Sec. 601. Programs to improve palliative care.

             TITLE VII--ESTABLISHING SURVIVORSHIP PROGRAMS

Sec. 701. Programs for survivorship.
Sec. 702. Cancer control programs.

               TITLE VIII--PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE

Sec. 801. Programs for end-of-life care.

                TITLE IX--DEVELOPING TRAINING CURRICULA

Sec. 901. Curriculum development.
Sec. 902. Cancer care workforce and translational research.

                  TITLE X--BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER

Sec. 1001. Waivers relating to grants for preventive health measures 
              with respect to breast and cervical cancers.

                      TITLE XI--COLORECTAL CANCER

Sec. 1101. Programs to improve colorectal cancer screening.

                     TITLE XII--CONDUCTING REPORTS

Sec. 1201. Studies and reports by the Institute of Medicine.

             TITLE I--MEASURING THE QUALITY OF CANCER CARE

     SEC. 101. DEVELOPMENT OF CORE SETS OF QUALITY OF CANCER CARE 
                   MEASURES.

       (a) Development of Core Sets of Quality of Cancer Care 
     Measures.--Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417E. DEVELOPMENT OF CORE SETS OF QUALITY OF CANCER 
                   CARE MEASURES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award a contract to 
     a national voluntary consensus organization to identify core 
     sets of quality of cancer care measures.
       ``(b) Quality of Cancer Care Measures.--An entity that 
     receives a contract under this section shall identify core 
     sets of quality of cancer care measures in consultation with 
     a panel or advisory group of interested parties, including 
     significant participation from consumer representatives 
     (which shall include survivors of cancer and their families 
     and members of organizations representing such survivors and 
     their families), health care providers, cancer researchers, 
     payers and purchasers of cancer care services and insurance, 
     and public and private organizations that monitor, accredit, 
     or seek to improve the quality of cancer care.
       ``(c) Report by Entity.--Not later than 24 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section, an eligible entity that 
     receives a contract under this section shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report that--
       ``(1) lists existing measures used to assess and improve 
     the quality of cancer care;
       ``(2) identifies those measures that have been 
     scientifically validated, those measures that still require 
     validation, and those aspects of cancer care for which 
     additional measures need to be developed or validated;
       ``(3) recommends a core set of validated quality of cancer 
     care measures, reflecting a voluntary consensus of interested 
     parties, for measuring and improving the quality of cancer 
     care;
       ``(4) summarizes the process used to develop the consensus 
     recommendations in paragraph (3), including a statement of 
     any minority views; and
       ``(5) develops a process for updating the core sets of 
     validated quality of cancer care measures as new scientific 
     evidence becomes available.
       ``(d) Recommendations by Secretary.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date the Secretary receives the report 
     described in subsection (c), the Secretary shall issue 
     recommendations on the areas described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (5) of such subsection and shall transmit such 
     recommendations to the President.
       ``(e) Report by President.--Not later than 6 months after 
     receipt of the report described in subsection (d), the 
     President shall, in consultation with the Quality Interagency 
     Coordination Task Force (established by a Presidential 
     Directive in 1998)--
       ``(1) provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report that describes a plan to use the core sets of quality 
     of cancer care measures in programs administered by the 
     Federal Government, including outlining activities to support 
     the widespread dissemination of the report, and provide any 
     other recommendations the President determines to be 
     appropriate; and
       ``(2) provide updated reports, in accordance with 
     subsection (c)(5), if new quality measures or scientific 
     evidence on quality of cancer care develops.
       ``(f) Technical Support.--The Secretary may provide 
     scientific and technical support to ensure that the 
     scientific evaluation requirements in this section are met.
       ``(g) AHRQ.--
       ``(1) Annual report.--The Agency for Healthcare Research 
     and Quality shall include in the annual report required under 
     section 913(b)(2) the core set of quality of cancer care 
     measures developed under this section that are suitable for 
     quality monitoring.
       ``(2) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that all 
     agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services 
     shall provide the information necessary for the report 
     described in paragraph (1) regarding quality of cancer care 
     measures.
       ``(h) Support.--The Director of the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, acting in collaboration with the 
     Director of the National Cancer Institute and the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall support 
     the development and validation of measures identified by the 
     report in subsection (d).
       ``(i) Definitions of Hospice Care; Palliative Care; Quality 
     of Cancer Care; Health Disparity Populations; Health 
     Disparities Research.--In this section the terms `hospice 
     care', `palliative care', `quality of cancer care', `health 
     disparity populations', and `minority health disparities 
     research' have the meanings given such terms in section 
     399AA.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010.''.
       (b) Monitoring.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     the transmission of the report required under section 417E(e) 
     of the Public Health Service Act, the Comptroller of the 
     General Accounting Office shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that evaluates the extent to 
     which Federal and private sector health care delivery 
     programs, States, and State cancer plans are utilizing the 
     core sets of quality of cancer care measures (developed under 
     section 417E of the Public Health Service Act) and the extent 
     to which its adoption is affecting the quality of cancer 
     care.

                  TITLE II--ENHANCING DATA COLLECTION

     SEC. 201. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF CANCER REGISTRIES.

       Part M of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280e et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     399E, the following:

     ``SEC. 399E-1. MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF 
                   CANCER CARE.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, and in coordination with the Director of the 
     National Cancer Institute, shall award competitive grants to 
     State cancer registries that receive funds under this part to 
     enable such registries to expand their ability to monitor and 
     evaluate the quality of cancer care, to develop information 
     concerning the quality of cancer care, and to monitor cancer 
     survivorship.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), a State cancer registry shall be certified by 
     the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries 
     or other similar certification organization.
       ``(c) Application.--A State cancer registry desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Contracting Authority.--A State cancer registry 
     receiving a grant under this section may enter into contracts 
     with academic institutions, cancer centers, and other 
     entities determined to be appropriate by the Secretary, to 
     carry out the activities authorized under this section.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--A State cancer registry receiving a 
     grant under this section shall use amounts received under 
     such grant to--
       ``(1) collect information for public health surveillance 
     and quality improvement activities using the quality of 
     cancer care measures developed under section 417E (where 
     appropriate), including data concerning racial, ethnic, and 
     other health disparity populations within the State that may 
     have a disparity in incidence or survival from cancer;
       ``(2) develop linkages between State cancer registry data 
     and other databases, including those that collect outpatient 
     data, to gather information concerning the quality of cancer 
     care;
       ``(3) identify, develop, and disseminate evidence-based 
     best practices relating to cancer care regarding how States 
     use registry data and how to better link and coordinate the 
     sharing of such data;
       ``(4) identify geographic areas and populations within the 
     State that have an increased need for awareness regarding 
     cancer risk reduction, screening, prevention, and treatment 
     activities;
       ``(5) increase coordination between State cancer registries 
     and other entities, including academic institutions, 
     hospitals, health centers, researchers, health care 
     providers, cancer centers, or nonprofit organizations;
       ``(6) incorporate the collection of data on cancer 
     survivors for the purpose of improving the quality of cancer 
     care;
       ``(7) identify the impact of co-morbidity of other diseases 
     on survival from cancer; or
       ``(8) develop methods of determining whether cancer 
     survivors are at an increased risk for other chronic or 
     disabling conditions.
       ``(f) Privacy.--A State cancer registry receiving a grant 
     or an entity receiving a contract under this section shall 
     comply with appropriate security and privacy protocols 
     (including protocols required under the regulations  
     promulgated under section 264(c) of

