SAVE Reauthorization Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consumers Having Options in Cable Entertainment, CHOICE, Act of 2006. This bill would encourage broadcasters and cable companies that own cable channels to sell their channels individually to subscribers. It would also promote cable programming distribution over the Internet.

For almost 10 years I have supported giving consumers the ability to buy cable channels individually, also known as a la carte, to provide consumers with more control over the viewing options in their home and their monthly cable bill. Cable companies have resisted this and have continued to give consumers all the ``choice'' of a North Korean election ballot. There is only one option available: buy a package of channels, whether you watch all the channels or not. The alternative is to not receive cable programming at all. Why have cable companies and cable programmers refused to give consumers the ability to buy and pay for only those channels consumers watch? Simply because they do not have to. They are the only game in town. But not for long, I hope.

Telephone companies have realized that consumers want more and are poised to provide consumers across the nation with an alternative to the local cable company. Many of these telephone companies, including AT&T, are also ready to offer consumers the ability to purchase channels a la carte. Such companies will offer two crucial benefits to consumers: more competition in the video service provider market, and more options for programming packages. Together, these two offerings will allow consumers to have greater control over the content that enters the home and the ability to manage their monthly cable bills.

According to a Government Accountability Office, GAO, report, in communities where there are two cable companies competing for customers, cable rates are 15 percent less than in communities without any competition. A subsequent GAO study suggests that in some markets the presence of another cable competitor may reduce rates by an astounding 41 percent. Unfortunately, today less than 5 percent of communities have two companies competing to provide consumers cable television service.

The CHOICE Act would help bring competition to the cable television market. Choice in cable television delivery is long overdue for consumers who have suffered steep rate hikes year after year. Since 1996, cable rates have increased 58 percent or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, has found that rates increased 7 percent in 2001 and 2002, and 5 percent in 2003. The FCC's most recent report found that rates again rose 5 percent in 2004, double the rate of inflation, but only 3.6 percent where the local cable company faced competition. I can only imagine the savings consumers could reap if presented with a choice of providers of cable service and a choice of channels. For this reason I call on Congress to pass the CHOICE Act.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans would like to buy cable channels individually and an AP/Ipsos poll found that a remarkable 78 percent of Americans would like to do so. According to Nielsen Media Research, households receiving more than 70 channels only watch, on average, about 17 of these. Consumers know that they could have greater control over their monthly bill if given the ability to choose their channels. This was recently confirmed by the FCC. This year the FCC found that consumers could save as much as 13 percent on their monthly cable bills if they could buy only the channels they want.

Mr. President, consider the situation of a senior citizen on fixed income living in Sun City, Arizona, who watches only a few news and movie channels, but continues to pay for high priced channels such as ESPN, Fox Sports, and MTV--channels that other consumers enjoy, but channels that certain seniors may not want and possibly cannot afford. In fact, the general manager of the Sun City cable system has told my staff that he has tried to drop several expensive music video channels from the company's channel lineup to make room for channels his viewers want to receive and to decrease costs, but the owners of the music video channels have forbid him to do so without serious repercussions. So the residents of Sun City continue to subsidize the cost of these channels for viewers around the country. That is why AARP, representing 35 million senior citizens, supports the ability for viewers to buy channels on an a la carte

basis. But again, cable companies don't have to listen to these 35 million viewers because there is no real threat of losing them. They have nowhere to turn.

The CHOICE ACT, Mr. President, is not a mandate on cable providers. Instead it is designed to encourage choice and competition by granting significant regulatory relief to video service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, that agree to both offer cable channels on an a la carte basis to subscribers and to not prohibit any channel owned by the video service provider from being sold individually. In exchange, video service providers would receive the right to obtain a national franchise; would be permitted to pay lower fees to municipalities for the use of public rights of way; would benefit from a streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' for the calculation of such fees; and would gain a prohibition on the solicitation of institutional networks, in-kind donation, and unlimited public access channels.

