Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am introducing a package of five measures to sustain and indeed renew the Federal commitment to restoring the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Joining me in sponsoring one or more of these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, and Santorum.

In his 1984 State of the Union message, President Ronald Reagan called the Chesapeake Bay a ``special national resource'' and pledged $10 million a year for 4 years to ``begin the long, necessary effort to clean up'' the Bay. Today, despite more than 2 decades of effort and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, the goal of a clean, restored Bay appears elusive. For the past 3 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has given the Chesapeake Bay a failing grade of 27 out of 100 on its annual report card--far short of the ``70'' level believed necessary for the Bay to be declared ``saved.'' The continued flood of sediments and nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants, farms, urban runoff, and air deposition, combined with continued rapid growth in population and development in the watershed, is offsetting the progress that has been made to date in restoring the Bay. The Bay remains an ``impaired water body'' under the Clean Water Act, and Chesapeake Bay Program scientists are forecasting another summer of very low oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Bay, further stressing oysters, crabs, and other living resources. As author and naturalist Tom Horton points out in a recent National Geographic article,

``No one had illusions that the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a massive Federal-State restoration effort, begun in 1983 and unmatched anywhere in the world, would be quick or easy. But no one anticipated that 22 years later we would still be struggling.''

If the Bay is to be restored, we must redouble our efforts. Nitrogen pollution from all sources will have to be substantially reduced, thousands of acres of watershed property must be preserved, significant efforts must be made to restore living resources, and buffer zones to protect rivers and streams need to be created. Likewise, assistance to community organizations, local governments, and educational institutions at all levels must be expanded dramatically to help foster local stewardship and entice more of the 16 million residents who live in the watershed to play active roles in the efforts to restore the Bay.

The five measures that we are introducing are an important part of, but by no means the entire, solution for addressing the Bay's problems. Earlier in this Congress, Members from the Bay-area States, from both parties, joined with me in a letter to President Bush, urging him to make restoration of Chesapeake Bay a top environmental priority and to commit $1 billion in his budget as a down-payment towards restoring the Bay's water quality. We called upon the Secretary of Agriculture to release $100 million provided under the 2002 Farm Bill for farmers to test new, innovative techniques for reducing agricultural nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under Senator Warner's leadership, we succeeded in getting a provision in the Senate-passed SAFETEA legislation, which would provide more than $70 million for the Bay area States and local governments to mitigate the impacts of storm- water runoff from highways and related impervious surfaces. We have fought to prevent a significant cut in funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And we have continued to press the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the Clean Water Act is fully enforced. All these are critical components of a more comprehensive effort on the part of the Federal, State and local governments and the private sector that will be needed over the course of the next few years to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The first measure, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Environmental Accountability Act of 2005, would reauthorize and enhance EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and would increase the program's accountability for improving the health of the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Program, which has guided the clean-up effort for the past two decades, expires this year and must be reauthorized. Originally authorized in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and reauthorized in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program provides support and coordination for Federal, State, and local efforts in developing strategies and action plans, conducting system-wide monitoring and assessment, implementing projects to restore and protect the Bay and its living resources, and communicating with the public about the Bay and efforts to restore and protect it.

Last year, Senator Mikulski, Senator Warner, and I asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the Bay Program that would assess the overall restoration progress reported for the Bay; determine how progress is measured in the Bay watershed; and evaluate the effectiveness of Chesapeake Bay Program efforts to ensure that proper measures are being used. That study is nearing completion. Its preliminary findings recommend a number of improvements to the Program, which we have incorporated in this measure. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement provides goals for the Bay, but the GAO found that EPA has not developed a plan to achieve these goals. Bay restoration has also been hampered by a lack of interim goals and time frames against which progress can be assessed. The legislation we are introducing today requires the EPA Administrator to develop an implementation plan for reaching the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, including a timeline with specific annual goals for nutrient and sediment reduction, associated costs, and measures for assessing progress, and to prepare an annual report for Congress that describes the accomplishments of the previous year and the reductions likely to occur in the future. The legislation also directs the Administrator to publish and widely circulate annual ``tributary report cards'' that describe the progress made in achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each major tributary or tributary segment in the Bay watershed. These ``report cards'' will provide the public with a clear and accurate picture of the progress toward restoring the Bay, which is currently lacking. In addition, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is to submit an annual report on Chesapeake Bay Program funding.