[[Page S8762]]

     the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note)), if applicable, with 
     respect to information collected under this title. Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to supersede applicable 
     Federal or State privacy laws.
       ``(g) Databases.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, a State 
     cancer registry may utilize appropriate databases, 
     including--
       ``(A) the National Death Index;
       ``(B) databases related to claims under the medicare and 
     medicaid programs under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social 
     Security Act; and
       ``(C) other databases maintained by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (including those maintained at the 
     Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health).
       ``(2) Additional data.--A State cancer registry may utilize 
     data in addition to the databases described in paragraph (1), 
     including data maintained by private insurance plans and 
     health care delivery organizations.
       ``(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to require an individual or entity to submit 
     information to a State cancer registry under this section.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Health center.--The term `health center' has the 
     meaning given the term `federally qualified health center' in 
     section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1395x(aa)(4)).
       ``(2) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer 
     care' has the meaning given such term in section 399AA.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     ``SEC. 399E-2. CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     and in coordination with the Director of the National Cancer 
     Institute, shall--
       ``(1) establish the Cancer Surveillance System (referred to 
     in this section as the `System') to monitor State cancer 
     registries funded under section 399B; and
       ``(2) provide for the development, expansion, and 
     evaluation of such registries.
       ``(b) Duties.--The System shall--
       ``(1) facilitate timely access to and exchange of accurate 
     quality of cancer care information among State cancer 
     registries including the use of the quality of cancer care 
     measures developed under section 417E, where appropriate;
       ``(2) develop guidelines permitting State cancer registries 
     to access the national registry clearinghouse established 
     under paragraph (3);
       ``(3) establish and maintain a registry information 
     clearinghouse to collect, synthesize, and disseminate 
     information concerning evidence-based best practices for the 
     creative use of State cancer registries, including 
     maintaining an Internet website where such information may be 
     accessed;
       ``(4) determine the feasibility of monitoring the quality 
     of palliative care by State cancer registries;
       ``(5) identify and develop evidence-based best practices 
     for coordination between cancer registries and other 
     entities;
       ``(6) update information collected or made available under 
     this section as determined to be necessary by the Secretary; 
     and
       ``(7)(A) review pediatric cancer data collected by State 
     cancer registries and evaluate--
       ``(i) such data for adequacy, completeness, timeliness, and 
     quality; and
       ``(ii) current efforts to aggregate and disseminate such 
     data; and
       ``(B) not later than January 1, 2006, submit to Congress a 
     report on the findings made under subparagraph (A).
       ``(c) Privacy.--The System shall comply with appropriate 
     security and privacy protocols (including protocols required 
     under the regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the 
     Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 note)), if applicable, with respect to 
     information collected by the System. Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to supersede applicable Federal or State 
     privacy laws.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `palliative 
     care' and `quality of cancer care' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 399AA.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010.''.

     SEC. 202. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF CANCER 
                   REGISTRIES.

       Section 399F(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     280e-4(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``this part,'' and inserting ``this part, 
     other than sections 399E-1 and 399E-2),''; and
       (2) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2010''.

     SEC. 203. MATCHING FUNDS; RELATIONSHIP TO CERTIFICATION.

       (a) Matching Funds.--Section 399B(b)(1) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e(B)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``$3'' and inserting ``$5''.
       (b) Relationship to Certification.--Section 399E of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e-3) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Relationship to Certification.--The Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention is encouraged to work with 
     eligible entities through the provision of technical 
     assistance and funding authority under the National Program 
     of Cancer Registries to assist such entities in complying 
     with the certification process of the North American 
     Association of Central Cancer Registries or similar 
     certification organization.''.

    TITLE III--MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER CARE AND 
                                OUTCOMES

     SEC. 301. PARTNERSHIPS TO DEVELOP MODEL SYSTEMS FOR 
                   MONITORING AND EVALUATING QUALITY OF CANCER 
                   CARE AND OUTCOMES.

       (a) Quality of Cancer Care.--Part A of title IX of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 904. AREAS OF SPECIAL EMPHASIS.

       ``(a) Quality of Cancer Care.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Director and in collaboration with the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the 
     Director of the National Cancer Institute, shall conduct and 
     support research pertaining to the measurement, evaluation, 
     and improvement of the quality of cancer care, take steps to 
     enhance the usefulness of such research to improve patient 
     care, and appropriately disseminate such information by--
       ``(1) expanding the evidence base concerning effective 
     interventions for improving the quality of cancer care;
       ``(2) ensuring effective analysis of data collected by 
     State cancer registries funded under section 399B by 
     developing evidence-based best practices for--
       ``(A) the real-time recording of and automated transfer of 
     cancer care data to State cancer care registries; and
       ``(B) the linkage of registry data with private sector 
     claims data and other existing data systems for purposes of 
     analytic academic research;
       ``(3) developing and validating quality of cancer care 
     indicators and evaluate their use and usefulness; and
       ``(4) developing volume-based quality indicators, as 
     appropriate, and evaluate ongoing efforts to integrate 
     volume-based measures into cancer quality improvement 
     programs and their impact on patient decisionmaking.
       ``(b) Partnerships To Speed the Pace of Improvements in the 
     Quality of Cancer Care.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director and in collaboration with the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director 
     of the National Cancer Institute, shall award competitive 
     grants, contracts, or enter into cooperative agreements with 
     eligible entities to--
       ``(A) foster the development or adoption of model systems 
     of cancer care;
       ``(B) speed the pace of improvement in the quality of 
     cancer care; or
       ``(C) when appropriate, carry out the other requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--In accordance with the limitations of 
     section 926(c), an applicant eligible to receive a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this subsection 
     shall be a consortium consisting of public- and private-
     sector entities. Each consortium shall include an institution 
     of higher learning or other research entity and 1 or more of 
     the following:
       ``(A) An entity that delivers or purchases cancer care.
       ``(B) A professional society or societies that represent 
     health care providers and other cancer caregivers, including 
     hospice programs.
       ``(C) A consumer or patient organization.
       ``(D) An entity involved in the monitoring of quality of 
     cancer care or efforts to improve cancer care (including a 
     State or local health department).
       ``(d) Collaboration.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, shall ensure 
     coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies, 
     private quality improvement entities, and accreditation or 
     licensure organizations with an interest in improving the 
     quality of cancer care.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term `quality of 
     cancer care' has the meaning given such term in section 
     399AA.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 927 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299c-6) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Quality of Cancer Care.--For the purpose of carrying 
     out the activities under section 904, such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010.''.

          TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL

     SEC. 401. COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAM.

       Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 320B. COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     and in consultation with the Director of the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality and the Director of the 
     National Cancer Institute, shall establish a National 
     Comprehensive Cancer

[[Page S8763]]

     Control Program (referred to in this section as the 
     `Program') to improve the quality of cancer care.
       ``(b) Program.--In carrying out the Program the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) establish guidelines regarding the design and 
     implementation of comprehensive cancer control plans; and
       ``(2) award competitive grants to eligible entities to 
     develop, update, implement, and evaluate comprehensive cancer 
     control plans.
       ``(c) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive 
     assistance under the Program if such entity is a State health 
     department, territory, Indian tribe, or tribal organization 
     or its designee.
       ``(d) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including--
       ``(1) a description of how assistance under such grant will 
     be used to develop and implement comprehensive cancer control 
     programs, including programs to monitor the quality of cancer 
     care (which may include the use of quality of cancer care 
     measures developed under section 417E);
       ``(2) a description of how the applicant will integrate its 
     activities with academic institutions, nonprofit 
     organizations, or other appropriate entities in planning and 
     implementing comprehensive cancer control plans; and
       ``(3) a description of how activities carried out by the 
     applicant will be evaluated.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use assistance 
     received under this section to--
       ``(1) convene stakeholders, including stakeholders from the 
     public, private, and nonprofit sectors, to determine 
     priorities for the State, territory, or tribe involved;
       ``(2) develop, update, implement, or evaluate comprehensive 
     cancer control plans;
       ``(3) assess disparities in cancer risk reduction, 
     prevention, diagnosis, or quality of cancer care; and
       ``(4) develop and disseminate best practices, where 
     appropriate, and evaluate the application of such practices 
     as necessary.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Comprehensive cancer control plan.--The term 
     `comprehensive cancer control plan' means a plan developed 
     with assistance provided under this section that provides for 
     an integrated and coordinated approach to reducing the 
     incidence, morbidity, and mortality of cancer, with a 
     particular emphasis on preventing and controlling cancer 
     among populations most at risk and reducing cancer 
     disparities among underserved populations.
       ``(2) Comprehensive cancer control program.--The term 
     `comprehensive cancer control program' means a program to 
     fulfill the comprehensive control plan.
       ``(3) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer 
     care' has the meaning given such term in section 399AA.
       ``(4) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms `Indian 
     tribe' and `tribal organization' have the meanings given such 
     terms in subsections (b) and (c) of section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010.''.

         TITLE V--IMPROVING NAVIGATION AND SYSTEM COORDINATION

     SEC. 501. ENHANCING CANCER CARE THROUGH IMPROVED NAVIGATION 
                   AND CANCER CARE COORDINATION.

       Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

               ``Part R--Cancer Prevention and Treatment

     ``SEC. 399AA. DEFINITIONS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this part:
       ``(1) Culturally competent.--The term `culturally 
     competent', with respect to the manner in which health-
     related services, education, and training are provided, means 
     providing the services, education, and training in the 
     language and cultural context that is most appropriate for 
     the individuals for whom the services, education, and 
     training are intended.
       ``(2) Health center.--The term `health center' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 399E-1.
       ``(3) Health disparity population.--The term `health 
     disparity population' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 903(d)(1).
       ``(4) Health disparities research.--The term `health 
     disparities research' means basic, clinical, and behavioral 
     research on health conditions disproportionately affecting 
     individuals from health disparity populations, including 
     research to prevent, diagnose, and treat such conditions. 
     Such health conditions shall include all diseases, disorders, 
     and conditions affecting individuals from health disparity 
     populations that are--
       ``(A) unique to, more serious, or more prevalent in such 
     individuals;
       ``(B) for which the factors of medical risk or types of 
     medical intervention may be different for such individuals, 
     or for which it is unknown whether such factors or types are 
     different for such individuals; or
       ``(C) with respect to which there has been insufficient 
     research involving such individuals as subjects or 
     insufficient data on such individuals.
       ``(5) Hospice care.--The term `hospice care' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1)).
       ``(6) Hospice program.--The term `hospice program' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)).
       ``(7) Palliative care.--The term `palliative care' means 
     comprehensive, interdisciplinary, coordinated, and 
     appropriate care and services provided throughout all stages 
     of disease, from the time of diagnosis to the end of life, 
     relating to pain and other symptom management, including 
     psychosocial needs, that seeks to improve quality of life and 
     prevent and alleviate suffering for an individual and, if 
     appropriate, that individual's family or caregivers.
       ``(8) Quality of cancer care.--The term `quality of cancer 
     care' means the provision of cancer-related, timely, 
     evidence-based (whenever there is scientific evidence on the 
     effectiveness of interventions), patient-centered care and 
     services of individuals in a technically and culturally 
     competent and appropriate manner, using effective 
     communication and shared decisionmaking to improve clinical 
     outcomes, survival, or quality of life which encompasses--
       ``(A) the various stages of care, including care and 
     services provided to individuals with a family history of 
     cancer, with an abnormal cancer screening test, or who are 
     clinically diagnosed with cancer, beginning with risk 
     reduction, prevention, and early detection through 
     survivorship, remission, and end-of-life care, and including 
     risk counseling, screening, diagnosis, treatment, followup 
     care, monitoring, rehabilitation, and hospice care; and
       ``(B) appropriate care and services which should be 
     provided throughout the continuum of care including 
     palliative care and information on treatment options 
     including information regarding clinical trials.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part, other 
     than section 399FF, such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     ``SEC. 399BB. ENHANCING CANCER CARE THROUGH IMPROVED 
                   NAVIGATION.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award 
     competitive grants to eligible entities to develop, 
     implement, and evaluate cancer case management programs to 
     enhance the quality of cancer care through improved access 
     and navigation.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; health 
     center; an academic institution; a hospice program; a 
     palliative care program, or a program offering a continuum of 
     hospice care, palliative care, and other appropriate care to 
     children and their families; a State health agency; an Indian 
     Health Service hospital or clinic, Indian tribal health 
     facility, or urban Indian facility; a nonprofit organization; 
     a health plan; a primary care practice-based research network 
     as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 
     a cancer center; or any other entity determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including 
     assurances that the eligible entity will--
       ``(1) target patient populations with an unequal burden of 
     cancer through specific outreach activities;
       ``(2) coordinate culturally competent and appropriate care 
     specified in observance of existing, relevant departmental 
     guidelines, including a special emphasis on underserved 
     populations and how their values and priorities influence 
     screening and treatment decisions;
       ``(3) coordinate with relevant ombudsman programs and other 
     existing coordination and navigation efforts and services, 
     where possible; and
       ``(4) evaluate activities and disseminate findings 
     including findings related to repeated difficulties in 
     accessing navigation.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use amounts 
     received under a grant under this section to carry out 
     programs in which--
       ``(1) trained individuals (such as representatives from the 
     community, nurses, social workers, cancer survivors, 
     physicians, or patient advocates) are assigned to act as 
     contacts--
       ``(A) within the community; or
       ``(B) within the health care system,
     to facilitate access to quality cancer care and cancer 
     preventive services;
       ``(2) partnerships are created with community organizations 
     (which may include cancer centers, hospitals, health centers, 
     hospice programs, palliative care programs, health care 
     providers, home care, nonprofit organizations, health plans, 
     or other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary) to 
     help facilitate access or to improve the quality of cancer 
     care;
       ``(3) activities are conducted to coordinate cancer care 
     and preventive services and referrals, including referrals to 
     hospice programs, and palliative care programs; or

