Community Health Center Employee Health Coverage Act of 2006

Mr. President, it is my privilege today to introduce legislation that attempts to right wrongs and help those who have suffered.

I can think of few Americans who have suffered more than those brave World War II veterans who were subjected to slave labor conditions by Japanese industries during that difficult conflict. This legislation would provide long overdue compensation to our brave veterans who were forced into slave labor by our enemies.

Some might ask: why don't these veterans seek a remedy from the courts? The answer is that they have. Unfortunately, due to decisions that were made during the Cold War, our government relinquished the right of these veterans to successfully seek redress of their grievances on this matter in our nation's courts.

Regrettably, the Japanese Government has also declined to provide compensation.

Today, many of these American POWs are now in their eighties and nineties. Every day, more and more of these veterans pass away without ever realizing that their country truly cares for them and wants to right the wrongs of the past. If those who remain are to receive compensation, they must receive it now or this injustice will never be righted.

Remember, many of these men are the survivors of the Bataan Death March, which occurred in April of 1942 when the 70,000 Allied troops that comprised the defense of Bataan peninsula were ordered to surrender. Corregidor would fall a month later, but for the soldiers of Bataan the infamous Death March from the peninsula to holding camps throughout the Philippines was about to begin. During this march of 85 miles approximately 10,000 Allied forces were killed.

American POWs in the Pacific theater are also the survivors of the ``Hell Ships'' where servicemembers were placed in cargo ships destined for Japanese industrial sites. These ships were usually incredibly overcrowded and American POWs were subject to the horrific sanitary and living conditions.

After all this, when American servicemembers arrived at their destination, the majority were treated as slave labor, they faced fierce corporal punishment for minor infractions, and unnecessary starvation and cruel work environments.

It is important to note that this bill, which I am honored to say is cosponsored by Senator Bingaman and Senator Biden, is not to embarrass or to ridicule the people of Japan; far from it. For over 60 years, Japan has been one of our great allies. As the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I well know the invaluable support and assistance that Japan has rendered in the global war on terrorism, including committing hundreds of ground troops to assist in the development of Iraq's infrastructure. I know that all Americans are grateful for this assistance.

Mr. President, it is time to do the right thing and provide these veterans with the minimal level of compensation they deserve. I believe that this limited compensation is a debt of honor that we should not withhold.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Leahy the Patent Reform Act of 2006.

This bill addresses many of the issues and problems that my colleague, Senator Leahy, and I have identified through a series of hearings and discussions with stakeholders. We also had the benefit of knowing the priorities identified by Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Democratic Member Berman, who have introduced an analogous bill in the House.

I would like to thank the Senator Leahy for all of his hard work and assistance in developing this bill and for his willingness to reach a compromise on those issues where our policy views conflicted.

This bill is not perfect, and is not the bill that either I or my esteemed cosponsor would have introduced independently, but I believe that it fairly reflects a compromise between my priorities and the priorities of Senator Leahy.

We have also attempted to achieve some balance between the priorities identified by the various industries and stakeholders that we consulted while formulating our policy views in this area.

I am sure that further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process, so I would encourage those who are either pleased or displeased by any of the aspects of the bill to continue working with us to resolve any outstanding issues.

This bill addresses many of the problems with the substantive, procedural, and administrative aspects of the patent system, which governs how entities here in the United States apply for, receive, and eventually make use of patents covering everything from computer chips to pharmaceuticals to medical devices to--I am told--at least one variety of crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

As the Founding Fathers made clear in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is charged with ``promot[ing] the Progress of Science

and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.''

There is a growing consensus among those who use the patent system that significant reform is needed.

While there appears to be a high degree of consensus on some issues relating to patent reform--such as the advisability of creating a new post-grant review process, there are significant disagreements about other changes to the patent system and about how best to streamline patent litigation.

By all accounts, patent litigation has become a significant problem in some industries. There are a number of factors in patent law that drive up the cost and uncertainty of litigation in ways that are unjustified. However, some of the principal problems and costs associated with patent litigation are not uniform across industrial sectors. This has led to substantial and sometimes vociferous disagreements about the nature of the underlying problems and, thus, what the appropriate solutions might be. We have done our best to resolve these disagreements based on our judgment about what is likely to preserve a balance between patent holders and alleged infringers in these actions.

There is also substantial consensus regarding a number of basic, structural changes to the patent system. The most significant of these involves moving from our current first-to-invent system to something approximating a first-to-file rule in determining which of two conflicting inventors has the right to obtain a patent.

While there is general agreement regarding some of the changes necessary to move toward a first-to-file system, there are some disagreements that remain unresolved by the current language of this bill. Although we have done our best to preserve many of the principles defining what constitutes ``prior art'' under current law, patent experts continue to disagree over whether we have achieved this goal.

Additionally, shortly before introduction, a concern emerged that we had not adequately preserved the changes enacted by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act--CREATE Act, P.L. 108-453-- involving some types of double patenting. Since Senator Leahy and I were original cosponsors of that law, I can assure you that we will be receptive to concerns in this regard and try to fix them.

With that preface, I would like to discuss several of the more significant changes made to the current patent system by this bill.

Sections 1 and 2 of the bill contain the short title, table of contents, and other similar provisions. Sections 3 and 4 contain amendments to implement the first-to-file rule and other changes to the manner in which patent applications are filed with the Patent and Trademark Office and the process governing the examination of applications. Much of this language is similar to language in previous bills. However, as I have mentioned, several significant issues remain unresolved, and we will continue to work with stakeholders and other members to ensure an appropriate resolution.