The second measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act, would establish a grants program in the Environmental Protection Agency to support the installation of nutrient reduction technologies at major wastewater treatment facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I first introduced this measure during the 107th Congress, and provisions of the legislation were included as part of S. 1961, the Water Investment Act of 2002, reported favorably by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Unfortunately, no further action was taken on that legislation.

Despite important water quality improvements over the past decade, the overabundance of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus continues to rob the Bay of life-sustaining oxygen. Recent modeling of EPA's Bay Program has found that total nutrient discharges must be reduced by more than 40 percent from current levels to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries to health. To do so, nitrogen discharges from all sources must be reduced drastically below current levels. Annual nitrogen discharges into the Bay will need to be cut by at least 100 million pounds from the current 275 million pounds to less than 175 million pounds. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, in particular, will have to reduce nitrogen discharges by nearly 75 percent.

In December 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Commission issued a report entitled ``Cost-Effective Strategies for the Bay''; of the six most cost-effective strategies listed in that report, upgrading wastewater treatment plants is Number One. There are more than 300 significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These plants contribute almost 60 million pounds of nitrogen per year-- one-fifth--of the total load of nitrogen to the Bay. Upgrading these plants with nutrient removal technologies to achieve nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter would remove as much as 30 million pounds of nitrogen in the Bay each year, or 30 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. Nutrient removal technologies have other benefits, as well. They provide significant savings in energy usage, 20-30 percent, in chemical usage, more than 50 percent, and in the amount of sludge produced, 5-15 percent. Furthermore, the benefits from upgrading sewage treatment plants have an immediate result on the Bay's water quality, unlike other methods that primarily affect nutrients in ground water and may take years to produce results. This legislation would provide grants for 55 percent of the capital cost of upgrading the plants with state- of-the-art nutrient removal technologies capable of achieving nitrogen levels of 3 mg/liter. Any publicly owned wastewater treatment plant which has a permitted design capacity to treat an annual average of 0.5 million gallons per day within the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia would be eligible to receive these grants. As a signatory to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the EPA has an important responsibility to assist the states with financing these water infrastructure needs.

The third measure, the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Education Pilot Program Act, would establish a new environmental education program in the U.S. Department of Education for elementary and secondary school students and teachers within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There is a growing consensus that a major commitment to education to promoting an ethic of responsible stewardship and

citizenship among the 16 million people who live in the watershed is necessary if all of the other efforts to save the Bay are to succeed. Expanding environmental education and training opportunities will lead not only to a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem but also to a more educated and informed citizenry, with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the environment, their community, and their role in society as responsible citizens.

One of the principal commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement is to ``provide a meaningful Bay or stream outdoor experience for every school student in the watershed before graduation from high school'' beginning with the class of 2005. There are more than 3.3 million K-12 students in the watershed, and despite important efforts by Bay area states and not-for-profit organizations, only a very small percentage of these students have had the opportunity to engage in meaningful outdoor experiences or receive classroom environmental instruction. Many of the school systems in the Bay watershed are only at the beginning stages in developing and implementing environmental education into their curriculum, let alone exposing students to outdoor watershed experiences. What's lacking is not the desire or will, but the resources and training to undertake more comprehensive environmental education programs.

This legislation would authorize $6 million a year over the next four years in Federal grant assistance to help close the resource and training gap for students in the elementary and secondary levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It would require a 50 percent non-Federal match, thus leveraging $12 million in assistance. The funding could be used to help design, demonstrate or disseminate environmental curricula and field practices, train teachers or other educational personnel, and support on-the-ground activities or Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor educational experiences involving students and teachers, among other things. The program would complement the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program that we established several years ago.

The fourth measure, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Act, would continue and enhance the USDA Forest Service's role in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forest loss and fragmentation are occurring rapidly in the Chesapeake Bay region and are among the most important issues facing the Bay and forest management today. According to the National Resources Inventory, the States closest to the Bay lost 350,000 acres of forest between 1987 and 1997--almost 100 acres per day. More and more rural areas are being converted to suburban developments, resulting in smaller contiguous forest tracts. These trends are leading to a regional forest land base that is more vulnerable to conversion, is less likely to be economically viable in the future, and is losing its capacity to protect watershed health and other ecological benefits, such as controlling stormwater runoff, erosion and air pollution. Restoring and conserving forests is essential to sustaining the Bay ecosystem.