[[Page S8764]]

       ``(4) the grantee negotiates, mediates, or arbitrates on 
     behalf of the patient with relevant entities to resolve 
     issues that impede access to care.
       ``(e) Models.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall develop or 
     modify models to improve the navigation of cancer care for 
     grantees under this section. The Secretary shall update such 
     models as may be necessary to ensure that the best cancer 
     case management practices are being utilized.

     ``SEC. 399CC. CANCER CARE COORDINATION.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award 
     competitive grants to eligible entities to facilitate the 
     development of a coordinated system to improve the quality of 
     cancer care.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; a 
     health center; an academic institution; a hospice program; a 
     palliative care program; a program offering a continuum of 
     hospice care, palliative care, and other appropriate care to 
     children and their families; a State health agency; a 
     nonprofit organization; a health plan; a primary care 
     practice-based research network as defined by the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality; a cancer center; or any 
     other entity determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use amounts 
     received under a grant under this section to improve 
     coordination of the quality of cancer care, by--
       ``(1) creating partnerships and enhancing collaboration 
     with health care providers (which may include cancer centers, 
     hospitals, health centers, hospice programs, health care 
     providers, experts in palliative care, preventive service 
     providers) to improve the provision of quality of cancer 
     care;
       ``(2) developing best practices for the quality of cancer 
     care coordination (with special emphasis provided to those 
     cancers that have low survival rates or individuals with 
     advanced disease), including the development of model 
     systems; and
       ``(3) evaluating overall activities to identify optimal 
     designs and essential components for cancer practices and 
     models to improve the coordination of cancer care services 
     and activities.
       ``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate 
     findings made as a result of activities conducted under this 
     section to the public in coordination with the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services, or other appropriate Federal agencies.''.

           TITLE VI--ESTABLISHING PROGRAMS IN PALLIATIVE CARE

     SEC. 601. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE PALLIATIVE CARE.

       Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     added by section 501), is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 399DD. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE PALLIATIVE CARE.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award 
     competitive grants to eligible entities to develop, 
     implement, and evaluate model programs for the delivery of 
     palliative care throughout all stages of disease for 
     individuals with cancer (with a special emphasis on children) 
     and their families.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; an 
     academic institution; a hospice program; a palliative care 
     program; a program offering a continuum of hospice care, 
     palliative care, and other appropriate care to children and 
     their families; a nonprofit organization; a State health 
     agency; a health center; a cancer center; or any other entity 
     determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary 
     an application at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant under this section to--
       ``(1) integrate palliative care with such entities as 
     academic institutions, community organizations, hospice 
     programs, hospitals, cancer patient and survivorship 
     organizations, health care providers, cancer centers, or 
     other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
       ``(2) conduct outreach and education activities to 
     encourage the dissemination of evidence-based clinical best 
     practices relating to palliative care;
       ``(3) increase public awareness, including outreach 
     campaigns, particularly to underserved populations;
       ``(4) disseminate evidence-based information to health care 
     providers and individuals with cancer and their families 
     regarding available palliative care programs and services;
       ``(5) provide and evaluate education and training programs 
     in palliative care for health care providers, including--
       ``(A) establishing pilot training programs (including 
     faculty training programs) in medicine, including oncology 
     (including pediatric oncology), family medicine, psychiatry, 
     psychology, pain, nursing, pharmacology, physical therapy, 
     occupational therapy, social work, and other relevant 
     disciplines; or
       ``(B) developing, implementing, and evaluating pilot 
     training programs for the staff of hospices, nursing homes, 
     hospitals, home health agencies, outpatient care clinics, and 
     other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
       ``(6) design or implement model palliative care programs 
     for individuals with cancer and their families including 
     improving access to clinical trials, where appropriate;
       ``(7) develop and evaluate pilot programs to address the 
     special needs of children or other underserved populations 
     and their families in palliative care programs;
       ``(8) conduct demonstration projects to enhance or develop 
     online support networks for individuals with cancer and their 
     families, including those networks for individuals who are 
     homebound, and develop other methods to reach underserved 
     cancer patients; or
       ``(9) determine whether strategies developed for palliative 
     care for individuals with cancer and their families would be 
     applicable to individuals with other diseases.
       ``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate 
     findings made as a result of activities conducted under this 
     section to the public in coordination with the Director of 
     the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, and the heads other appropriate Federal 
     agencies.''.

             TITLE VII--ESTABLISHING SURVIVORSHIP PROGRAMS

     SEC. 701. PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORSHIP.

       Subpart 1 of Part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) (as amended by section 
     101), is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417F. PROGRAMS FOR SURVIVORSHIP.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     and support research regarding the unique health challenges 
     associated with cancer survivorship and carry out 
     demonstration projects to develop and implement post-
     treatment public health programs and services including 
     followup care and monitoring to support and improve the long-
     term quality of life for cancer survivors, including 
     children.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     competitive grant under this section if such entity is an 
     academic institution, nonprofit organization, State health 
     agency, cancer center, health center, or other entity 
     determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this 
     section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant under this section to plan, implement, and 
     evaluate demonstration projects that--
       ``(1) design protocols for followup care, monitoring, and 
     other survivorship programs (including peer support and 
     mentor programs);
       ``(2) increase public awareness about appropriate followup 
     care, monitoring and other survivorship programs (including 
     peer support and mentor programs) by disseminating 
     information to health care providers and survivors and their 
     families; and
       ``(3) support programs to improve the quality of life among 
     cancer survivors, referenced by the quality of cancer care 
     measures developed under section 417E (where appropriate), 
     with particular emphasis on underserved populations, 
     including children.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.''.