In addition, broadcasters that have an ownership stake in a cable channel would get the benefit of the FCC's network non-duplications rule if the broadcaster does not prohibit the channel from being sold individually. The FCC's network non-duplication rule provides exclusivity for broadcasters by not allowing another broadcaster with the same network affiliation from broadcasting in the same community. The bill would also modify Section 616(a) of the Communications Act that currently prohibits video service providers from using coercion or retaliatory tactics to prevent cable channels from making their services available to competing companies to extend this provision to distribution over the Internet.

For example, if Time Warner Cable offered CNN, a cable channel it owns, on an a la carte basis to its cable subscribers and allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute CNN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Time Warner Cable would be eligible for a national franchise and other regulatory relief. If Disney, which owns ESPN, allowed other cable companies, satellite companies, and video programmers who choose to distribute ESPN to make it available on an a la carte basis, Disney's ABC broadcast stations would have the benefit of the FCC's network non- duplication rule.

Mr. President, contrary to what some might want the American people to believe, the CHOICE Act does not force video service providers or broadcasters to do a single thing. It is their choice whether to act or not act. The bill provides them with such a choice even though they currently don't provide meaningful choices to their customers. This bill is incentive-based legislation that would encourage owners of cable channels to make channels available for individual purchase and would do nothing to prevent cable companies from continuing to offer a bundle of channels or tiers of channels.

The cable industry regularly touts the value of its package of channels, noting that it costs less than taking a family of four to a movie or professional sporting event. However, watching cable television is not always a family event. Several channels have programming that consumers find objectionable or that parents believe is unsuitable for young children. Complaints about indecent cable programming have increased exponentially in recent years. In 2004, the FCC received 700 percent more cable indecency complaints than it received in 2003. Most of the cable programs about which indecency complaints have been filed with the FCC aired during hours when many children are watching television.

Cable and satellite companies currently provide subscribers with a variety of methods of blocking the audio and video programming of any channel that they do not wish to receive. However, subscribers are still required to pay for these channels that they find objectionable. The ``v-chip'' does not effectively protect children from indecent programming carried by video programming distributors. Most of the television sets currently in use in the United States are not equipped with a v-chip; of the 280 million sets currently in United States households, approximately 161 million television sets are not equipped with a v-chip. Households that have a television set with a v-chip are also likely to have one or more sets that are not equipped with a v- chip.

Again, Mr. President, I am aware that not all consumers want to block and not pay for certain channels, but shouldn't all consumers have the choice to do so? Cable programmers and broadcasters have started offering individual television programs for download on the Internet. This is the purest form of a la carte--where one can watch and pay for only specific programs they choose. In addition, many of these same broadcasters and cable programmers make their channels available for individual purchase in Hong Kong, Canada, and other countries. Why do these cable programmers treat the American cable subscriber differently than a subscriber in Hong Kong or Canada or an Internet user? It remains unclear.

Lastly, Mr. President, I know that the cable programmers and broadcasters will not be the only group that may have some concerns with this bill. Many of my friends in local government are also likely to be interested in the reduced ``rights of way'' fee and streamlined definition of ``gross video revenue'' under this bill. Cable companies pay these fees to municipalities to use the right-of-way land under sidewalks, streets and bridges to reach customers' homes and then pass these fees on to subscribers. However, these fees often surpass the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land, and municipalities use these funds for other expenditures. Just last month at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Michael A. Guido, Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan, confirmed that these fees are often used to pay for other city expenses, such as emergency vehicles.

In 2004, State and local governments collected approximately $2.4 billion in these fees, slightly more than $37 per year from every household subscriber. Americans for Tax Reform believes that the ``franchise fee is just a stealth tax on our consumption of the cable television,'' as do other economists and taxpayer advocacy groups. To this end, the legislature in my home state of Arizona just recently passed a bill to reduce such fees and taxes on cable television subscribers.

The Phoenix Center, a non-partisan legal and economic think tank, has found that the introduction of competition to cable companies could allow the fee to be lowered ``significantly without doing any harm to local governments.'' Based upon this research, the CHOICE Act would reduce the fee from 5 percent to 3.7 percent for eligible video service providers and allow local governments to petition the FCC for a higher fee if it is necessary to cover the costs of managing ``rights of way'' land. I believe this would provide some real cost savings to cable subscribers.