Since 1990, the USDA Forest Service has been an important part of the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Service has worked closely with Federal, State, and local partners in the six-state Chesapeake Bay region to demonstrate how forest protection, restoration, and stewardship activities can contribute to achieving the Bay restoration goals. With the signing of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the role of the USDA Forest Service has become more important than ever. Among other provisions, this Agreement requires the signatories to conserve existing forests along all streams and shoreline; to promote the expansion and connection of contiguous forests; to assess the Bay's forest lands; and to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances, and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agricultural lands.

This legislation codifies the role and responsibilities of the USDA Forest Service to the Bay restoration effort. It requires an evaluation of the urban and rural forests in the watershed. It strengthens existing coordination, technical assistance, forest resource assessment, and planning efforts for urban, suburban and rural areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It authorizes a small grants program to support local agencies, watershed associations, and citizen groups in conducting on-the-ground conservation projects. It establishes a regional applied forestry research and training program to enhance urban, suburban and rural forests in the watershed. Finally it authorizes $3.5 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010, a modest increase in view of the six-State, 64,000-square-mile watershed.

The fifth measure, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Monitoring, Education, Training, and Restoration Act, would enhance the authorities of the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to address the goals and commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement with regard to living-resource restoration and education and training. It builds upon provisions contained in the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, and addresses several urgent and unmet needs in the watershed. To help meet Bay-wide living resource education and training goals, it codifies the Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, Program--the first federally funded environmental education program focused solely on the Chesapeake Bay watershed--that we initiated in the Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill; it establishes an aquaculture education program to assist with oyster and blue crab hatchery production; and it codifies the ongoing oyster restoration program and authorizes a new restoration program for submerged aquatic vegetation.

To better coordinate and organize the substantial amounts of weather, tide, habitat, water-quality and other data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions and to make this information more useful to resource managers, scientists, and the public, this bill also establishes an integrated observing system for the Chesapeake Bay. This system will build on and coordinate existing monitoring and observing activities in the Bay and its watershed, and will include development of an internet-based system for integrating and disseminating the vast amounts of information available.

These measures would provide an important boost to our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. They are strongly supported by the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills and supporting letters be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting the measures and continue the momentum contributing to the improvement and enhancement of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resource.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Frist, Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act.

Our bill makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significant, it assures the Foundation at least $500,000 annually from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its own resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. As the bill makes clear, the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors.

Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. For every dollar the Foundation received from the NIH in 2003, it raised $426 in private funds. Since its creation, the Foundation has raised $270 million, or $68 in private support for every dollar from the NIH.

The Foundation is currently managing 37 programs supported by $270 million generated from private contributions. For example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus gives families of patients receiving in-patient treatment at the NIH Clinical Center a place to stay, at no cost to them.

In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biochemical signs of osteoarthritis and Alzheimer's Disease, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. In 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's partnership with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Snowe, Senator Prist, Senator Gregg, and Senator Enzi in introducing the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act. Today we take another step in our national journey to a fairer and more just America.

I particularly commend our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for her dedication to this vital issue. Senator Snowe first proposed legislation on genetic discrimination in 1996. Hopefully, the bipartisan momentum we have built up in recent years will produce a consensus bill we can enact into law this year.

Two years ago, we celebrated an accomplishment that once seemed unimaginable--deciphering the entire sequence of the human DNA code. This amazing accomplishment will affect the 21st century as profoundly as the invention of the computer or the splitting of the atom affected the 20th century. But the extraordinary promise of science to improve health and relieve suffering is in jeopardy if our laws fail to provide adequate protections against misuse of genetic information.

Our bipartisan legislation prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to deny health coverage or raise premiums. It bars employers from using genetic information to make employment decisions.

Few kinds of information are more personal or more information than a person's genetic makeup. This information should not be shared by insurers or employers or be used in decisions about health coverage or a job. It should only be used by patients and their doctors to help them make the best possible decisions on diagnosis and treatment.

