American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2006, and thereafter.

An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation--DIC--payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependants of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases.

The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a 2.3 percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index--CPI--published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2.3-percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Senate has already concurred with that judgment with passage of a budget resolution which assumes an increase equal to the CPI and which sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation.

I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

I request unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation that I have introduced today that will improve insurance and housing benefits available for our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. The ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'' would increase the maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, and Veterans' Group Life Insurance, VGLI, coverage from $250,000 to $400,000; would require the Secretary of Defense to notify spouses of insured servicemembers when those servicemembers elect an SGLI beneficiary other than their spouse or when they elect to reduce SGLI coverage amounts; would provide a two-year, post-discharge window within which totally disabled veterans might elect to convert their insurance coverage from SGLI to VGLI; and would provide flexibility to VA's hybrid adjustable rate mortgage program so that servicemembers and veterans might use their VA home loan benefits in conjunction with this popular type of mortgage financing.

There already has been a great deal of discussion in the 109th Congress about the adequacy of benefits for the survivors of those who have lost their lives in service. There has also been a great deal of action. Section 1012 of Public Law 109-13, the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,'' made improvements to the SGLI program. However, section 1012 also specified that the SGLI improvements made in the act be terminated effective September 30, 2005, and that the law as it existed prior to the enactment of Public Law 109-13 be revived on that date. As I understand it, the purpose of the termination language was to give the committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I

chair in the Senate--the opportunity to proceed with proposals that would put a more permanent stamp on changes to the SGLI program.

Towards that end, and consistent with the changes enacted in Public Law 109-13, section 2(a) of my legislation would increase the maximum amount of SGLI and VGLI coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 effective October 1, 2005. SGLI coverage meets the insurance needs of servicemembers and Reserve members; VGLI coverage is available to meet the insurance needs of veterans as they transition out of military or naval service. The higher amount of coverage in my bill, in combination with other Federal assistance provided by VA, the Department of Defense, and the Social Security Administration, would provide for a more appropriate level of financial assistance for survivors of insured servicemembers and veterans. For example, the surviving spouse of an Army Sergeant killed in action who has two dependent children would have eligibility for up to $625,186 in lump-sum benefit assistance from the Federal government.

In addition, section 2(a) of the legislation I have introduced today would require the Secretary of Defense to notify, in writing, the spouses of servicemembers who elect either to name beneficiaries other than their spouses, or who elect to reduce their SGLI coverage. Under existing law, servicemembers have the right to name the insurance beneficiary of their choice. There are, however, some incidences of spouses of married servicemembers being left without adequate insurance for themselves or their children because they were unaware of the insurance decisions the servicemembers had made. I believe the spousal notification requirement in my bill strikes an appropriate balance between the long-standing rights of servicemembers to make their own, unfettered insurance choices, and the rights of spouses to be informed of matters that may impact on their future financial stability.

Turning to the insurance needs of severely disabled servicemembers, section 2(b) of this bill would extend for 1 year the period within which totally disabled veterans discharged from service might apply to convert their SGLI coverage to VGLI coverage. Under current law, servicemembers discharged from service have a 120-day grace period within which they are provided premium-free coverage under SGLI and may convert to VGLI coverage without needing to meet underwriting requirements. Servicemembers separated from service who are totally disabled may apply for an extension of the free SGLI coverage and VGLI conversion benefit that lasts up to one year after military discharge. There are two benefits of applying for the 1 year extension. The first is that SGLI coverage during the 1 year period is provided at no cost to the servicemember. The second is that the application for extension also serves as an application for automatic conversion from SGLI to VGLI. The opportunity to convert life insurance coverage to VGLI is essential for totally disabled veterans, many of whom have no hope of obtaining commercial insurance coverage.

VA's Insurance Service conducts targeted outreach to severely disabled veterans in an attempt to encourage them to apply for the 1 year extension of SGLI and conversion to VGLI benefit. However, information obtained from this outreach effort reveals that many severely disabled veterans are not taking advantage of the extension because they are precluded from post-separation financial planning by the effects of their disabilities and their need to focus on rehabilitation. Preliminary data obtained from VA suggest only 45 percent of totally disabled servicemembers apply for the extension despite VA's outreach effort. My legislation will provide 1 additional year within which severely disabled veterans may apply. The extra year will give VA more time--a total of 2 years after their discharge from the military--to reach veterans when they are perhaps more able to focus on their financial planning needs.