I remain open to working with municipalities on this issue and look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that American consumers receive greater options for affordable and acceptable television viewing. Mr. President, I hope the introduction of the CHOICE Act furthers the debate on the issue of a la carte channel selection and I look forward to the Senate's consideration of the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act.'' My State of Hawaii is home to 115,000 veterans, nearly 18,000 of whom avail themselves of VA health care. Unfortunately, the level of care provided to those living on Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the Big Island--is not at the optimal level. My legislation would significantly improve the level of care the veterans residing in Hawaii have so bravely earned.

Hawaii is undoubtedly an exceptional place to make one's home, and its population continues to grow each year. As such, the number of veterans seeking VA health care has grown. However, the level of services provided to Hawaii's veterans has failed to keep pace. Additionally, each day more veterans are returning home to Hawaii from the Global War on Terror, including Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that these brave men and women receive adequate care. It is equally critical that today's veterans receive needed long- term care and mental health care.

My bill would ensure that care and facilities are optimized, that the burden of VA personnel is diminished, and that veterans throughout the state receive specialized care. Specifically, my legislation calls for new Community Based Outpatient Clinics and Vet Centers in areas that desperately need additional health care facilities, as well as expanding services at those already in existence. Satellite clinics providing both medical care and mental health counseling would be opened on the islands of Molokai and Lanai, which currently lack VA facilities. Staff levels at existing clinics and Vet Centers would be increased to compensate for these new clinics and to provide needed community-based long-term care, such as home care. My legislation also authorizes the construction of a $10 million mental health center on the grounds of Tripler Army Medical Center, which will include an inpatient Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder residential treatment program.

That our veterans receive the long-term care to which they are entitled is of major concern to me. In fact, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, of which I am Ranking Member, held a hearing on the potential demand for long-term care just this May. I would like to point out that the VA Center for Aging in Honolulu--the only VA nursing home in the State--has a mere 60 beds. This is nowhere near sufficient to care for the number of veterans who reside there. Furthermore, community nursing home beds are limited. Given the dearth of nursing home beds, both VA and community, the Neighbor Islands Veterans Health Care Improvements Act authorizes a medical care foster program on the Island of Oahu. Modeled on the successful Medical Care Foster Program at the Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, such a system places veterans in a permanent foster home, allowing them to remain in the community while receiving the care they need.

Because I believe specialized care, such as orthopedics and opthamology, are limited on the neighbor islands, the bill directs that VA fully study the provision of such care. VA would then be required to make a formal determination as to the adequacy of specialized care. I may seek to direct improvements in this area at a later date.

This bill is vital to those veterans residing in Hawaii. Though they may live far from the other veterans on the mainland, they are just as entitled to quality health care.

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

Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce legislation that would enhance the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) ability to provide mental health and other specialized services to its patients. At a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we ensure that all veterans have access to top quality mental health care, whether they visit a VA hospital or clinic.

At the time of its creation, the VA health care system was tasked with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Those veterans who suffered from spinal cord injuries, amputations, blindness, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, and homelessness required unique forms of treatment and rehabilitation. During the past few decades, VA has emerged as the industry leader in providing specialized services to these types of patients. Much of VA's expertise in these areas remains unparalleled in the larger health care community-- particularly with regard to mental health care.

However, it is with great dismay that I rise today, as VA's specialized programs are in jeopardy due to budget constraints. Increased demand and flatline budget increases over the past

few years have literally starved the system. Sadly, this problem is not a new one. Back in 1996, Congress recognized the merits of these specialized programs and that they could be vulnerable to cuts because of their smaller scale. As such, we enacted legislation that required VA to retain its capacity to provide specialized services at the levels in place at the time of the bill's passage in 1996, and to annually report as to the status of its compliance with this requirement.

Despite this effort by Congress and the actions of my predecessors on this Committee to subsequently strengthen the original legislation to protect VA's specialized services, VA continues to underfund and cut back resources for these vital programs. Additionally, VA has employed measures such as counting dollars according to 1996 levels to appear as if they are in compliance. In the area of mental health care, this has been especially true. My proposed legislation amends the statute to ensure that capacity funding levels are adjusted for inflation. We need to be talking about real dollars--not 1996 dollars--to get a true sense of VA's capacity to care for veterans with mental health needs.