Section 5 changes the remedies available to plaintiffs in patent infringement suits, as well as the available defenses to patent infringement. The two most substantial changes involve limitations on the availability of enhanced damages upon a showing of ``willful'' infringement by a plaintiff and a parallel limitation on the availability of unenforceability under the doctrine of ``inequitable conduct.'' Willfulness and inequitable conduct were two of the three major subjective elements that were identified in a major report on the current patent system by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. The report, entitled ``A Patent System for the 21st Century,'' recommended limiting both willfulness and the inequitable conduct defense to streamline patent litigation. We were unable to reach agreement on repealing the ``best mode'' requirement, which was the third subjective element identified both in the report and by various stakeholders, but I am hopeful that we will continue to work toward a mutually-acceptable compromise on that issue.

Section 5 also contains a provision expanding ``prior user rights.'' These prior user rights are, in reality, a defense to infringement liability for those making or preparing to make commercial use of an invention prior to a patent being issued. Prior to a patent's issuance, such a user often has no way of knowing that he is--or will be-- infringing a patent. In some cases, the user has independently invented the subject matter in question, in which case it would be inequitable to subject him or her to infringement liability. Currently, the prior user defense is available only with respect to method patents. The bill expands the prior user defense to all categories of patents and makes related changes to this defense.

Additionally, Section 5 contains two of the more controversial provisions in the bill. The first is a rough codification of an ``apportionment'' rule for calculation of damages. There is an existing, uncodified rule for such apportionment that exists in case law. However, codifying the rule will increase its clarity and mandate its application in all appropriate cases.

The second controversial provision in this section is a mandatory fee shifting provision. The language of this provision requires courts to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in cases where the non- prevailing party's legal position was not substantially justified. This language is similar to the test used in the Equal Access to Justice Act. This provision is intended to discourage litigation in those cases where a plaintiff's or defendant's case is so weak as to be objectively unreasonable.

Finally, this section also contains a repeal of Section 271(f) of Title 35. Under current law, either a foreign or domestic patent holder may be able to obtain damages based on foreign uses of domestically- manufactured components of an infringing article. In essence, current law provides for the extraterritorial application of domestic law in a manner that benefits foreign manufacturers and patentees in some situations.

Section 6 contains procedures for instituting a new type of post- grant review preceding that will allow the validity of a patent to be challenged in an administrative proceeding conducted by the Patent and Trademark Office rather than in court litigation.

Under current law, there are narrow reexamination procedures by which the PTO may reconsider a patent's validity at the request of an interested party. However, current reexamination proceedings are very limited and do not allow for a full consideration of a patent's validity. As a result, even when reexamination is available, potential litigants generally wait to challenge a patent's validity until an infringement suit has been brought despite the higher costs and prolonged uncertainty of doing so.

I believe that by adopting a more robust post-grant review proceeding we are providing a more efficient means of challenging a patent's validity in an administrative proceeding. This is necessary to address systemic problems in our patent system, making post-grant review an essential component of any meaningful reform legislation. While there appears to be substantial agreement regarding the need for a more meaningful post-issuance review, there are strong disagreements over its specific attributes and scope.

During hearings conducted in the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and during meetings with stakeholders, we encountered widely disparate proposals and suggestions regarding post-grant review from stakeholders, academics, and lawmakers. At one end of the spectrum are proposals that would create a low-cost, streamlined proceeding by simply expanding the current inter partes reexamination. At the other end of the spectrum are those that would like to see the creation of specialized patent courts that would partially supplant Federal court litigation. With this bill, we have introduced a proposal that falls somewhere in between these two extremes.

This bill institutes a robust post-grant opposition system. The new procedures for post-grant cancellation proceedings create a new system for challenging the validity of problematic or suspect patents, which will allow those who are concerned about infringing such a patent to test its validity in an administrative proceeding instead of waiting to assert invalidity as a defense in an infringement action. The

new procedures are tiered in such a way as to encourage challenges to occur within the first year after a patent's issuance. After the one- year ``first window,'' challenges may still be brought by those who are able to demonstrate a substantial economic stake in the outcome of the proceeding. To deter piecemeal litigation, if a party institutes a proceeding after the first year, any challenge to patentability available to that party with respect to the patent must be either raised or waived. Thus, a challenger who participates in a proceeding outside the first year is estopped from raising any grounds relating to patentability that were or could have been raised in the previous challenge.

In addition to the new post-grant review proceedings, language in section 9 of this bill makes substantial improvements to the existing inter partes reexamination proceeding that are based on recommendations from the PTO and stakeholders. The most significant change to the reexamination proceedings is the modification of the estoppel effect of such proceedings. Currently, participants in an inter partes reexamination are barred from subsequently raising any grounds they ``raised or could have raised.'' Thus, parties who wish to challenge a patent more than a year after its issuance will have the option of bringing a narrow challenge that will not subject them to full estoppel as an alternative to bringing a full post-grant opposition proceeding or reserving their arguments for court. This approach provides a range of alternatives to legitimate challengers, while still providing balanced protections against harassing or abusive litigation for the patentee.

Section 8 would amend the current statutory provision that determines the appropriate venue for patent litigation. The intent of the venue language is to serve as a starting point for discussions as to what restrictions--if any--are appropriate on the venue in which patent cases may be brought. Section 8 also contains a provision allowing for interlocutory appeals of decisions involving the claim construction of a patent. Again, this language is intended to generate discussion about the current interplay between the Federal district and appellate courts. As both academics and the patent bar have noted, the resolution of the legal questions involving claim construction appear to be taking up a greater and greater portion of the docket of the Federal circuit court of appeals.

Given the high percentage of reversals on claims construction issues, some experts believe that an interlocutory appeal of Markman decisions might allow parties to resolve disputes as to claim construction more decisively prior to proceeding to a full trial. Alternatively, other experts believe that a return to the treatment of claims construction as a mixed question of law and fact might induce more deferential review by the appellate court. Still others have suggested that increased expertise among the district court judges trying patent cases might result in a lower reversal rate. In that regard, I should note that Congressman Issa has a bill authorizing a pilot project that appears to be a promising approach to increasing the expertise of Federal judges who handle patent cases, and I am considering introducing a similar bill here in the Senate. While I am not wedded to any particular approach or combination of approaches, I believe this is an issue that should receive serious attention and consideration by Congress.