Finally, section 3 of the legislation I have introduced today would provide VA with greater flexibility to set appropriate interest rate cap protections on hybrid ARM loans it guarantees. Under existing law, VA has the authority to guaranty hybrid ARM loans through fiscal year 2008. Hybrid ARM loans are a new, and popular, financing option for borrowers that features a fixed period of interest on a loan for between 3 and 10 years followed by a period of annual adjustments thereafter. For VA hybrid ARM loans with an initial fixed rate of 5 or more years, VA may prescribe the maximum increase of the initial adjustment and the maximum adjustment permitted over the life of the loan. These interest rate ``caps'' are common in the mortgage financing industry, and serve to protect borrowers against wild upward swings in interest rates that might make a borrower more likely to default. However, unlike the flexibility given to VA to set caps for the initial adjustment and for the aggregate adjustment for the life of a loan, the law specifically limits annual interest rate adjustments after the initial adjustment to one percentage point. I am informed by industry and VA experts that without providing VA with greater flexibility to set an appropriate interest rate cap for annual adjustments, lenders will either be reluctant to make VA hybrid ARM loans available to veterans, or will require that veterans pay higher interest rates than otherwise would be required. My legislation would provide VA with the flexibility it needs to fix this problem.

Mr. President, the provisions of this legislation are important for veterans and their loved ones. We must give greater peace of mind to the families of those serving in the military, especially during a wartime period, that their Government has made available to them life insurance coverage to meet their basic financial needs in the event of death. We must give every opportunity for severely wounded servicemembers, many with war wounds, to remain insured under a government life insurance policy if their injuries might preclude them from being covered at reasonable cost under a private policy. And we must ensure that we remain flexible with mortgage industry standards so that veterans have the greatest array of financing options available to them when seeking to partake in the American dream of home ownership. My bill will accomplish all of these things and I ask my colleagues for their support of it.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to add my name today as a cosponsor of the Combat Meth Act of 2005, S. 103. I want to thank Senator Talent and Senator Feinstein for their leadership on this issue. I have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on a new version of the bill that I understand will be offered in the Judiciary Committee as a substitute when the bill is marked up, and I am very pleased to support this new version of the Combat Meth Act.

Meth is a highly addictive and particularly destructive drug that can be manufactured from widely available household items. In the last 5 years, the use of this terrible drug has skyrocketed, both nationally and in my home State of Wisconsin. When I talk to prosecutors and police officers from Wisconsin, they consistently tell me that meth use is the most daunting problem they are facing. They tell me that meth is the single most harmful drug--to addicts, families, children, communities, and the environment--that they have ever dealt with. This bill gives law enforcement officials a chance to stem the growing tide of meth use by restricting access to the cold medicines that are commonly used to make meth and by providing funds for programs that have been shown to combat the meth problem. The bill targets those who purchase over-the-counter drugs for the purpose of manufacturing meth, while still allowing law-abiding Americans to have adequate access to the cold medicines they need.

Methamphetamine is derived from pseudoephedrine, a chemical that is found in most common cold medicines. Meth ``chefs'' can manufacture the drug by buying large quantities of cold medicine, mixing it with other common chemicals, and heating it. This process can occur nearly anywhere and requires only limited knowledge and experience. Even beginners can easily manufacture this drug.

Given how easy it is it make, it is not surprising that meth use has been increasing rapidly. A recent report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse finds that meth use has swept across the country, starting in Southern California and moving steadily eastward. The situation has become particularly dire in the Midwest, where meth use accounts for more than 90 percent of all drug prosecutions. Literally millions and millions of individuals have reported using meth--and this trend shows no signs of slowing. Meth cases in my home State of Wisconsin have gone up 500 percent in just the last 4 years, from 101 prosecutions in 2000 to 545 in 2004. And Wisconsin is doing much better than many other Midwestern States thanks to proactive efforts by state officials in the late 1990s, before meth had taken hold, to educate communities about the dangers of meth and the need for prevention. These education and prevention efforts paid off, keeping the number of meth labs relatively low in Wisconsin compared to neighboring States, but the problem remains a very serious one.