     SEC. 702. CANCER CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       Section 412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     285a-1) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``cancer and for rehabilitation and counseling respecting 
     cancer.'' and inserting ``cancer and for survivorship, 
     rehabilitation, and counseling respecting cancer.'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and the families of 
     cancer patients'' and inserting ``the families of cancer 
     patients, and cancer survivors''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``diagnosis, and 
     treatment and control of cancer'' and inserting ``diagnosis, 
     treatment, survivorship programs, and control of cancer.''.

               TITLE VIII--PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE

     SEC. 801. PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE.

       Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     amended by section 601), is further amended by adding the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399EE. PROGRAMS FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE.

       ``(a) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall award 
     competitive grants to eligible entities to develop, 
     implement, and evaluate evidence-based programs for the 
     delivery of quality of cancer care during the end-of-life to 
     individuals with cancer (with a special emphasis on children) 
     and their families.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--An entity is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if such entity is a hospital; an 
     academic institution; a hospice program; a palliative care 
     program; a program offering a continuum of hospice care, 
     palliative care, and other appropriate

[[Page S8765]]

     care to children and their families; a nonprofit 
     organization; a State health agency; a health center; a 
     cancer center; or any other entity determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this 
     section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant under this section to--
       ``(1) integrate palliative care or end-of-life care 
     programs with entities including academic institutions, 
     community organizations, hospice programs, hospitals, cancer 
     patient and survivorship organizations, health care 
     providers, cancer centers, or other entities determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary;
       ``(2) conduct outreach and education activities to 
     encourage the dissemination of evidence-based clinical best 
     practices relating to end-of-life care;
       ``(3) increase public awareness, including outreach 
     campaigns, particularly to underserved populations;
       ``(4) disseminate information to health care providers and 
     individuals with cancer and their families regarding 
     available end-of-life programs, including hospice programs;
       ``(5) provide and evaluate education and training in end-
     of-life care for health care providers, including--
       ``(A) establishing pilot training programs (including 
     faculty training programs) in medicine including oncology 
     (including pediatric oncology), family medicine, psychiatry, 
     psychology, pain, nursing, pharmacology and social work, and 
     other disciplines; or
       ``(B) developing, implementing, and evaluating pilot 
     training programs for the staff of hospices, nursing homes, 
     hospitals, home health agencies, outpatient care clinics, and 
     other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary;
       ``(6) design or implement model end-of-life care programs 
     for individuals with cancer and their families including 
     improving access to clinical trials where appropriate;
       ``(7) develop and evaluate pilot programs to address the 
     special needs of children or other underserved populations 
     and their families in end-of-life programs;
       ``(8) integrate palliative care and hospice care activities 
     in the delivery of end-of-life care; or
       ``(9) determine whether strategies developed for end-of-
     life care for individuals with cancer and their families 
     would be applicable to individuals with other diseases.
       ``(e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate 
     findings made as a result of activities conducted under this 
     section to the public in coordination with the Director of 
     the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, and the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies.''.

                TITLE IX--DEVELOPING TRAINING CURRICULA

     SEC. 901. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.

       Part R of title III of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     amended by section 801), is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 399FF. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award competitive 
     grants for the development of curricula for health care 
     provider training regarding the assessment, monitoring, 
     improvement, and delivery of quality of cancer care.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an entity shall be an academic institution, 
     nonprofit organization, cancer center, health center, medical 
     school, or other entity determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(c) Application.--An entity desiring a grant under this 
     section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An entity shall use amounts received 
     under a grant under this subsection to--
       ``(1) evaluate methods of delivery of the quality of cancer 
     care, including palliative care, hospice care, end-of-life 
     care, or cancer survivorship by health care providers;
       ``(2) develop curricula concerning the delivery of quality 
     of cancer care including palliative care, hospice care, end-
     of-life care, or cancer survivorship; and
       ``(3) provide recommendations for training protocols for 
     medical and nursing education, fellowships, and continuing 
     education in quality of cancer care including palliative 
     care, hospice care, survivorship, or end-of-life care for 
     health care providers.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2010.''.

     SEC. 902. CANCER CARE WORKFORCE AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH.

       (a) Cancer Control Programs.--Section 412 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Director of the Institute'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) annual and long-term training goals to assure an 
     adequate and diverse cancer care workforce including--
       ``(A) preparing and implementing a plan to provide 
     assistance to health professionals in health professions 
     experiencing the most severe shortages including the 
     provision of grants, scholarships, fellowships, post-doctoral 
     stipends, or loans to eligible individuals to increase the 
     cancer care workforce; and
       ``(B) educating students of health professions and health 
     professionals in--
       ``(i) effective methods for the prevention and early 
     detection of cancer;
       ``(ii) the identification of individuals with a high risk 
     of developing cancer;
       ``(iii) improved methods of patient referral to appropriate 
     centers for early diagnosis and treatment of cancer;
       ``(iv) methods to deliver culturally competent care; and
       ``(v) other appropriate methods for providing quality of 
     cancer care; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Coordination With Existing Programs.--In carrying out 
     the activities under subsection (a)(2), the Director of the 
     Institute shall coordinate with existing programs, including 
     programs at the Health Resources and Services Administration, 
     to prevent duplication.''.
       (b) National Cancer Research and Demonstration Centers.--
     Section 414(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     285a-3(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(3) clinical training (including training for allied 
     health professionals), loan forgiveness or post-doctoral 
     stipends for bench researchers, continuing education for 
     health professionals and allied health professionals, and 
     information programs for the public regarding cancer; and''.
       (c) Translational Cancer Research.--Subpart 1 of part C of 
     title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 414 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 414A. TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of the Institute, in 
     collaboration with the Director of the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality shall enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, and make grants to, public or nonprofit entities to 
     conduct multidisciplinary, translational cancer research.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Institute may use 
     funds provided under this section to establish networks and 
     partnerships to link community cancer providers to programs 
     funded under this section.
       ``(2) Construction of New Facilities.--Funds provided under 
     this section shall not be used for the construction of new 
     facilities.
       ``(c) Strategic Plan.--Not later than October 1, 2006, the 
     Director of the Institute shall develop and implement a 
     strategic plan, in collaboration with entities performing 
     translational research, for identifying, expanding, and 
     disseminating the results of translational cancer research to 
     health care providers.
       ``(d) Duties.--An entity receiving a grant under this 
     section shall--
       ``(1) conduct research with the potential to improve the 
     prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer and to improve 
     the quality of cancer care, including palliation;
       ``(2) conduct clinical research studies on promising cancer 
     treatments including clinical trials; and
       ``(3) evaluate tests, techniques, or technologies in 
     individuals being evaluated for the presence of cancer.
       ``(e) Definition of Translational Cancer Research.--As used 
     in this section, the term `translational cancer research' 
     means scientific laboratory and clinical research and testing 
     necessary to transform scientific or medical discoveries into 
     new approaches, products, or processes that can assist in 
     preventing, diagnosing, or controlling cancer.''
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 417B(a) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a-8(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting ``2010''.