Section 9 of the bill includes additional statutory changes that either implement or complement provisions found elsewhere in the bill. It also includes expanded authority for the PTO to conduct substantive rulemaking, as well as the changes to the inter partes reexamination procedures that I mentioned previously.

Section 10 includes a generic effective date provision. Obviously, I will need to modify the effective dates of the various provisions in the bill once we have been able to assess the difficulty of implementing various provisions in this bill.

In closing, I would like to thank my cosponsor, the senior Senator from Vermont, for all the work he has put into this bill and to compliment his intellectual property counsel, Susan Davies, for her efforts as well. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that my colleagues will join me in my efforts to refine and enact this important bill.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague, Senator Lincoln, I rise today to introduce the S Corporation Reform Act of 2006.

The bill we are introducing today is a continuation of a bipartisan effort that began in the Senate over a decade ago when former Senators Pryor and Danforth, me and six other Senators, introduced the S Corporation Reform Act of 1993. We recognized then, as we do today, that S corporations are a vital and growing part of our economy and that our tax law should reflect the importance of these entities and provide tax rules that allow S corporations to grow and compete with a minimum of complexity and a maximum of flexibility.

According to the latest figures available from the Small Business Administration, there were approximately 3.1 million S corporations in the United States in 2002 with a total of $3.9 trillion in revenue. There were about a half million S corporations in 1980, so the growth of these entities has been striking. Surprisingly, the growth of S corporations has continued even after the advent of the Limited Liability Company, LLC, which offers many of the same benefits, but more flexibility, as S corporations. In fact, S corporations now outnumber both C corporations and partnerships. These are predominantly small businesses in the retail and service sectors. In my home State of Utah, over half the corporations have elected subchapter S treatment.

Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1958 to help remove tax considerations from small business owners' decisions to incorporate. This elective tax treatment has been helpful to millions of small businesses over the years, particularly to those just starting out. Subchapter S provides entrepreneurs the advantage of corporate protection from liability along with the single level of tax enjoyed by partnerships and limited liability companies.

However, Subchapter S in its current state contains a variety of limitations, restrictions, and pitfalls for the unwary. Even though some very important improvements have been made over the years, including many first introduced in the 1993 S Corporation Reform Act I mentioned earlier, more needs to be done to bring the tax treatment of these important businesses into the 21st century. The two biggest constraints that small businesses face are difficulties in getting access to capital and the tax burden. The bill we are

introducing today addresses both of these vital issues.

Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in the economy and account for roughly half of the overall employment in the country. Throughout the 1990s small businesses accounted for sixty to eighty percent of all new jobs. They are especially important in industries where technological innovation is important. According to the Congressional Research Service, small firms account for nearly forty percent of all scientists, engineers, and computer specialists working in the private sector.

During the most recent downturn of 2001-2002, when the state of Utah lost jobs, small businesses actually created jobs and helped soften the blow for many Utahns. Today, as our economy is booming, small businesses continue to generate the bulk of new jobs.

In rural America, the role of small enterprises is even more important. Small businesses account for 90 percent of all rural establishments. In 1998, small companies employed 60 percent of rural workers and provided half of rural payrolls.

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing many American businesses, but especially smaller ones, is attracting adequate capital. Unfortunately, subchapter S is currently a hindrance, rather than a help, for many corporations facing this challenge. For example, current law allows for only one class of stock for S corporations. Further, S corporations are not currently allowed to issue convertible debt, nor are they allowed to have a nonresident alien as a shareholder.

Several of the provisions of the S Corporation Reform Act of 2006 are designed to alleviate these restrictions on S corporations and help them attract capital. With these changes, S corporations will be more competitive with other small enterprises doing business as partnerships or limited liability companies that do not face such barriers.

Even though electing subchapter S currently offers significant tax relief to a small corporation by eliminating the corporate level of taxation, S corporations still face some significant tax burdens and a myriad of potential pitfalls and tax traps for the unwary. Some of these impediments exist in the requirements of elective S corporation status, and others are in the rules governing the day-to-day operations of the entities. In either case, these provisions can stifle growth and impede job creation.

Most of the provisions in our bill aim to eliminate these barriers and make it easier for companies to elect subchapter S and to operate in this status once the election is made.

The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 made many important changes to subchapter S. One of the most significant was to allow, for the first time, small banks to elect to be S corporations. This opened the door for many small community banks to become more competitive with other financial institutions operating in towns and neighborhoods throughout the country. The availability of Subchapter S has been a positive development in increasing the profitability and competitiveness of many community banks. Some 2,300 banks have chosen to be S corporations, representing 25 percent of all banks. However, some of the operating rules under subchapter S remain unduly inflexible, complex, and harsh on banks.

The bill we introduce today attempts to address many of these challenges by clarifying and relaxing some of the operational rules that apply to S corporations. These changes are designed to make it significantly easier for community banks to take advantage of the benefits of subchapter S. In my opinion, businesses should be allowed to focus on meeting their customers' needs and maximizing their shareholders' profits, and not preoccupied with conforming to Byzantine government rules.

While the corporate structure of an S corporation would not generally make sense for larger companies, the tax structure applied to S corporations is quite sensible and can serve as a model for other companies. Economists hail the single level of taxation of profits in the S corporation law as a much more efficient approach, and something that would be desirable for all enterprises.

The S Corporation Reform Act of 2006 enjoys the support of a broad range of associations and trade groups, many of which have worked with us in crafting the bill.