Breakthroughs in genetic science are bringing remarkable new opportunities for improving health care. But it also carries the danger that genetic information will be used as a basis for discrimination. I hope we can all agree that discrimination on the basis of a person's genetic traits is as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion. No American should be denied health insurance or fired from a job because of a genetic test.

The vast potential of genetic knowledge to improve health care may go unfulfilled, if patients fear that information about their genetic characteristics will be used against them. Congress has a responsibility to guarantee

that genetic information remains private and is not used for improper purposes.

Experts in genetics are united in calling for strong protections to prevent this misuse and abuse of science. The HHS advisory panel on genetic testing--with experts in law, science, medicine, and business-- recommended unambiguously that Federal legislation is needed to prohibit discrimination in employment or health insurance based on genetic information. Last fall, witnesses testified about their first hand accounts of genetic discrimination. Heidi Williams' children were denied health insurance because they were carriers for a genetic disorder. Phil Hardt's children feared discrimination so much that they sought genetic tests in secret, paying out of their own pockets and not using their real names.

Francis Collins, the leader of the NIH project to sequence the human genome, said, ``Genetic information and genetic technology can be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Already, people have lost their jobs, lost their health insurance, and lost their economic well-being because of the misuse of genetic information.''

Genetic tests are becoming even cheaper and more widely available. If we don't ban discrimination now, it may soon be routine for employers to use genetic tests to deny jobs to employees, based on their risk for disease.

When Congress enacts clear protections against genetic discrimination in employment health insurance, all Americans will be able to enjoy the benefits of genetic research, free from the fear that their personal genetic information will be used against them. If Congress fails to see that genetic information is used only for legitimate purposes, we will squander the vast potential of genetic research to improve the Nation's health.

Effective enforcement will be essential. It makes no sense to enact legislation giving the American people the promise of protection against this form of discrimination and then deny them the reality of that protection.

President Bush recognizes the seriousness of this problem, and supports a ban on genetic discrimination. In his words, ``genetic information should be an opportunity to prevent and treat disease, not an excuse for discrimination. Just as our Nation addressed discrimination based on race, we must now prevent discrimination based on genetic information.'' I commend the President for his support, and I look forward to working with the administration to see that a strong bill on genetic discrimination is signed into law this year.

It is time for Congress to act, and I urge the Senate to do so without delay.

Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran.

The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004, giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year.

Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves, behind Russia.

In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago, Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its subsidiary's activities in Iran.

Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed, their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its $550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in 1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999, France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons.

Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe.

If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those

who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing in its energy sector.

First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable.

Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than $100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign governments.

Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a public armed with information about which companies were doing business there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sector.

The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells, it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help.

In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material risk to United States investors and that such investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this information is disclosed to the American public.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2005. This bill would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feingold, Kohl, Durbin, Schumer, Mikulski, and Akaka.

Canned hunts, also called canned shoots, take place on private land under circumstances that virtually assure a customer of a kill. Although they are advertised under a variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in exotic--non-native--animals that are either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at least 25 States.

Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the skill, for normal sports hunting. They do not require skill in tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts quarantee a shooter a kill of the animal of his or her choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for up to $1,000, a water buffalo for $3,500, and a red deer for up to $6,000.

The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee from shooters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts use other practices to assure their customers a kill. For example, they may bait them, using feeding stations to attract animals and make them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands. These practices are prohibited by many State game commissions.

Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper advantage'' over animals. As a result, many real hunters are opposed to the practice of canned hunting, believing it to make a mockery of their sport.

Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. Often, in order to preserve the animal as a ``trophy,'' customers will fire multiple shots into nonvital organs, condemning the animal to a slow and painful death. Because the animal cannot escape, the shooter has the time to place his shots. The Fund for animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that Federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''

In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches is not uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of cow disease. In some states, experts believe that canned hunts, with their high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.

In recognition of these threats, several States have banned canned hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most States lack laws to outlaw this practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.

My bill is essentially the same as legislation that was introduced in the 108th Congress, S. 2731, and legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden, S. 1655. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic (nonnative) mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does not do: 1. The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; 2. The bill does not regulate the hunting of any birds; 3. The bill protects only exotic (non-native) mammals in areas where they do not have an opportunity to avoid hunters, smaller than 1000 acres; and 4. The bill regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.