Both the manufacture and the use of meth have devastating consequences for users and those around them. In the short-term, even occasional meth use leads to a whole host of physical and psychological problems. It causes inflammation of the heart lining, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. It causes damage to the nervous system and creates abscesses on the skin. It also attacks the brain, leading to bouts of paranoia, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meth's long-term effects are even more destructive. It has highly addictive properties, quickly turning occasional users into desperate addicts. Meth addicts often go for days without eating or sleeping. They suffer from a variety of heart ailments and can sustain permanent and often irreversible

brain damage. The drug's effect on the brain also leaves addicts vulnerable to the entire spectrum of mental health problems, from paranoia and depression to aggression and psychosis. And the drug's chemical effects are particularly insidious, meaning that addicts often require extended detoxification periods before they can begin treatment.

Sadly, meth's harmful effects are not confined to its users. The process of manufacturing meth creates unique environmental hazards that can poison surrounding communities. Cooking the chemicals that create meth can lead to explosions, fires, and the release of noxious gases. Remnants from the procedure are often washed down the drain or dumped in the ground, where they can contaminate local water sources.

Another related danger of significant meth use in a community is an increased crime rate. Meth addicts often resort to violence to gain access to the materials they need or to the money they must have to sustain their addiction. Additionally, people who are high on meth are disposed to aggressive and violent behavior. The results are apparent. For example, local news reports indicate that Eau Claire County in Wisconsin, which has been hard hit by the meth problem, has seen a significant increase in meth-related crimes as meth use has become more prevalent. This drug does not just poison users; it can affect entire communities.

And in the unkindest cut of all, children who are exposed to meth manufacturing or use can be scarred for life. Children of meth addicts are exposed to toxic fumes and volatile chemicals, resulting in potentially serious health problems, and they are often abused or neglected by those in the throes of addiction.

This problem calls for immediate Federal action. When Oklahoma was the first State earlier this year to pass a law that successfully restricted access to pseudoephedrine, the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine grew noticeably in neighboring States. The Oklahoma experience shows that States acting alone cannot address what has become a national meth problem. We need a law that creates national standards for the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine and puts the resources of the Federal Government behind the effort to stop meth use.

The new version of the Combat Meth Act provides the national response that we need. It attacks the meth problem at all stages of the process: It gives State and local officials the tools they need to prevent the sale of products used to make meth, to investigate and prosecute meth manufacturers, and to treat meth addicts and protect the children they harm.

This bill helps prevent meth use by restricting the sale of ingredients needed to manufacture meth. Under the new bill, cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine will be placed behind pharmacy counters and purchasers will only be able to buy 7.5 grams of the product per month--more than enough for people who really need the medicine but not enough for those who are buying the medicine to make meth. It requires people purchasing pseudoephedrine products to sign a written log, but I am pleased that the new version of the bill ensures the privacy of this potentially sensitive medical information by allowing the information to be used only to find individuals who might be purchasing these products to make meth. The bill also provides funding to States to monitor the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine.

The Combat Meth Act gives States the resources they need to bring meth manufacturers to justice. It provides money for training programs for State and local law enforcement and expands the scope of currently effective meth investigation and clean-up programs. Once meth producers and traffickers are found, this bill helps put them behind bars by hiring additional Federal prosecutors, training local prosecutors in Federal and State meth laws, and cross-designating local prosecutors as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, allowing them to bring legal action in Federal courts.

While this bill strengthens enforcement and prosecution measures, it also recognizes that most meth addicts require treatment rather than harsh criminal sanction. To that end, the bill authorizes the creation of a meth treatment assistance center, which will help states learn how to effectively treat those who suffer from this awful addiction. And for this drug's most innocent victims--the children who are exposed to meth by the users around them--the bill provides a $5 million grant to allow Federal, State, and local entities to work together to help assist and educate children who have been harmed by a family member's meth addiction.

The widespread use of meth, particularly in the Midwest, has become an unsupportable burden for many families and communities. The new version of the Combat Meth Act is a common-sense response to a growing problem one that requires immediate Federal attention. While the bill does not address the increasing problem of meth imports from overseas, it will help cut back on domestic meth manufacturing and the many harms that accompany it. I am proud to support this new version of the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education Amendments Act of 2005 to revise the Act.