I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this bill, and to support it. Thousands of small and growing businesses in every state will benefit from the improvements included in the bill. Its enactment will lead to an increased ability of these enterprises to attract capital and create new jobs.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and section-by- section explanation of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on the simple fairness principle that you should pay for what you get, no more and no less. In this case California water districts have been paying for years for conveyance capacity on the Folsom South Canal that they do not use.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from the pooled, reimbursable costs of California's Central Valley Project, CVP, the capital costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. Congressman Lungren has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

In 1970, two CVP contractors signed contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to take water from the Folsom South Canal, which had yet to be built. The canal diverts water out of Lake Natomas, a regulating reservoir immediately downstream of Reclamation's Folsom Reservoir, to areas in southern Sacramento County.

The canal was originally designed to incorporate five ``reaches''--or sections--and deliver water to southern Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and to the San Francisco Bay area. Because the planned East Side Division irrigation project was never constructed, the anticipated deliveries through the Folsom South Canal never materialized. Only two reaches of the canal were constructed, and those are dramatically overbuilt. In a departure from normal reclamation policy, which dictates that signed contracts are required prior to construction of projects, signed contracts were not obtained.

The canal was built with the capacity to deliver 2.5 million acre- feet of water per year, but the only entity currently diverting water through the canal--the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, SMUD--has only diverted a maximum of 20,000 acre-feet per year. In short, a significantly oversized canal has been used to deliver a very small quantity of water.

Under reclamation policy, the agency allocates the capital costs of the canal to the pool of all CVP municipal and industrial water--M&I-- users regardless of whether they divert water through the Folsom South Canal. There are 32 M&I customers that are paying for the canal, including SMUD, Sacramento County Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District and Contra Costa Water District. Today, only SMUD diverts any water through the canal, albeit only about 8 percent of the canal's capacity; the other customers have little or no benefit to the project that they fund. This inequity is difficult to explain to ratepayers that are already burdened with replacing aging infrastructure and upgrading water treatment technologies.

My legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exclude and defer from those pooled reimbursable costs of the CVP, the costs of the unused capacity of the Folsom South Canal. While final deferral calculations will be performed by reclamation as directed by this bill, it is estimated that this bill will result in a deferral of approximately $35 million excess capacity costs.

The concept of deferring costs is not unique to the Folsom South Canal. Congress has authorized deferrals for other elements of the CVP and in other reclamation projects. Even though there are many instances where customers pay for unused capacity, there are no instances that come close to approaching the absurd inequity of being forced to pay for a canal that is producing 8 percent of what reclamation promised it would deliver.

Should the amount of CVP water conveyed through the Folsom South Canal change in the future, this bill includes a provision directing Interior to review the change and adjust the deferred costs accordingly for unused capacity.

I strongly believe this deferral is the correct approach to this issue. Reclamation made the decision to oversize this canal based on future planned expansions--expansions that did not materialize. The water districts that use the existing canal for limited conveyances should not pay for the consequences of public policy decisions that resulted in a significantly oversized canal. Water districts should pay for the canal conveyance capacity that they use--I think this is a fairness principle that we can all accept.

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

Mr. President, this bill will allow two California counties, Ventura and Merced, to provide health care to Medi-Cal beneficiaries through the model they have determined best meets their communities' needs.

This legislation allows Merced and Ventura to establish community operated health systems, COHS, and raises the percentage of Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are enrolled in these programs from 16 percent to 18 percent.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study mass communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats's nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats's death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death,

rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to. . . . I've been here 4 years. . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats's seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving. . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and bay area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats's right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today the COMPETE Act of 2006, along with Senators Collins and Cornyn.

This is a bill which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow certain minor league athletes and ice skaters to be admitted temporarily into the United States to compete or perform in an athletic league, competition or performance under the same non-immigrant visa category as professional athletes.

The purpose of this legislation is to level the playing field for minor league sports teams that depend on getting the best athletic talent, regardless of where in the world that talent is discovered.

Under current law, minor league players and ice skaters who use the H-2B temporary visa category face severe visa shortages, while major league players qualify for uncapped P-1 temporary visas.

This unfair discrepancy in the law needs to be remedied, and the bill we are introducing today provides a commonsense solution because it allows minor league athletes--whether in baseball, basketball, hockey, or ice skating--who will perform competitively in the United States to apply for a P-1 temporary visa as opposed to an H-2B visa.

By way of background, The H-2B temporary visa category allows U.S. employers in industries with seasonal or intermittent needs to augment their existing labor force with temporary workers or augment their labor force when necessary due to a one-time occurrence which necessitates a temporary increase in workers.

Typically, H-2B workers fill labor needs in occupational areas such as construction, health care, landscaping, lumber, manufacturing, food service and processing, and resort and hospitality services.

Additionally, and perhaps what people do not know, is that not only is the

H-2B visa category used by loggers, lifeguards, crab pickers, amusement park employees, hotel and restaurant employees, but it is also used by many talented, highly competitive foreign athletes who are recruited by U.S. teams and theatrical ice skating productions.

A chronic H-28 visa shortage over the last 3 years has posed challenges for all industries using the H-2B visa category. In fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, the 66,000 visa cap has been reached, leaving American teams and the athletes they are recruiting out in the cold.

The COMPETE Act is a solution that not only helps professional American teams, but it also relieves the stress on the H-2B visa program added by a misclassified group.

The reality is that minor league athletes do not belong in the same visa category as seasonal workers. There is no reason major league athletes can't and shouldn't qualify for P-1 visas, which are granted to talented athletes, artists, and entertainers. The COMPETE Act would remedy this unfair situation.

What follows are some examples of how classifying minor leaguers and ice skaters as H-2B workers harms American sports and how it would be better that they be reclassified as other athletes for temporary P-1 visas.

Disney on Ice has seven domestic tours per year, bringing approximately $400,000 to each of the 150 to 170 U.S. cities in which it stops. There are not enough U.S. skaters to fill the roles each production requires, thus the organization relies on foreign skaters to supplement its cast. As the cap on H-28 visas has been consistently reached before the commencement of their training period--(August in Florida--and subsequent touring seasons--September through February or March--they are often short of ice skaters for their productions.

