Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations:

1. Vice Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, for appointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Commander, United States Northern Command/ Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command;

2. Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for appointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Southern Command;

3. Peter Cyril Wyche Flory to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy; and

4. Valerie Lynn Baldwin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Regulation N.M.S. and Developments in Market Structure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Bridging the Tax Gap.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``The Multilateral Development Banks.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 1230, a bill to provide for additional responsibilities for the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security relating to geospatial information.

2. S. 2347, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Access Act of 1999 to permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition assistance programs established under the Act.

3. S. 2409, a bill to provide for continued health benefits coverage for certain federal employees.

4. S. 2628, a bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel, and for other purposes.

5. S. 2536, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004.

6. S. 2635, a bill to establish an intergovernmental grant program to identify and develop homeland security information, equipment, capabilities, technologies, and services to further the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments.

7. S. 2657, a bill to amend part III of title 5, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of programs under which supplemental dental and vision benefits are made available to Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents, to expand the contracting authority of the Office of Personnel Management, and for other purposes.

8. S. 2639, a bill to reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

9. S. 2275, the High Risk Nonprofit Security Enhancement Act of 2004.

10. S. 593, Reservists Pay Security Act of 2003.

11. H.R. 3797, the 2004 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.

Post Office Naming Bills

1. S. 2501/H.R. 4427, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ``Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office''.

2. S. 2640, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1050 North Hills Boulevard in Reno, Nevada, as the ``Guardians of Freedom Memorial Post Office Building'' and to authorize the installation of a plaque at such site, and for other purposes.

3. H.R. 3340, an act to redesignate the facilities of the United States Postal Service located at 7715 and 7748 S. Cottage Grove Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``James E. Worsham Post Office'' and the ``James E. Worsham Carrier Annex Building'', respectively, and for other purposes.

4. H.R. 4222, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George Post Office Building''.

5. H.R. 4327, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7450 Natural Bridge Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Vitilas `Veto' Reid Post Office Building''.

6. H.R. 4380, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office Building''.

Nominations

1. Neil McPhine to be Chairman, Merit Systems Protection Board.

2. Barbara J. Sapin to be a Member, Merit Systems Protection Board.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004.

Agenda

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on pending legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 519, the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``An Overview of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Helen Bandley Houghton, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, Jacksonville, AK; Rita Torres, Surprise, AZ.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families and Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet for a joint hearing on The Needs of Military Families: How Are States and the Pentagon Responding, Especially for the Guard and Reservists? during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004., at 2 p.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on how States have responded to military families' unique challenges during military deployments and what the Federal Government can do to support States in this important work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 738, to designate certain public lands in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California, as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes; S. 1614, to designate a portion of White Salmon River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2221, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange certain National Forest System land in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 2253, to permit young adults to perform projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, and provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps; S. 2334, to designate certain National Forest System Land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and S. 2408, to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and cosponsor Senator Jay Rockefeller as we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004. Senators Rockefeller and Collins, along with Senator Wyden, sponsored a bill with similar goals in the 107th Congress and have provided invaluable support and counsel in drafting the bill we introduce today.

The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 has a simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for medical care near the end-of-life should they become unable to make decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living will, stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just that.

Americans are afraid of death. We don't like to think about it, talk about it, or plan for it. Any yet, we will all face it. Not only our own deaths, but our parents, siblings, friends, and sometimes, tragically, children. Today, most Americans face death unprepared. Family members frequently end up making critical medical decisions for incapacitated patients, yet they, too, are unprepared. Only 15 to 20 percent of adults have advance directives. Among this group, many have not discussed the contents of these important documents with their families or even the person named as the health care proxy.

It is time to bring this discussion into the mainstream. Too much is at stake to continue to deny our mortality. You all know about the tragic situation going on in Florida with Terri Schiavo. Here is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state who is the subject of a debate about her treatment between her husband and her parents, a debate that has now become a court case and a legislative quagmire. Why? Because she didn't write down what type of care she would want in the event an accident, illness or other medical condition caused her to be in an incapacitated state. She is young and didn't think about death or dying. If she had an advance directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy to make decisions for her should she be unable to do so for herself, the treatment debate might continue, but there would be no question as to who could decide. The Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that competent adults have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill, 1997, but it also stressed that advance directives are a means of safeguarding that right should adults become incapable of deciding for themselves.

Fortunately, situations like Mrs. Schiavo's are rare. Of the 2.5 million people who die each year 83 percent are Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, 27 percent of Medicare expenditures cover care in the last year of life. Remember, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will die on Medicare. The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act encourages all Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by providing a free physician office visit for the purpose of discussing end-of-life care choices and other issues around medical decision- making in a time of incapacitation. Physicians will be reimbursed for spending time with their patients to help them understand situations in which an advance directive would be useful, medical options, the Medicare hospice benefit and other concerns. The conversation will also enable phyisicans to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too often unaddressed.