This legislation would also mandate that VA carry out a number of measures designed to improve mental health and substance abuse treatment capacity at Community-Based Outpatient Clinics and throughout the VA system. Currently, many clinics do not even provide mental health services at all. My bill would ensure that at least 90 percent of all clinics can provide mental health services, either onsite or through referrals. Furthermore, it would establish more comprehensive performance measures to provide incentives for clinics to maintain mental health capacity, for primary care doctors to screen patients for mental illness, and require that every primary health care facility be able to provide at least five days of inpatient detoxification services.

Finally, the bill seeks to foster greater cooperation between VA and the Department of Defense (DoD) in treating servicemembers and subsequently veterans who suffer from some form of mental health or readjustment disorder. It has been estimated that anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the men and women who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will require treatment for a mental health issue. The bill would direct the two Departments to agree upon standardized separation screening procedures for sexual trauma and mental health disorders, as well as establish a joint VA-DoD Workgroup to examine potential ways of combating stigma associated with mental illness, educate servicemembers' families, and make VA's expertise in the field of mental health more readily available to DoD providers.

We still have much work to do in the area of mental illness associated with service in the armed forces. But this bill is a step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill, for it not only seeks to combat disorders that can be very debilitating, but it also would protect specialized services that are at the heart of VA's mission.

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

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation that will expand the services available to our Nation's veterans and their dependents, and improve the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide health care services to this same group of deserving Americans. I take a few moments now to explain the provisions of this legislation.

First, the bill would, in section 2, exempt veterans enrolled for VA care from all copayments for hospice care services provided by VA. Over the past several years, VA has greatly expanded its efforts to provide compassionate end-of-life care for our Nation's heroes. Last year, Congress made efforts to ensure that the surviving spouses and children would not receive bills for such services following the deaths of such veterans who were in the hospice program. Unfortunately, last year's legislation did not go far enough, and today some veterans' families are still paying for this care. This provision would end that practice in all hospice care settings.

Section 3 of the bill would exempt former Prisoners of War from copayments that are applicable to care in a VA extended care facility. Congress has already exempted this deserving group of veterans from other VA medical copayments, and this provision would complete the range of services available to these veterans free of charge. In addition, this section bill would remove the requirement that VA maintain the exact number of nursing home care beds in VA facilities as it had during fiscal year 1998. Now before some suggest that I am advocating the reduction in services available to veterans, I'd like to explain how the current requirement came about and why I believe it should be reconsidered.

The requirement that VA maintain a specified level of nursing home beds was inserted into the law in 1999 when Congress enacted legislation to expand options for non-institutional, long-term care services available to veterans. At that time, some felt that by growing the non-institutional care program, VA would seek simply to shut all of its institutional care capacity. So in a compromise, Congress decided that fiscal year 1998 would be the year against which changes in the institutional care program would be measured. And then it required that VA maintain all of the beds it had in 1998.

Since 1998, VA has increased the number of veterans it treats by nearly 2 million. Yet, year after year, VA reports to Congress that it does not need to maintain the number of nursing home beds required by law. Does that mean VA is closing beds unnecessarily? No. It means VA has followed the progress of medicine and is offering tens-of-thousands of veterans non-institutional care services while keeping them at home rather than in VA nursing home beds. I do not believe that Congress should continue to mandate the maintenance of an arbitrarily-determined number of beds in a system that is trying to effectively use every dollar it can to provide real and needed services to our veterans. This provision reflects that belief.

The fourth section of the legislation, if enacted, would ensure that veterans who seek emergency medical services at the nearby community medical facilities are treated no differently financially than if the care had been provided at a VA medical facility. This is an important issue in the provision of quality health care for our veterans. VA has some evidence that veterans who need emergency services are bypassing local medical facilities, and are attempting to ``make it'' to a VA facility even in the face of an emergency, because of concerns that VA's reimbursement policies for non-VA provided

emergency care will result in the veteran paying more out-of-pocket costs. Clearly, that is not the kind of behavior Congress wants to encourage in our veterans. Nor is it good medicine. This provision would clarify once and for all that veterans will be treated equally regardless of where emergency care treatment is sought.