                  TITLE X--BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER

     SEC. 1001. WAIVERS RELATING TO GRANTS FOR PREVENTIVE HEALTH 
                   MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO BREAST AND CERVICAL 
                   CANCERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1503 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300m) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Waiver of Services Requirement on Division of 
     Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the requirements 
     under paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a) if--
       ``(A)(i) the State involved will use the waiver to leverage 
     private funds to supplement each of the services or 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     1501(a); or
       ``(ii) the application of such requirement would result in 
     a barrier to the enrollment of qualifying women;
       ``(B) the Secretary finds that granting such a waiver to a 
     State will not reduce the number of women in the State that 
     receive each of the services or activities described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1501(a), including making 
     available screening procedures for both breast and cervical 
     cancers; and
       ``(C) the Secretary finds that granting such a waiver to a 
     State will not adversely affect the quality of each of the 
     services or activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     section 1501(a).
       ``(2) Duration of waiver.--

[[Page S8766]]

       ``(A) In general.--In granting waivers under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary--
       ``(i) shall grant such waivers for a period of 2 years; and
       ``(ii) upon request of a State, may extend a waiver for 
     additional 2-year periods in accordance with subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(B) Additional periods.--The Secretary, upon the request 
     of a State that has received a waiver under paragraph (1), 
     shall, at the end of each 2-year waiver period described in 
     subparagraph (A), review performance under the waiver and may 
     extend the waiver for an additional 2-year period if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(i)(I) without an extension of the waiver, there will be 
     a barrier to the enrollment of qualifying women; or
       ``(II) the State requesting such extended waiver will use 
     the waiver to leverage private funds to supplement each of 
     the services or activities described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of section 1501(a);
       ``(ii) the waiver has not, and will not, reduce the number 
     of women in the State that receive each of the services or 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     1501(a); and
       ``(iii) the waiver has not, and will not, result in lower 
     quality in the State of each of the services or activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1501(a).
       ``(3) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary shall include 
     as part of the evaluations and reports required under section 
     1508, the following:
       ``(A) A description of the total amount of dollars 
     leveraged annually from private entities in States receiving 
     a waiver under paragraph (1) and how these amounts were used.
       ``(B) With respect to States receiving a waiver under 
     paragraph (1), a description of the percentage of the grant 
     that is expended on providing each of the services or 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2) and paragraphs 
     (3) through (6) of section 1501(a).
       ``(C) A description of the number of States receiving 
     waivers under paragraph (1) annually.
       ``(D) With respect to States receiving a waiver under 
     paragraph (1), a description of the number of women receiving 
     services under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     1501(a) in programs before and after the granting of such 
     waiver.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1510(a) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300n-5(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and all that follows 
     through the period, and inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.''.

                      TITLE XI--COLORECTAL CANCER

     SEC. 1101. PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.

       Title XV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300k 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1511. COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
     shall award competitive grants to public and nonprofit 
     private entities to enable such entities to establish 
     demonstration programs pursuant to the general authority of 
     title III to carry out colorectal screening activities 
     including--
       ``(1) screening asymptomatic individuals as determined by 
     the Secretary in accordance with category A or B 
     recommendation rating of the U.S. Preventive Service Task 
     Force or as otherwise determined by the Secretary;
       ``(2) providing appropriate case management and referrals 
     for medical treatment of individuals screened pursuant to 
     this section;
       ``(3) establishing activities to improve the education, 
     training, and skills of health professionals (including 
     allied health professionals) in the detection and control of 
     colorectal cancer, as a part of their participation in the 
     screening program established under the grant;
       ``(4) evaluating the programs under this section through 
     appropriate surveillance or program monitoring activities;
       ``(5) developing and disseminating findings derived through 
     such evaluations and outcomes data collection; and
       ``(6) promoting the benefits of and participation in the 
     colorectal cancer screening program established under the 
     grant.
       ``(b) Requirements.--
       ``(1) Priority.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall agree with respect to 
     activities and services under the grant to target low-
     income--
       ``(A) individuals who are at least 50 years of age; or
       ``(B) individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (as 
     defined in section 1861(pp)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(pp)(2))).
       ``(2) Relationship to items and services under other 
     programs.--To be eligible for a grant under subsection (a), 
     an entity shall agree that grant funds will not be expended 
     to make payments for any item or service to the extent that 
     payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be 
     made, with respect to such item or service--
       ``(A) under any State compensation program, under an 
     insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health 
     benefits program; or
       ``(B) by an entity that provides health service on a 
     prepaid basis.
       ``(3) Records and audits.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall agree that the entity will--
       ``(A) establish such fiscal control and fund accounting 
     procedures as may be necessary to ensure proper disbursal of, 
     and accounting for, amounts received under this section; and
       ``(B) provide agreed upon annual reports to the Secretary 
     or the Comptroller of the United States for the purposes of 
     auditing the expenditures by the entity.
       ``(4) Reports.--To be eligible for a grant under subsection 
     (a), an entity shall agree to submit to the Secretary such 
     reports as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.''.

                     TITLE XII--CONDUCTING REPORTS

     SEC. 1201. STUDIES AND REPORTS BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.