Another part of our bill will provide funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a public education campaign to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where consumers could receive state-specific information and consumer- friendly documents and publications.

State-specific information is needed because in addition to the federal Patients Self-Determination Act passed in 1990, most states also have enacted advance directive laws. Because the state laws differ, some states may be reluctant to honor advance directives that were executed in another state. The bill we introduce today contains language that would make all advance directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one state to another. As long as the documents were lawfully executed in the state of origin, they must be accepted and honored in the state in which they are presented, unless to do so would violate state law.

All of the provisions in the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2004 are there for one reason: to increase the number of people in the United States who have advance directives, who have discussed their wishes with their physicians and families, and who have given copies of the directives to their loved ones, health care providers, and legal representatives.

Senator Rockefeller and I all believe that as our Medicare population grows and life expectancy lengthens, improving care near the end of life must be a priority. Helping people complete these critical documents is an essential part of making the final journey as meaningful and peaceful as possible.

Over the next decade or two our elderly population will grow. Baby- boomers, used to having control of

their lives and demanding the best, will be stunned to discover that good end-of-life care is hard to find. I recommend to all of you a report called Means to a Better End: A Report on Dying in America Today that was published in November 2002 by Last Acts Partnership. In it, every state and the District of Columbia was rated on eight different criteria to assess the state of end-of-life care in this country. Not one state--not mine, not yours--received a high grade. Some did well in one or two areas, but none did well in half or more of the measures; all were mediocre at best. The researchers found that too many people end their days in hospitals and nursing homes, attached to machines, alone, in pain. Doctors, not wanting to admit ``failure,'' as many of them see death, urge aggressive treatments such as chemotherapy on patients who have little chance of responding to it. Pain medication is often underprescribed or withheld for fear that the dying patient-- dying patient--might become addicted to the drug.

The good news is that growing numbers of health care providers, nonprofit organizations and consumer advocates recognize the need for change. New palliative care programs, pain protocols and hospice services are being instituted in facilities around the country. Another Last Acts Partnership publication, On the Road from Theory to Practice highlights the best programs and practices for others to emulate.

This body is a legislative institution not a medical one--with the exception of the distinguished majority leader, of course. We cannot legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can participate in improving end-of-life care--first, by filling out their own advice directives and talking to their families about them; and by raising their voices to demand that our health care systems honor their wishes and improve the way they care for people who are near the end of life. If we can do that, we will have done a great deal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I also ask that a letter of support for this legislation from the Last Acts Partnership also be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce the Medicare Preventive Services Coverage Act of 2004, and to be joined by Senator Richard Durbin.

This legislation would change the basic charter of Medicare to one that not only diagnoses and treats, but also prevents illness.

On July 30, 1965, Medicare was created under title 18 of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance coverage for the elderly.

The coverage provided through the program was limited to diagnostic and treatment services that were considered reasonable and necessary.

There was little demand to cover preventive services under Medicare or any other health plan at that time because we were not yet cognizant of the vital role of prevention on the health and quality of human life.

The basic charter of Medicare reflects this lack of understanding.

However, since Medicare's inception, we have learned a lot about the enormous burden of chronic disease on our Nation.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, more than 1.7 million Americans die of a chronic disease each year, accounting for about 70 percent of all deaths.

Not only does chronic disease lead to a majority of deaths and disabilities in America, it also accounts for about 75 percent of health care costs each year, placing a huge economic demand on our Nation.

Medicare bears a lion's share of this cost. In 2003, Medicare spent nearly $7,000 per beneficiary; much of this cost is attributable to treating chronic illnesses.

The percentage of the population over age 65 has increased dramatically and will continue to do so. This will place an even greater economic burden on Medicare.

What is the bottom line? In short, Medicare cannot afford this spiraling cost.

The good news is that we now have decades of research demonstrating that although chronic diseases are the most common and costly of all health problems, they are also the most preventable.

For example, according to the CDC regular eye exams and timely treatment could prevent up to 90 percent of diabetes related blindness.

Eye chart screening for visual acuity is currently recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, but is not covered by Meidcare.

The impact of prevention on chronic disease is well known by the President's Secretary for Health and Human Services.

HHS Secretary Thompson said in September 2003:

There is clear evidence that the costs of chronic

conditions are enormous, as are the potential savings from

preventing them, even if there may not always be agreement on

the exact amounts of these cost savings.

He goes on to say:

. . . the Nation simply cannot afford not to step up

efforts to reverse the growing prevalence of chronic

disorders. Resources and energy need to be marshaled in all

sectors and at all levels of society.