Major League Baseball was unable to bring 350 baseball players to the United States in the 2004 and 2005 seasons as a result of the H-28 visa cap having been met. Promotions of promising young players to the U.S. Minor League affiliates could not be made. Due to the unavailability of visas, signings of Canadian players drafted in baseball's June first- year player draft have declined by 80 percent. Furthermore, clubs who have already signed talented non-U.S. citizens have been prevented from bringing these players to the United States given that the H-2B cap has been reached in past years.

National Hockey League recruits from independent minor league teams, such as the American Hockey League, Central Hockey League, and the East Coast Hockey League, for foreign players to fill its ranks. Most minor hockey league teams' rosters are filled with a majority of foreign national professional athletes. This is evident by the number of slots that are requested each year by the minor leagues on their temporary labor certification applications filed with the Labor Department. For instance, the AHL requests approximately 21 player slots out of a roster of approximately 26 players; the other leagues are similarly situated where the number of requests for slots on temporary labor certifications is usually in the ballpark of 80 percent of the roster.

Further, hockey leagues usually have a few if not more clubs that are located in Canada. Of course these players do not need H-2Bs to play for a Canadian team, but in the event that they are traded during the season to a U.S. team, the acquiring team would have to file an H-2B. This frequently presents problems when the numbers have been exhausted as the trade becomes dependent upon the availability of a visa number and not the professional needs of the team. In addition, players are signed throughout the season; this can also prevent teams from signing players if the numbers have been exhausted. This is particularly true at the end of the season--usually March or April 1--when the numbers have been exhausted and the need to sign players for playoffs and finals increases.

National Basketball Association created a developmental league in 2001. The NBA Development League, or D-League, has functioned both as a feeder system for the NBA, whose teams annually call up players to fill out NBA rosters beginning in January and, commencing with the 2005-06 season, as a place where inexperienced NBA Players, within their first two seasons, may be assigned to get additional playing time. The D- League, currently comprised of 12 teams across the country, signs and recruits the best basketball athletes from around the world who are not playing in the NBA. On average, international players comprise approximately 10 percent of active D-League rosters, which currently stand at 10 players per team. The H-2B cap has prevented the D-League from being able to sign a significant number of qualified international players during each of the past two seasons.

So a simple, commonsense solution would be to expand the P-1 visa category to include minor league and certain amateur-level athletes who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues. This is what the COMPETE Act would do.

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and Feld Entertainment, which owns Disney on Ice, all support the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include minor league players and ice skaters.

Americans love their sports teams and want to see the highest caliber athletes competing or performing. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill rather than visa availability.

In addition, we would reduce some pressure on the H-28 visa category making more of those visas available to the industries that need them.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Collins and Cornyn, as well as Mikulski, Leahy, and Lieberman, in introducing the COMPETE Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Sessions to introduce the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Our legislation protects the safety of consumers who wish to purchase prescription drugs over the Internet, while holding accountable those who operate unregistered pharmacies.

Just a few weeks ago, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a DOJ Oversight hearing. In discussing the Department's priorities, he singled out how ``the purchase of ... controlled pharmaceuticals on the Internet is of

great concern.'' He noted how the Internet's wide accessibility and anonymity ``give drug abusers the ability to circumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice, a[s] they dispense potentially dangerous controlled pharmaceuticals.'' With ``no identifying... information on these Web sites, it is very difficult for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind them.''

I believe this bill will address many of these problems that the Attorney General has identified.

To understand how many of these Internet pharmacy Web sites exist, just visit any Internet search engine. Type in the name of any controlled substance or prescription drug. Several Web sites will appear, offering to sell you these drugs without a prescription and without a medical examination. Some of these Web sites simply ask patients to send copies of medical records, with no verification of their validity.

Patients use these pharmacies to obtain addictive drugs, like Vicodin and Oxycontin. They can receive prescription medications like Viagra without a doctor performing a physical exam to ensure that an underlying health condition will not cause a dangerous side effect.

At the same time, receiving medications from a legitimate, licensed Internet pharmacy is one of the new conveniences ushered in by the Internet age. This bill preserves the ability of well-run pharmacies and well-intentioned patients to access prescription drugs and controlled substances by means of the Internet.

This legislation imposes basic, commonsense requirements on an industry that presents both promise and peril.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits an Internet pharmacy from dispensing or selling a prescription drug or controlled substance without an in- person examination by a physician.

Third, it allows a State attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operating in violation of the law and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

The disclosure requirements contained in this bill will allow patients to differentiate between shady offshore pharmacies, and legitimate licensed ones. Under this legislation, pharmacies must clearly disclose the name and address of the pharmacy, contact information for the pharmacist-in-charge, and a list of States in which the pharmacy is licensed to operate. They must also clearly post a statement that they comply with the requirements in this legislation.

The bill states pharmacies can dispense to patients only if they have a valid prescription from a practitioner who has performed an in-person examination. This requirement will ensure that doctors can verify the health status of a patient and ensure that the drug he or she will receive from the pharmacy is medically appropriate.

This legislation recognizes that in the case of an emergency, a patient may not always be able to see his or her typical physician. For that reason, it allows a doctor to designate a covering practitioner to write a valid prescription if he or she is not available.

Finally, this bill contains real penalties to hold accountable those who continue to operate pharmacies in violation of these requirements.

First, for Internet sales of prescription drugs and controlled substances, the bill makes clear that such activities are subject to the current Federal laws against illegal distributions and the same penalties applicable to hand-to-hand sales.

Second, the bill increases the penalties for illegal distributions of controlled substances categorized by the DEA as schedule III, IV and V substances, with new penalties if death or serious bodily injury results and longer periods of supervised release available after convictions.