In 2000, Congress authorized the establishment of a Federally- chartered non-profit foundation to further the educational opportunities for Native American students. This foundation, named the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education, was established in July, 2004 and has the potential for success in providing critical support to Native American students.

The legislation I introduce today will enable the foundation to become self-sufficient by authorizing appropriations for endowment or seed money and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide funding for the foundation's operating costs on a reimbursement basis. The legislation authorizes $5 million each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 and increases the administration cost limit from 10 percent to 15 percent of donations and transferred funds. This bill will also allow the Board to appoint the Chief Operating Officer who will be experienced in Indian education.

Mr. President, this legislation will provide significant improvements for the foundation in its mission of advancing Indian education and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to support the Nation's finest: our police, fire fighters and other emergency response personnel. The Spectrum Availability for Emergency- response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as The SAVE LIVES Act. This bill is drafted in response to the 9-11 Commission's final report, which recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.''

To meet this recommendation, the SAVE LIVES Act would set a date certain for the allocation of spectrum to public safety agencies, specifically the 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band that Congress promised public safety agencies in 1997. This is a promise Congress has yet to deliver to our Nation's first responders. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place. Access to this specific spectrum is essential to our Nation's safety and welfare as emergency communications sent over these frequencies are able to penetrate walls and travel great distances, and can assist multiple jurisdictions in deploying interoperable communications systems.

In addition to setting a date certain, this bill would authorize funds for public safety agencies to purchase emergency communications equipment and ensure that Congress has the ability to consider whether additional spectrum should be provided for public safety communications prior to the recovered spectrum being auctioned. The bill contains significant language concerning consumer education of the digital television transition. The bill would mandate that warning labels be displayed on analog television sets sold prior to the transition, require warning language to be displayed at television retailers, command the distribution at retailers of brochures describing the television set options available, and call on broadcasters to air informational programs to better prepare consumers for the digital transition.

The bill would ensure that no television viewer's set would go ``dark'' by providing digital-to-analog converter boxes to over-the-air viewers that have a household income that does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line and by allowing cable companies to down convert digital signal signals if necessary. I continue to believe that broadcast television is a powerful communications tool and important information source for citizens. I know that on 9/11, I learned about the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon like most Americans--by watching television. Therefore, this bill seeks to not only protect citizens' safety but also the distribution of broadcast television.

Lastly, the bill would establish a tax credit for the recycling of television sets and require the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the need for a national electronic waste recycling program.

The 9-11 Commission's final report contained harrowing tales about police officers and fire fighters who were inside the Twin Towers and unable to receive evacuation orders over their radios from commanders. In fact, the report found that this inability to communicate was not only a problem for public safety organizations responding at the World Trade Center, but also for those responding at the Pentagon and Somerset County, PA, crash sites where multiple organizations and multiple jurisdictions responded. Therefore, the Commission recommended that Congress accelerate the availability of more spectrum for public safety.

The SAVE LIVES Act would implement the important recommendation and ensure that when our Nation experiences another attack, or other critical emergencies occur, our police, fire fighters, and other emergency response personnel will have the ability to communicate with each other and their commanders to prevent another catastrophic loss of life. Now is the time for congressional action before another national emergency or crisis takes place.

Several lawmakers attempted to act last year during the debate on the intelligence reform bill, but our efforts were thwarted by the powerful National Association of Broadcasters. This year, I hope we can all work together and to pass a bill that ensures the country is not only better prepared in case of another attack but also protects the vital communications outlet of broadcast television. I believe the SAVE LIVES Act does just that.

Mr. President, in an effort to expeditiously retrieve the spectrum for the Nation's first responders, to preserve over-the-air television accessibility to consumers and to ensure the adequate funding of both, I urge the enactment of the SAVE LIVES Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce the American Indian Elderly and Disabled Access to Health Care Act of 2005 to revise the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

The legislation I introduce today will amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to permit the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, tribal or Urban Indian organization to use their funding to pay the Medicare Part D premiums of eligible Indian beneficiaries. These premium payments are for the American Indians and Alaska Natives enrolled in the prescription drug plans under part D of title XVIll of the Social Security Act. Currently, these funds can be used for paying Medicare Parts A and B premiums but not Part D, and this legislation will enable eligible Indian beneficiaries to enroll and participate in the Part D program when it begins in January, 2006.