Partnership for Prevention, a Washington, DC, think tank on health policy takes Thompson's comments one step further. A recent Partnership report makes the following logical assumption:

As the primary source of health insurance coverage for

millions of older Americans and persons with permanent

disabilities, Medicare has the potential to have a

substantial impact on the health of beneficiaries by

promoting and covering cost-effective preventive services.

Congress has added coverage for some preventive services over the last two decades, including the flu vaccine, mammograms, and cancer screening.

As HHS does not have the authority to add preventive services to Medicare--despite the growing body of evidence that has proved their efficacy--these benefits were only added to Medicare because of congressional action.

The benefits that Congress have added are extremely important, and I am glad that we have taken the steps to make them available to our seniors.

However, the congressional process is slow, and subject to political winds and influences that are not always based purely in science.

The legislation I am introducing would change the basic charter of Medicare from a program focused on diagnosing and treating illnesses to one that also prevents illnesses by giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make coverage decisions for preventive services.

Why change the current system of passing legislation each time we want to add coverage of preventive service to Medicare? There are some very logical reasons.

The reliance on Congress to cover preventive services has resulted in: Coverage for only half of clinical preventive services that experts recommend for the 65+ age group; coverage that not only fails to keep up with changes in scientific evidence but is often in consistent with authoritative recommendations; a confusing array of cost sharing requirements across covered preventive services; and lack of coverage of some preventive services that provide great health benefits in favor of others that do not meet current evidence standards as a result of vocal advocacy groups.

Luckily, the fundamental reform of the program that I am proposing does not require extensive statutory or bureaucratic change.

Medicare already has a process in place for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make coverage decisions on diagnostic, treatment, and durable medical equipment options.

My bill would authorize the Secretary to make coverage decisions on preventive services using that same process, based on the recommendations of the federally-convened United States Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF, and other groups.

This authorization would not entail dramatic new administrative expenses or a major reorganization of CMS coverage processes and staff.

My legislation would put preventive services on an equal footing with diagnostic and treatment services by allowing the Secretary to make coverage decisions for all services needed to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness.

Providing beneficiaries with the most cost-effective and current preventive services should no longer require an ``Act of Congress.''

It should, instead, require the insight of the experts in the field, and be based on the same careful process HHS is currently using.

Let us untie their hands and improve the lives of our Medicare beneficiaries by building coverage of preventive services into the currently established coverage decision process.

This legislation is supported by the following groups: American College of Preventive Medicine; HealthPartners; Deafness Research Foundation; Partnership for Prevention; American Dietetic Association; American Public Health Association; Families USA; American Physical Therapy Association; American Academy of Family Physicians; United Cerebral Palsy Association; National Mental Health Association; Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the Emergency Department Practice Management Association.

If Medicare were created today, it would certainly not exclude coverage of preventive services.

Today we know how important preventive services are; they save money and lives. Let us give Medicare the authority to do its job.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print letters of support from the above- listed groups in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, that will strengthen the content and pedagogy knowledge of our present K-12 teacher workforce and thus ultimately raise student achievement.

My proposal would establish eight new Teacher Professional Development Institutes throughout the Nation each year over the next five years based on the model which has been operating at Yale University for over 25 years. Every Teacher Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and thus, an increase in student achievement.

The Teacher Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 25 years, the Institute has offered six or seven thirteen-session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the specific subject area that they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, or topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students.

The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success: Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and as part of the program, practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands-on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. In short, by allowing teachers to determine the seminar subjects and providing them the resources to develop relevant curricula for their classroom and their students, the Institutes empower teachers. Teachers know their students best and they know what should be done to improve schools and increase student learning. The Teacher Professional Development Institutes promote this philosophy.

From 1999-2002, the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute launched a National

Demonstration Project to create comparable Institutes at four diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. These demonstration projects are located in Pittsburgh, PA, Houston, TX, Albuquerque, NM, and Santa Ana, CA.

Follow-up evaluations have earned very positive results from the teacher participants in the Yale-New Haven Institute, as well as the four demonstration sites. The data strongly support the conclusion that virtually all teachers felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and they also developed increased expectations for what their students could achieve. In addition, because of their involvement in the course selection and curriculum development process, teacher participants have found these seminars to be especially relevant and useful in their classroom practices. Ninety-five percent of all participating teachers reported that the seminars were useful. These Institutes have also served to foster teacher leadership, to develop supportive teacher networks, to heighten university faculty commitments to improving K-12 public education, and to foster more positive partnerships between school districts and institutions of higher education.

By some studies, teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. In support of this, the No Child Left Behind Act requires a ``highly qualified'' teacher to be in every classroom by the end of 2005-2006. Effective teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the success of a teacher in the classroom and in helping them meet the highly qualified criteria.