The bill also allows a State's attorney general to file a Federal motion to stop these pharmacies from operating illegally, no matter where the entity is headquartered. Previously, this type of enforcement would require a filing in every State.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill entitled Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006.

There is no question that broadband is an essential component of our lives, both at work and at home. Broadband access is becoming a vital service, much like water, sewer, gas, and electricity are essential resources for our daily living. Our homes and businesses need affordable and easy access to an always-on, high speed and high capacity Internet connection, much like our homes and businesses need the traditional utility services.

Additionally, people who work outside the confines of an office building need broadband access on the go. Often, it is not enough to have only a cell phone to remain in touch with your boss, coworker, client, or supplier. In today's global economy, we need easy methods to transfer a vast quantity of data, fast and reliably, even if we are not near a landline phone, fax, or computer terminal.

Yet for so many Americans today, broadband access is still a foreign concept. The digital divide remains a reality. Rural broadband deployment

continues to lag behind urban deployment, and the differential continues to grow, even as broadband usage has grown significantly in our Nation.

When I travel to small or rural towns in downstate Illinois and elsewhere, I meet people who tell me that they cannot wait to have broadband, but that there is no service available where they live. I am certain that all of my colleagues in the Senate can identify with situations like this, where they have met constituents who are eager to jump onto the Information Superhighway, yet there is no on-ramp.

According to a 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, only about 25 percent of rural households that use the Internet have broadband access, compared to over 40 percent of the same households in urban areas. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2005 report found that farm households have home access to broadband at almost half the level of all U.S. households nationwide.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project found similar results. In its 2006 report, Pew found that only 18 percent of rural adults reported a home broadband connection in the year 2005, compared to 31 percent of urban adults.

All these different studies issued by various authorities point to a consistent conclusion: Americans living in urban areas are almost twice as likely to have home broadband access as do their rural counterparts.

Contrary to popular belief, however, rural households use computers and information technology in ways that are very similar to their urban counterparts. Thus, it appears that the main obstacle to improving rural broadband adoption is not differences in the users themselves, but in the availability and price of broadband service.

It is clear that citizens in small towns and rural areas simply do not have the same options that people in cities and urban areas do. And, in some of the rural areas where broadband is available, these customers often pay more for inferior quality than customers in the more populated areas.

As our rural residents are falling behind city dwellers, so too, is our Nation falling behind the rest of the developed world.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that, in 2004, America ranked 12th among developed nations in broadband access per 100 inhabitants. However, the same study had found that in 2001, we ranked 4th in the developed world. So, this means that in just 3 short years, we lost our competitive edge to 8 countries.

Broadband is critical to community and economic development, as it encourages investment, creates jobs, improves productivity, fosters innovation, and increases consumer benefits in every corner of our Nation.

A 2003 study by Criterion Economics found that adoption of current generation broadband would increase the gross domestic product by $179.7 billion, while sustaining an additional 61,000 jobs per year over the next 19 years. The study also projected 1.2 million jobs could be created if next generation broadband technology were rapidly deployed.

In early 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable access to broadband by the year 2007, because it will enhance our Nation's economic competitiveness and help improve education and health care for all Americans. Kevin Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has said he is committed to expanding the number of broadband users in our country so that we can improve our rank in the world.

I agree with both President Bush and Chairman Martin. The administration, the FCC, Congress, and the States can all contribute to closing the digital divide, ensuring that rural Americans are not left behind in the 21st century's digital economy.

We need to work together to address this critical shortfall in our Nation's infrastructure. We need a seamless national network of broadband providers that will serve everyone in America.

Whether it is through telephone wire, cable, fiber, satellite, wireless, powerline, or any other medium, we need every existing and future broadband service provider to step up to the national challenge.

That is why I am introducing a bill that will encourage rapid deployment of high quality and affordable high speed broadband service, especially in the rural areas that desperately need this technology.

The Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006 includes five major provisions. Each provision is designed to eliminate obstacles that hinder broadband deployment in rural America today.

First, my bill creates a new Federal program specifically targeted to assist people who are doing the necessary work at the earliest stages to bring broadband to their communities.

These are future customers who are weary of waiting for telecommunications and cable companies to eventually reach their corners of the State. These are individuals, businesses, and co-ops who want to create a demand pool to entice new or existing carriers to quickly expand broadband service to areas where they work and live.

We have several groups like this in my home State of Illinois. They cannot wait any longer, so they have taken the initiative to work for access to affordable high quality broadband service.

Many of these groups and individuals work in collaboration with like- minded community leaders, businesspeople, engineers, and other experts to learn all they can about their region. They are the local experts on the unique geographic, economic, and lifestyle needs of their market. They can conduct the mapping and surveying work, to find out where there are services and gaps in their neighborhoods, and what technology is best suited to serve their region.

And, if they discover that no existing provider wants to expand service to where they are, based on the company's internal cost-benefit analysis, these groups are willing to start a communications service of their own, using technology they can afford, to provide broadband for and by themselves. These good people do not want to be left out of the new economy. They need our help.

Yet, currently, there is no readily accessible source of funding from the Federal Government for these groups that are undertaking the critical early stage groundwork. If they were already communications service providers, they could look for funding through other programs, including the USDA's Rural Utilities Service Program, the universal service fund, or the Small Business Administration. They could also go to the financial markets to seek venture capital and operating funds from established private sector investors.

But as startup groups trying hard to serve their local or rural community's needs, they have few places to turn to for financial assistance.

My bill creates a new Office of Broadband Access within the FCC that would administer a trust fund from which Federal grants can be issued to these startup groups. Under my bill, eligible entities include nonprofits, academic institutions, local governments, and commercial companies that will work to identify broadband access needs in unserved areas of the country.

The types of projects to be funded through this new program will include feasibility studies, mapping, economic analysis, and other activities undertaken to determine the reasons for the current lack of service and the scale, scope, and type of broadband services most suitable for the particular unserved area.