       (a) Contract.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract 
     with the Institute of Medicine to--
       (1) evaluate Federal and State activities relating to 
     comprehensive cancer control programs and activities;
       (2) evaluate the quality of cancer care (including 
     palliative care, end-of-life care, and survivorship) that 
     medicare and medicaid beneficiaries receive and the extent to 
     which medicare and medicaid coverage and reimbursement 
     policies affect access to quality cancer care;
       (3) evaluate data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services and other agencies on volume-outcome relationships;
       (4) evaluate access to clinical trials and the relationship 
     of such access to the quality of cancer care, especially with 
     respect to health disparity populations; and
       (5) assess existing gaps in and impediments to the quality 
     of cancer care, including gaps in data, research and 
     translation, seamless patient care and navigation, palliative 
     care, and care provided to underserved populations.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Institute of Medicine shall submit 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report 
     containing information on the evaluation conducted under 
     paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a), including data 
     collected at the State level through contracts with 
     appropriate organizations as designated by the Institute of 
     Medicine.
       (2) 8 years.--Not later than 8 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Institute of Medicine shall submit 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a report 
     containing information and recommendations on the areas 
     described in subsection (a), including data collected from 
     relevant demonstration projects.
       (3) Reports.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall submit the reports described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     to the relevant committees of Congress.
       (c) Definitions.--
       (1) Palliative care; quality of cancer care.--The terms 
     `palliative care' and `quality of cancer care' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 399AA of the Public 
     Health Service Act.
       (2) Comprehensive cancer control program.--The term 
     `comprehensive cancer control program' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 320B of the Public Health Service Act.
       (3) Health disparity population and health disparities 
     research.--The terms ``health disparity population'' and 
     ``health disparities research'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 399AA of the Public Health Service Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague 
Senator Bill Frist in introducing this bipartisan legislation to 
improve the prevention and treatment of cancer. The Quality of Care for 
Individuals with Cancer Act is a result of the combined efforts of many 
in the cancer community, including patients, families, cancer 
survivors, and health providers. Its goal is to see that as many of our 
fellow citizens as possible are able to obtain state-of-the-art cancer 
care.
  The Nation's continuing investment in medical research in the past 
decade has led to many new and innovative options in cancer treatment 
and prevention. We all want to believe that when a loved one or someone 
we know is diagnosed with cancer, they will benefit from the latest and 
most effective treatments. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
  Many cancer patients receive the wrong care, too little care, or even 
too much care. Colon cancer is 85 percent curable if it is detected 
early through screening. Yet today less than half of all Americans who 
should be screened for colon cancer are actually screened. If we do not 
act to correct these problems, over a quarter of a million parents, 
sons and daughters, will die from this curable cancer in the next 5 
years.
  Much more can be done to extend the reach of high-quality cancer care 
and

[[Page S8767]]

reduce this burden of unnecessary suffering and premature death. New 
discoveries of science can be brought much more quickly from the 
research laboratory to the bedside of the patient and to the practice 
of medicine in all communities.
  Our bill will help assure that the care of cancer patients is 
coordinated from diagnosis through successful treatment. The quality of 
end of life care will be significantly improved. Needed programs will 
be established to meet the ongoing needs of cancer survivors and their 
families.
  Health care provider training will make the latest in cancer care 
available through improved education and networking. Patients will have 
access to providers who know how to deliver the most effective cancer 
treatment at the right time and in the right way.
  Today, the best in medical research is too often not available to 
treat and cure many different types of cancer, especially leukemia, 
breast cancer, and prostate cancer. The treatments will vary for each 
patient, but the standard of excellence in cancer care should be widely 
available to all. Enactment of this legislation will bring that day 
closer, and I look forward to its enactment, its implementation, and 
the benefits it will bring to so many of our fellow citizens in the 
years ahead.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 2772. A bill to promote the development of the emerging commercial 
human space flight industry, to extend the liability indemnification 
regime for the commercial space transportation industry, to authorize 
appropriations for the Office of the Associate Administrator for 
Commercial Space Transportation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the 
Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions Act also known as the 
Space CHASE Act.
  Because Oklahoma has significant history in aviation, I believe it is 
well positioned to be a leading State in the up-and-coming commercial 
space industry.
  Since 1910, beginning with Charles F. Willard who only flew a few 
hundred yards in a south Oklahoma City field, Oklahomans have been 
flying.
  The following year, Clyde Cessna, an automobile dealer from Enid who 
later formed the Cessna Aircraft Company, flew his mono-wing airplane 
near Jet, OK.
  Such early flights in Oklahoma continued and in 1929 perhaps one of 
the most notable aviation events occurred in Waynoka, OK, where Charles 
Lindbergh stopped on the first transcontinental passenger air and rail 
service.
  By 1931, Wiley Post, from Maysville, OK, gained international 
recognition when he flew around the world in a little over 8 days. In 
July 1991, I had the honor of recreating Post's trip on its 60th 
anniversary.
  Oklahoma's aviation history does not stop there. On November 2, 1929, 
26 licensed women pilots founded what was known as the 99 Club, or the 
Ninety-Nines. It was called so at the suggestion of its first 
president, Amelia Earheart, because of the 117 licensed women pilots in 
America who were contacted about joining the club, only 99 actually 
joined. The South Central Section of the 99 Club comprising several 
States including Oklahoma, has through the years, issued several 
publications and in 1962, Mary Lester of the Oklahoma Chapter created a 
new version of the Club's publication, the Ninety-Nine News. Today, the 
99 club is an international organization of licensed women pilots from 
35 countries, with its international headquarters at Will Rogers World 
Airport in Oklahoma City.
  In 1999, the Oklahoma State Legislature established the Oklahoma 
Space Industry Development Authority OSIDA to create a commercial 
spaceport that will ``expand and economically develop the space 
frontier with advanced spacecraft operating facilities.'' Furthermore, 
OSIDA's mission is to carry out this vision with ``. . . deliberate and 
forceful . . . planning and development of spaceport facilities, launch 
systems and projects, and to successfully promote and stimulate the 
creation of space commerce, education and space related industries in 
Oklahoma.''
  In March of 2001, I appealed to NASA, on behalf of the Oklahoma Space 
Industry Development Authority, to receive nearly a quarter of a 
million dollars in grant money. Part of this grant is paid for the 
opening of the Oklahoma Spaceport. My efforts to build a space industry 
in Oklahoma are coming to fruition with that March 2002 launch of 
``Dark Sky Station,'' from the Spaceport in Burns Flat. The rest of the 
money from the NASA grant went to nine other organizations around the 
State, dedicated to providing space-related education.
  I applaud OSIDA for this aggressive economic plan and, as a result, 
know of 15 companies that have entered into Memoranda of Understanding 
with OSIDA: Armadillo Aerospace; Space Development; XCOR Aerospace; 
Zero Gravity; Pioneer Rocketplane; Vela Technology; Rocketplane, Ltd.; 
JP Aerospace; TGV Rockets; JP Skylaunch; Space Adventures; Jim Schouten 
Enterprises; Universal Spaceliners; Takeoff Technologies; and Space 
Assets.
  Oklahoma is also home to business done by other such companies and 
entities as: Beyond-Earth Enterprises, which is helping to revitalize 
the passion of space travel by providing payload launch capabilities at 
affordable rates; the Global Space League, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit 
institution which takes science experiments from students, kindergarten 
through university level, to remote places normally accessible only to 
professional scientists; and HighShips, which is in the business of 
developing innovative lighter-than-air flying vehicles.
  Several communities in southwestern Oklahoma stand to either benefit 
from, take part in, or have synergies with commercial space development 
including: Burns Flat which boasts the third longest runway in North 
America, Sayre, Frederick, Elk City, Hobart and Altus Air Force Base. I 
look forward to working with these communities in the future, such as 
with Oklahoma House District 63 Representative Don Armes.
  I encourage any and all companies and individuals who would like to 
become involved in the commercial space industry to come to 
southwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma welcomes space industries with these 
features; Tax and Financial Incentives, Oklahoma Quality Job Program: 
Quarterly cash payments of 5% of new payroll for 10 years; Investment 
Tax Credit: Credit equal 1% of the investment in depreciable property 
for 5 years-doubles in this Enterprise zone; Sales/Use Tax Refund: 
Refunds tax paid on construction materials in new manufacturing 
facility; Property Tax Exemptions: 5-year abatement on 100 percent of 
property tax on new investment in manufacturing space; Sales/Use Tax 
Exemption: Available for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, 
including property consumed; Accelerated Federal Property 
Depreciations: Provides approximately 40 percent shorter recovery 
period for depreciable property on Indian land.