Though a K-12 teacher shortage is forecast in the near-term and many new teachers will be entering our schools, those teachers who are presently on the job will do the majority of teaching in the classrooms in the very near future. For this reason, it is imperative to invest in methods to strengthen our present teaching workforce. Like many professions, the quality of our teachers could diminish if their professional development is neglected. Research has shown that positive educational achievements occur when coursework in a teachers' specific content area is combined with pedagogy techniques. This is what the Teacher Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish.

The Yale-New Haven Institutes have already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliper curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. My proposal would open this opportunity to many more urban teachers throughout the nation.

I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will strengthen consumer confidence in the safety of genetically engineered food and genetically engineered animals that may enter the food supply. This bill, known as the Genetically Engineered Food Act (GEFA) of 2004, requires the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct an environmental and safety review of all genetically engineered plants and animals that may enter the food supply.

Our country has been blessed with one of the safest and most abundant food supplies in the world but we can do better. Genetically engineered foods have become a major portion of the American food supply and promise to become a larger part in the future. The next generation of genetically engineered foods will be more complex, will possess more novel genetic variations and will challenge regulatory agencies' ability to assess and manage their food safety and potential environmental effects.

Currently, the FDA screens genetically engineered foods through a voluntary consultation program. Despite assurances from the FDA for the past two years that the proposed and more stringent ``pre-market biotechnology notification'' (PBN) rules governing genetically engineered foods were imminent, those rules have yet to appear.

The Genetically Engineered Food Act of 2004 will create a transparent process that promotes public participation as decisions are made regarding the safety and environmental impact of genetically engineered plants and animals.

This bill will make the review process mandatory in place of the current voluntary system, which will reduce the chance that a potentially harmful product could bypass or receive inadequate regulatory oversight. The measure will establish unambiguous and predictable pathways for developers of genetically modified foods to gain approval to go to market and will ensure consumer confidence in the integrity of the system through a fully transparent review process.

An improved regulatory system for genetically engineered foods will boost consumer confidence in biotechnology derived foods, give federal agencies clear legal authority to deal with new technology and provide a process to detect problems even after genetically engineered foods are approved.

The Genetically Engineered Food Act of 2004 will strengthen government oversight in several important ways.

Mandatory Review: Producers of genetically engineered foods will be required to receive approval from the FDA before introducing their products into interstate commerce. The FDA will ensure, based on the best scientific evidence, that genetically engineered foods are just as safe as comparable food products before allowing them on the market.

Public Involvement and Transparency: In order for our country to gain the benefits that genetically engineered plants and animals can offer as additional sources of food, public confidence must be maintained in the safety of these products. My bill will provide for public involvement in the approval process by providing information to consumers, and giving them the opportunity to provide comments. Adding transparency will increase the public's understanding and confidence in the safety of these animals as they enter the food supply.

Scientific studies and other materials submitted to the FDA as part of the mandatory review of genetically engineered foods will be made available for public review and comment. Members of the public will be able to submit any new information on genetically engineered foods not previously available to the FDA and request a new review of a particular genetically engineered food product even if that food is already on the market.

Testing: The FDA, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, will be given the authority to conduct scientifically-sound testing to determine whether genetically engineered foods are inappropriately entering the food supply.

Communication: The FDA and other Federal agencies will establish a registry of genetically engineered foods for easy access to information about those foods that have been cleared for market. The genetically engineered food review process will be fully transparent to give the public access to all non-confidential information.

Environmental Review with Respect to Animals: While genetically engineered foods such as corn and soybeans are already part of our food supply, genetically engineered animals will also soon be ready for market approval. These animals hold much promise as an additional source of food for our nation. However, we must ensure not only the safety of these genetically engineered animals as they enter the food supply, but also the impact of these animals as they come in contact with the environment.

The provisions of my bill are consistent with the recommendations made in the 2004 National Academy of Sciences report, ``Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms''; the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2004 report, ``Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals''; and the 2004 report from the Ecological Society of America, ``Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment''.

The FDA has a mandatory review process in place that is used to review the food safety of genetically engineered animals before they enter the food supply. However, this bill will provide the FDA with additional oversight authorities to address the potential environmental impact of genetically engineered animals prior to their safety approval.

Environmental issues have been identified as a major science-based concern associated with genetically engineered animals. Therefore, to obtain approval to market a genetically engineered animal, the developer must include an environmental assessment that analyzes the potential effects of the genetically engineered animal on the environment. A plan must also be in place to reduce or eliminate any negative effects. If the environmental assessment is not adequate, approval will not be granted.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to strengthen consumer confidence in the safety of genetically engineered foods and genetically engineered animals that may enter the food supply. The Genetically Engineered Foods Act of 2004 will help provide the public with the added assurance that

genetically engineered foods and animals are safe to produce and consume. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.