To further assist with these startup projects, my bill requires the FCC to collect more useful information from current broadband service providers to ascertain where and how broadband service is available, and to report to Congress on the areas that are unserved.

This reporting requirement is a bipartisan idea that Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Jim DeMint recently presented before the Senate Commerce Committee. I am happy to work with them to further encourage the FCC to collect more useful data on the state of broadband deployment.

Finally, the revenues to fund this trust fund will be derived from direct appropriations of $10 million per year for 5 years, plus 1 percent of proceeds from all auction sales of spectrum conducted by the FCC, which are to be set aside for this unique purpose. I believe this should generate enough revenues to sustain this trust fund for the next

5 years, which is the critical time for Federal assistance.

When Congress created the Rural Utilities Service Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program in the 2002 farm bill, we charged the U.S. Department of Agriculture with providing much needed funds to bring broadband to rural America. The bill authorized $100 million for fiscal years 2002 to 2007 to provide below market-rate loans and loan guarantees for the construction and improvement of facilities and equipment to provide broadband service.

While this loan program has had some successes over the past 4 years, it has also faced serious internal and external criticism.

For example, in September 2005, USDA's inspector general issued an internal audit report pointing out major problems with the program. Among other concerns, the report alleges that, in decisions that were inconsistent with provisions of authorizing statute, USDA has funded entities in suburban--not rural--areas, and in places that are already receiving broadband service.

The internal report also accuses the agency of mismanaging the program, leading to irregularities and even fraud in the decisionmaking and approval processes for applications.

To add more controversy to this program, in May of this year, USDA was sued by the cable industry for allegedly failing to follow the statutory mandates that created the broadband loan program.

Striking a tone similar to the inspector general's internal audit report, the lawsuit alleges among other issues that USDA has diverted Federal funds to suburban areas and has failed to ensure that unserved communities receive first priority.

I support the USDA's rural broadband loan program, and I want to see the program grow and continue to fund worthy projects. But I also believe that these recent internal and external developments merit serious consideration. So, in the spirit of working with the USDA to reform the problematic areas, my bill reforms and extends the life of the loan program for another 5 years, to expire in 2012, not 2007.

The bill goes to the heart of the concerns raised by the critics of the program. It amends the definition of an eligible rural community to exclude any area located within 10 miles of any city with a population of over 25,000. This should prevent the program from funding urban or suburban areas that may be technically considered rural under some definitions, but are in reality, located adjacent to areas that already receive broadband service.

Additionally, my bill prevents any rural area from being funded where a majority of its residential customers already have access to broadband service offered at a price per megabit of speed comparable to the nearest urban area. Under this definition, any area where rural residents are already enjoying affordable high speed broadband service should not be allowed to receive additional Federal funds.

These funds should be saved for the truly needy communities.

My bill also provides language to authorize in statute a rural broadband grant program to be administered by the USDA, together with its rural broadband loan and loan guarantee program.

While the USDA has created its own grant programs to fund certain broadband providers, a formal grant program was never authorized by Congress. By authorizing it, Congress will have more oversight and impose accountability, while keeping the grant program funded at an operational level for many years to come.

Finally, although USDA's inspector general has recommended several reform measures, I believe we should force the agency to implement these changes in order to improve the loan and grant programs. Therefore, my bill requires the USDA to undertake a comprehensive and transparent rulemaking process in response to the recent internal audit.

The FCC has been looking to make more spectrum available for innovative unlicensed wireless uses, including wireless broadband. This new ``unlicensed'' spectrum holds tremendous potential for allowing wireless broadband to be deployed in rural areas. This would be especially helpful in large rural geographic regions where it would be cost prohibitive to build out a broadband infrastructure with wires, cable, or fiber.

Some of this spectrum would come from space made newly available when traditional analog over-the-air TV broadcasters transition to digital transmission by 2009. Other spectrum may be found in narrow gaps between currently existing licensed users that could be utilized by smaller and localized products, such as garage openers, cordless phones, wireless baby monitors, and of course, broadband.

While I support making more spectrum available to new users, I believe we need to do so with clear safeguards in place so that new wireless users will not cause undue interference problems with existing broadcasters, public safety officials, and others that use wireless products such as microphones.

My bill requires the FCC to complete a rulemaking process to make new spectrum available for wireless broadband services in rural areas as soon as practicable. The bill specifically requires the FCC to ensure that new unlicensed wireless users provide engineering testing results to prevent harmful interference problems.

The FCC also has been planning an auction sale of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which is ideal for wireless broadband use. I support this auction, and I encourage the FCC to conduct it as soon as possible, so that new service providers can enter the wireless broadband market to fill in the gaps in service that wireline providers cannot or will not meet.

However, we have learned from previous FCC auctions that the true value of spectrum depends on who uses it and for what purposes. We also have learned that different carriers will bid in different auctions, depending on the size of the blocks of airwaves available for purchase. Large national wireless carriers will choose to bid on large geographic markets, while smaller or local carriers will bid on smaller market sizes.

For the 700 MHz band, I agree with a bipartisan idea that Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Byron Dorgan proposed in the Senate Commerce Committee. In our view, it makes the most sense to configure the plan for this band to designate up to 12 MHz of paired recovered analog spectrum to be auctioned for smaller geographic licenses.

This will maximize the participation of small, regional, and rural service providers, because these are the most likely entities to provide wireless broadband service in rural areas.

My bill therefore requires the FCC to evaluate its auction plans and to divide some of the frequency allocations into smaller area licenses so that regional and rural wireless companies can compete in the bidding process.

I look forward to working with Senators Snowe and Dorgan to ensure that the FCC maximizes the value of these public airwaves for the benefit of all Americans, especially those living in rural areas.

As with many States, my State of Illinois has struggled over the past few years with ways to bring universal and affordable broadband to every corner of our State. Many leaders in our State and local governments have studied various proposals, and have sought the guidance of experts in the private sector.