Mr. President, this legislation will increase the ability of the elderly and disabled American Indians and Alaska Natives to access the prescription drug benefits available under Medicare Part D and assist the Indian Health Service in achieving potentially significant cost savings. I urge my colleagues to join me in improving access to health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation critically important to our Nation's continued economic growth and future environmental progress. I am joined by my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln.

Nearly everything sold in the United States moves by truck at some stage of delivery. In fact, America's trucking industry is responsible for moving nearly 70 percent of the tonnage of all products sold in the U.S.--a total of more than 9.8 billion tons of freight shipped in 2004.

If trucking serves as the circulatory system for the U.S. economy, then diesel engines provide America's economic heartbeat. Because of their superior fuel efficiency, durability and reliability, diesel engines power 100 percent of the long-haul trucks responsible for the bulk of freight deliveries in the U.S. Engineers have revolutionized this technology over the past decade by dramatically reducing emissions while maintaining diesel's inherent fuel efficiency. For example, a new truck sold today produces 78 percent fewer smog-forming and particulate emissions than a similar truck built in 1987.

Even more advanced, cleaner technology is scheduled to begin rolling on America's highways in 2007. Beginning that year, a new Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulation for diesel trucks will require further reductions in smog-forming and particulate emissions-- reductions of over 90 percent compared to current levels. When fully implemented in 2010, EPA's clean diesel rule is estimated to reduce smog-forming emissions of nitrogen oxides by 2.6 million tons each year, along with 110,000 tons of fine particulate matter annually.

These clean diesel trucks are expected to play a leading role in helping cities and states meet strict new federal standards for ozone and fine particulates. And the technology is real; truck manufacturers and suppliers have demonstrated their commitment to delivering clean diesel by 2007.

However, we must recognize that clean air comes at a price. Trucks containing clean diesel engines that meet the EPA regulation in 2007 will include innovative emissions control technology that will increase purchase and

maintenance costs. Additionally, the 2007 trucks will run on low-sulfur diesel fuel that will be more expensive because of the added cost of sulfur removal. These additional financial burdens will fall upon America's trucking industry--where 96 percent of companies are designated as small businesses.

Equally important for those of us concerned about clean air, we must recognize that EPA's projected environmental benefits will materialize only if trucking companies can afford to purchase the cleaner but more expensive trucks equipped with the clean diesel engines. Federal regulation can require manufacturers to produce emissions compliant products, but the government cannot mandate the purchase of these clean diesel trucks. Customers always have the option of holding on to older trucks longer, rebuilding older engines, leasing older trucks, or turning to the used truck market. They can also simply buy more trucks today, with older design components and without the cleanest technology, and defer the purchase of cleaner trucks.

The bottom line is that the actual trucks in service on America's highways in 2007 and beyond will not yield the emissions reductions currently projected by EPA's own air quality models unless trucking companies can afford to buy the new clean diesels. Absent a short-term incentive for the purchase of these new trucks in 2007, simple economics will drive most trucking companies to either pre-purchase trucks that do not meet the new EPA regulation or extend the lives of their current fleets. This ``pre-buy/low-buy'' scenario played out most recently with the introduction of lower emission diesel trucks in October 2002.

Avoiding this problem, Mr. President, is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. Truck manufacturers and suppliers have responded to our clean air challenge and will be ready for the on-time delivery of remarkably clean trucks in 2007. The Federal Government needs to take the next step by helping to ensure the widest possible distribution of this clean diesel technology into the U.S. trucking fleet.

Under the proposal I am introducing today with Senator Lincoln, taxpayers would be allowed an investment tax credit equal to 5 percent of the cost of EPA-compliant diesel equipment for acquisitions after December 31, 2006 but before January 1, 2008. The credits could be used against the taxpayer's regular tax or AMT liability. The credit would be part of the general business credit and thus credits unutilized in a taxable year would be carried over to another taxable year.

In addition, taxpayers would be allowed to expense the acquisition cost of qualifying equipment acquired and placed in service after December 31, 2006 and before January 1, 2008, for purposes of both the regular tax and the AMT.