  Training Incentives: Vocational Technology School free to employees; 
customized assistance in employee screening; job training partnership 
program.
  Financing: Oklahoma Finance Authority low cost loans; venture capital 
program facilitated by the agency; bonding by the agency; business 
financial assistance.
  Site Specifics: existing available buildings: Hangars, office space, 
maintenance, warehouses; over 13,500 feet runway, ramp space; 3,000 
acres of open space; utilities, infrastructure in place; rail spur, 
major Interstate Highway access; more than 340 days of clear skies; 
polar and ISS orbit launch windows available; no environmental issues; 
site geology supports any type of construction.
  Please come to Oklahoma to advance commercial space exploration and 
avail yourself of Oklahoma's benefits.
  Coming from Oklahoma's distinguished aviation heritage and innovative 
activity in the aerospace sector, as well as my experience as a 
commercially licensed pilot instructor, I rise today to introduce what 
I believe is a bill to benefit current and future aerospace companies 
in Oklahoma and throughout our entire Nation.
  This legislation came to fruition after I facilitated many 
negotiations between the Federal Aviation Authority, the House Science 
Subcommittee

[[Page S8768]]

on Space and Aeronautics, the Senate Commerce Committee, aerospace 
companies and the Oklahoma Space Industrial Development Authority.
  My language adds to H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments 
Act of 2004, which updates the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, by 
accounting for a new class of sub-orbital launch vehicles that use 
hybrid technology--a combination of rocket and jet engines--to create a 
fair approach to future civilian suborbital flights.

  In this legislation to advance the commercial space community, I have 
successfully covered hybrid aerospace vehicles.
  By defining a sub-orbital vehicle as a rocket-propelled vehicle, ``in 
whole or in part, intended for flight on a sub-orbital trajectory, and 
whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-
powered portion of its ascent,'' aerospace companies will now face less 
regulation than with previous definitions for this type of vehicle.
  Under my language, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation will now have sole regulation authority for sub-orbital 
hybrid vehicles, and will now be appropriately considered and licensed 
as launch vehicles. By this classification, aerospace companies such as 
Rocketplane, which utilizes hybrid technology, will now avoid being 
forced to go through a lengthy two-step licensing process formerly 
required for both launch vehicles and commercial aircraft and will have 
the opportunity to be licensed to carry civilian passengers much more 
quickly.
  In addition to the definition of sub-orbital flight, I am also proud 
of the indemnification and insurance provisions of this legislation 
which make it possible for small companies to enter into this business 
field, and am happy to create the new ``experimental permit'' 
framework.
  I know that my colleagues, House Science Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher and Committee Chairman Boehlert, and 
their aide, Timothy Hughes, have worked diligently to update the 
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 by introducing and passing H.R. 
3752.
  I particularly want to thank my fellow Oklahoman and House Science 
Committee member Frank Lucas for requesting my involvement in this 
legislation, along with requests from Oklahoma State Senator Gilmer 
Capps, Oklahoma State Representative Jack Bonny, Oklahoma Lieutenant 
Governor Mary Fallon, and the Oklahoma Space Industry Development 
Authority, Congressman Lucas' colloquy with Chairman Boehlert on the 
floor the House of Representatives on March 4, 2004, speaks of his 
interest in ensuring that this very commercial space legislation 
include hybrid vehicles that fly a bit like rockets and a bit like 
airplanes:

       Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
     consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for the 
     purposes of a colloquy.
       Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
     gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
     Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) bringing this important bill to the 
     floor, because the emerging commercial human space flight 
     industry presents tremendous opportunities for my State of 
     Oklahoma and our Nation as a whole. I am particularly 
     appreciative of this bill's intent to ease the regulatory 
     burdens for entrepreneurs who are developing new suborbital 
     reusable launch vehicles.
       Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
       Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New 
     York.
       Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
     kind words. He is correct in stating that this legislation 
     seeks to put in place sufficient Federal regulation to 
     protect the general public while also promoting this 
     important new industry.
       Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some 
     suborbital reusable launch vehicles that will be used in 
     commercial human space flight activities may have some 
     attributes normally associated with airplanes as well as many 
     attributes of rockets. My hope is that such hybrid vehicles 
     would not have to be regulated under two separate regimes. 
     What are the chairman's views on this matter?
       Mr. Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for that question.
       This is a very important issue on which we have worked 
     extensively with industry and the executive branch in 
     developing this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 3752 
     incorporates definitions promulgated by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to distinguish between suborbital rockets, 
     which are under the jurisdiction of FAA's Associate 
     Administrator for Commercial Space Transport, and other 
     aerospace vehicles which are regulated by another part of the 
     FAA. That said, I would be happy to keep working with the 
     gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and other interested 
     parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important 
     issue of how best to regulate hybrid vehicles that are 
     engaged in commercial human space flight.
       Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and I look 
     forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in 
     the other body to see if we can create a single regime for 
     hybrid commercial space flight vehicles.

  While I realize H.R. 3752 creates fairness in regulation for the 
newly emerging civilian space flight industry, I believe my language 
takes it a step further by ensuring all companies entering this field 
have a level licensing playing field including those using hybrid 
technologies.
  These are exciting times for this field of human endeavor. We are 
currently in the middle of a competition for the ANSARI X PRIZE. This 
competition is a courageous effort to refocus society's attention on 
the last frontier--space. To win the $10 million ANSARI X PRIZE, the 
successful team will launch a craft carrying at least three people to 
an altitude of at least 100 km, 62.5 miles, return safely to Earth, 
then repeat it with the same craft within 2 weeks.
  With pilot Mike Melvill, the Burt Rutan team made a flight on June 
21, 2004, but control problems prevented the repeat flight within the 2 
weeks.
  This brilliant concept of the Ansari X Prize exemplifies the 
excellence that can be achieved through an incentivized approach rather 
than a governmental mandate or punitive approach. Incentivize and 
safely get government out of the way is the philosophy of my bill. 
Tempt not only the pocketbook but the vision of anyone who has the 
creativity and imagination to pursue it.

                          ____________________