Section 5 of the bill would authorize VA to provide or pay for up to the first fourteen days of care for a newborn child of an enrolled female veteran who delivers her baby under VA provided, or VA financed, care. As most of my colleagues know, VA provides what it calls a ``comprehensive package of health benefits for eligible veterans.'' Unfortunately, for the increasing number of female veterans enrolling for VA care, the word ``comprehensive'' does not include coverage for a newborn's first few days of needed care. This type of arrangement is common in the private sector. In my judgment, this is an issue we must address to assure our female service members that, as more and more of them join the service and change the face of the American military, we will make certain that the face of VA changes right along with it.

Section 6 would allow private health care providers to recoup costs for care provided to children afflicted with spina bifida of Vietnam veterans--children who are, by law, entitled to VA-provided care--when the costs are not fully covered by VA reimbursements. This so-called ``balance billing'' authority would prohibit charging individual patients or veterans themselves. Only a beneficiary with private insurance could have his or her insurance cover charges not covered by VA. This provision is important because it will provide a financial incentive to many providers who, unfortunately in some cases today, are not willing to provide the very specialized services needed by these children because some costs are not reimbursed by VA at a sufficient rate.

Section 7 of this bill would increase the authorized level of funding for the Homeless Grant and Per Diem Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know all of my colleagues would agree that any man or woman who served this country in uniform should not be among the unfortunate Americans who find themselves on the street without shelter. VA has made tremendous strides in this area by providing grant programs, health care services, mental health treatment, and other assistance to those veterans who do find themselves on the street. This provision would ensure that good programs remain on track for the foreseeable future.

The eighth section of this bill would authorize VA medical centers to employ Marriage and Family Therapists. I realize that to some of my colleagues this may sound as though VA is beginning to become a family health care system and not a veterans' health care system. I want to assure any who harbor such concerns that this is not the intention or the purpose of this proposed authority. Rather, this proposal seeks to recognize that for some veterans, the trauma and experiences of war may lead to troubles at home. Often in these situations, treatment as a family is more effective for the betterment of the veteran. Of course, preservation of the family is an extremely important byproduct of this treatment approach as well. I do not believe it is incompatible with the mission of treating our veterans to focus on their family well- being when it is appropriate. The military is offering many of these services already to those who are returning from overseas. These programs are receiving good reviews from those in the mental health and counseling professions. It seems only logical that we extend successful ideas from the military experience to our veterans.

Section 9 would provide pay equity for the national Director of VA's Nursing Service. Currently, this position is paid at a rate that is less than all of the other service chiefs at VA's Central Office. I believe correcting this inequity is not only a matter of fairness, but a long overdue recognition that VA's nursing service is just as important to the provision of health services for our veterans as the pharmacy service, the dental service, and other such services within

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the Internal Revenue Code.

The bill I am introducing today with Senator Schumer is designed to restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar taxpayers similarly.

The bill I am introducing today would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same.

Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. If a person invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the pocketbook of the beholder.

Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.

Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have a diverse colony of artists, collectors and gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.

Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.

Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.

When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of public good.

Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long- term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.

I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.

In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered ``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.

Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.

Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes from collectors.

Collecting isn't just for the hoity toity. It seems that everyone collects something. Some collections are better investments than others. Some collections are just bizarre. The Internet makes collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, and guns are a few such ``collectibles.''

For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has created a tax predicament to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on any appreciation over your purchase price.

The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.

Internal inconsistency number two deals with the charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big difference. As the law stands now, an artist/creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. The bill I am introducing will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.

It's important to note that this bill includes certain safeguards to keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of AGI limit. I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.

I hope my colleagues will help me put this internal consistency into the Internal Revenue Code.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds.

The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind.

In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade.

These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet.

Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it.

The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future.

The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries.

While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better.

Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States.

In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two

years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

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