The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.

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

Mr. President, wherever I travel, Americans tell me the same things about our health care system: it costs too much, leaves too many without insurance, and does too little to help those in need.

America has the world's best hospitals, doctors, nurses, and medical research labs. But we do not always provide the best care. And we certainly do not provide it at an affordable price. We face real problems. And we need to act.

Two years ago, I appointed a task force to investigate what Congress could do. Under the leadership of Senator Judd Gregg, the task force reported back with a series of comprehensive recommendations. The President has also proposed some very constructive policy initiatives. We took all of these proposals into account when we wrote this bill.

The legislation we propose today will build upon our record of accomplishment on health care. The Republican Congress has created a Medicare drug benefit for seniors, made tax-free, portable Health Savings Accounts available to all Americans, and has begun the process of moving our medical system into the information age.

This week, we will pass and send to the President a long-overdue measure to encourage doctors and hospitals to report medical errors voluntarily. The measure will save lives, and it will improve health care quality.

But we still have more to do.

The legislation we are proposing today focuses on three broad areas: reducing costs, expanding health coverage, and improving the quality of care. In this bill--``The Healthy America Act of 2005''--we provide comprehensive solutions that will improve health care for every American.

Let me begin by speaking about cost. Every year, Americans see their health care costs soar. Just 15 years ago, less than 1 out of every 10 dollars Americans spent went for health care. In 10 years, almost one out of every five dollars you spend will go towards health care.

Rising life expectancies and the cost of new technologies, treatments, and medical procedures all drive up costs. But we can do more to hold them in check. And we must.

Rapidly rising health costs threaten our Nation's small business owners, and our largest corporations. They can harm our economy; cost jobs, and hurt Americans from all walks of life. During the past few years, for example, health care costs have grown three to four times more quickly than wages.

First, we need to reform our broken medical liability system. Under our current medical system, doctors face enormous incentives to order unnecessary tests and procedures simply to avoid the risk of lawsuits.

It's expensive, it's wasteful, and unnecessary, and, most of all, it's dangerous. It needs to change and, under this bill, it will.

Hospitals, doctors, patients, and insurers all shoulder some responsibility for rising costs. To keep costs down, we need to put the patient at the heart of health care. That's why we propose reforms to let patients own and control privacy-protected electronic medical records, cut down on fraud in our Medicare and Medicaid programs, reduce medical errors, and reduce unnecessary regulations and mandates.

Lower costs alone will help many Americans get the care they need and deserve. But we also have to look at ways to cover more Americans who would still find themselves left behind.

Through changes to tax laws, we can make it easier for lower-income individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable, high quality health insurance.

And we can also provide more options for those who take charge of their own health care by making flexible spending accounts more flexible and health savings accounts even more affordable for individuals and small businesses.

Finally, the Federal Government can help support State high-risk pools that help provide health coverage to individuals who couldn't otherwise afford care.

America is a caring Nation and we must recognize that not everyone has equal ability to take care of his or her own health. That's why we need to expand our safety net for the truly needy.

Many of those without health insurance--particularly children-- qualify for benefits under existing programs but do not receive them. By providing grants to faith-based and community organizations, we can help more families sign up their children for available health coverage.

We also need to expand the availability of health care services to individuals in need by expanding Community Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics to more rural areas and poor counties.

We should also act to make prescription drugs more affordable for low-income Americans and provide legal protections and loan forbearance that will make it easier for health care practitioners who volunteer their time and services to provide needed care in community health centers and free clinics.

Every American should have health care that's available, affordable, and always there.

And we must hold fast to this principle: patients should sit at the center of the health care system, not the government, not insurance companies, and certainly not predatory trial lawyers.

The system should free providers to focus on caring for their patients: not dealing with regulations, bureaucrats, or lawyers.

Today, we've put forward a plan that will take a major step towards centering America's health care system on the patient.

We have the vision for what American health care should look like. Now we only need the courage to make it happen.

I want to thank Senator Gregg, and all of the members of the Task Force who worked so diligently on this legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions of the other cosponsors of this legislation: Senators Mitch McConnell, Mike Enzi, Lisa Murkowski, and Jim DeMint, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.