Enacting the short-term tax incentive that Senator Lincoln and I propose would put the cost of new clean diesel technology on at least a level playing field with the cost of today's trucks. It would ensure that trucking companies have the financial ability to purchase these modern clean diesels. Consequently, our legislation would ensure that Americans can breathe easier because the full air quality benefits intended by EPA's clean diesel rule will be realized.

I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and the rest of my colleagues to see this important clean air legislation enacted.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2005. I am introducing this bill with Senators Domenici and Bingaman, whose cosponsorship I greatly appreciate. I also understand that Congressmen Greg Walden and Tom Udall are introducing an identical version of the bill in the House, which I also appreciate.

This bill authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified corps to perform appropriate conservation projects, assist governments and Indian tribes in performing research and public education associated with natural and cultural resources, introduce young people to public service and expand their educational opportunities, and stimulate interest among the Nation's youth in careers in conservation and land management.

Consistent with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, this bill also identifies a series of priority projects for corps to carry out including the restoration and protection of public lands threatened by severe fire, insect or disease infestation or other damaging agents; the protection, restoration, or enhancement of forest ecosystem components to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; the improvement of biological diversity; and, the enhancement of productivity and carbon sequestration.

In general, the Secretaries may give a preference to those corps that enroll young people who are economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged. When it comes to the priority projects, the Secretaries shall ``to the maximum extent practicable'' give preference to those corps that have a substantial number of members who are disadvantaged. It also allows the Secretaries to grant noncompetitive hiring status to corps alumni for future Federal hiring. Finally, the bill authorizes $15 million a year, of which $10 million is for the priority projects identified in the bill and $5 million is for nonpriority projects.

I have named this legislation the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act because it builds on both the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 and the recently enacted Healthy Forest Restoration Act. I also want to note that last year the administration supported an earlier, but substantially similar, version of this bill.

This bill uses the cost saving resources of youth corps to carry out projects. It is estimated that youth corps generate $1.60 in immediate benefits for every dollar in costs. This figure is important given both the great need and great costs associated with fighting fires. The Federal Government is responsible for overseeing 689 million acres of land and five Federal agencies reported spending $1.6 billion in 2002 on fire fighting suppression efforts--a whopping $300 million more than the previous record.

As an example of what can happen in one State, consider 2003's catastrophic wildfires in southern California. Before these wildfires were contained, they scorched a total of 739,597 acres, killed 24 people, and destroyed approximately 3,631 homes and thousands of other structures. Not only did insurance payouts cost more than $3 billion, but public expenditures for firefighting and recovery ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars. And California is certainly not the only State to incur large costs from fires.

I want to reduce the chances of this type of catastrophe recurring in the future. To do so, we must use every resource at our disposal. I know that youth service and conversation corps can play a significant role in reducing the physical and financial strain that public land management agencies bear, and help protect our Nation's public lands from wildfires and other forms of devastation.

I have seen firsthand the benefits that service and conservation corps bring to communities and the difference that they make in the lives of disadvantaged youth. In 1983, I founded the first urban youth corps as mayor of San Francisco, and during that time I saw a great improvement in the quality of life of the corps members and of the city itself. When the program started, it had a million-dollar budget and employed 36 disadvantaged young people 18 to 23 years old. They needed some direction, wanted a challenge, and to make themselves socially useful.

That first year, we paid corps members $3.35 an hour to repair bathrooms in affordable housing for senior citizens and others, build a park in Hunter's Point, clear scotch broom from the Twin Peaks hillside, and fix up Alcatraz Island. In the subsequent 22 years, the San Francisco Conservation Corps, SFCC, has grown into a multisite, multifaceted agency that engages more than 500 young adults annually who have completed over 3.5 million hours of community service.

The San Francisco Conservation Corps has also given thousands of corps members a sense of personal pride, helped connect them with their community, and prove that hard work pays off. I started the corps to help young people break out of the cycle of poverty and crime and improve their job skills by giving them guidance and support through labor-intensive activities.

I am introducing this bill with the hope that the success of the San Francisco Conservation Corps can be duplicated nationwide. This program will not reach every disadvantaged young person in need of guidance and a second chance. But it is a start, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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