Additionally, telecommunications and cable companies that provide the vast majority of broadband service in the nation today are generally regulated at the state and local levels. Therefore, in our effort to develop a national broadband policy, I think it makes sense for Congress to learn from the varied experiences gained in many states that have tried innovative solutions to encourage or mandate broadband services in their regions.

My bill establishes a task force consisting of experts in Federal, State, and local governments, trade associations, public interest organizations, academic institutions, and other relevant areas, to study best practices for rapid deployment of broadband services in States, particularly those with large unserved rural areas.

The bill requires the task force, within 6 months, to provide to Congress and to each governor a report detailing a comprehensive list of specific measures adopted by State or local governments that have helped provide incentives for

communications carriers to deploy broadband services in areas that lacked such services.

For too long, we have been talking about the need to bring universal and affordable broadband to every corner of our Nation. Yet progress has been too slow. It is time to reengage our national, state, and local policy leaders to focus our attention, and work with the private sector toward achieving this goal.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Broadband for Rural America Act of 2006.

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

Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have sent a bill to the desk to address the heart-wrenching crisis in Darfur and support the peace process there, and we look for its early consideration.

The horrifying violence in the Darfur region of Sudan was recognized by Congress and the Bush administration as genocide over 2 years ago, and it continues unabated today. However, rays of hope for peace can be seen on the horizon. On May 5, the Government of Sudan and the main rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Minni Minnawi, agreed to a plan that, if implemented, could bring peace to Darfur.

The plan calls for an immediate cease-fire and requires the Government of Sudan to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed militia, the gunmen supported by the government who have been conducting a bloody campaign to forcibly displace non-Arab tribes from Darfur.

The Darfur Peace Agreement is an opportunity we need to seize. To do so, greater international pressure on the Sudanese government will be required in order to improve the prospects of effective implementation. Developments since its signing indicate that the present level of international pressure isn't enough.

Three months have passed, but the Sudanese Government has done little to take the most important step in the peace plan--disarming the Janjaweed. Khartoum's past record is not encouraging. It has pledged to disarm the Janjaweed on previous occasions but then failed to follow through. This reluctance is not unexpected in light of the government's cynical use of the Janjaweed to exercise power in the Darfur region.

In recent months, the violence in Darfur has spilled over into neighboring Chad. The two governments each support armed groups opposed to the other. Sudanese helicopters and planes attack innocent villagers in Darfur, despite a United Nations order not to fly over Darfur.

The African Union Mission in Sudan, which has 7,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, has made a valiant effort to provide security and assist the people of Darfur. Nonetheless, the African Union peacekeepers are not able even to defend themselves, much less the two million refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing the violence. This mission is obviously unprepared and ill-equipped to press for and verify the implementation of the May 5 peace agreement.

Sudan appears to be waiting to see whether the international community will again just lament the crisis and make hollow threats, or is now ready and willing to take concrete steps. As one high-ranking Sudanese Government official said to a Boston Globe reporter, ``The United Nations Security Council has threatened us so many times, we no longer take it seriously.'' It is time for the United States and the international community to let the Sudanese Government know that this time we expect Sudan to carry through on its commitments in the Darfur Peace Agreement. Fortunately, the international community has already taken initial actions to support the May 5 Peace Agreement. The African Union and the United Nations are planning for the transfer of peacekeeping responsibilities from the African Union to the United Nations. In addition, NATO has begun planning on how to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and the European Union hosted a conference in July on assistance for Darfur.

Although the international community has signaled support for the Darfur Peace Agreement, Khartoum has been dragging its heels. In particular, it has not yet agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur. The international community must strengthen its effort to persuade the Sudanese Government to comply with the agreement and permit the U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur.

One of the tragic outcomes of the Darfur violence is an alarming humanitarian crisis. More than 3 million people in Darfur are dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival. The violence in Darfur has forced millions to flee from their homes. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance reports that significant needs for health, food and water, and sanitation are not being met in Darfur. The World Food Program warns of a $400 million shortfall in the funds it now has for Sudan. Because of the shortages in food relief, the refugees are receiving only partial rations.

The children suffer most. One in four children in Darfur die before the age of five. The most needy frequently remain hidden, because insecurity in the region prevents them from making the dangerous trip to international relief centers.

The United States has been the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur, and we must continue our effort in order to give the people of the region much-needed aid. We must do more to encourage the international community to do so as well.

Sadly, the continuation of violence in the region has severely hindered humanitarian aid efforts. In the past 6 months, aid groups in eastern Chad have lost 26 vehicles to armed hijackers. One UNICEF worker was shot and nearly killed. It is unfair to put relief agencies in a situation where they must either risk having their aid workers murdered or raped, or pull out and leave thousands in Darfur to die. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said of this crisis, ``Giving aid without protection is like putting a Band-Aid on an open wound.''

To give peace the best chance of taking hold, peace, the Sudanese Government must be persuaded to implement its commitment to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed. The Sudanese can be influenced by what the rest of the world does. Sudan is not an isolated, remote land. It is the largest country in Africa, and has significant economic and political ties to the rest of Africa and the world.

Now is the time for the United States, in concert with other countries, to act on Darfur. This is why Senator Smith and I have introduced legislation to urge the Sudanese parties to honor their commitment in the peace accord. The bill also helps to address the unmet humanitarian needs in Darfur.

At its core, the legislation is intended to encourage greater international pressure on the Government of Sudan to fulfill its obligations in the peace agreement and to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.

In preparing this legislation, we have worked closely with the NGO community of experts. Groups such as the International Crisis Group, Refugees International, Save Darfur Coalition, the Hebrew International Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish World Service, and Physicians for Human Rights have endorsed it. I will ask that the letters of endorsements that I have submitted be printed in the Record.

The legislation assigns to the Presidential envoy for Sudan the responsibility for supporting the Darfur peace process and, together with the international community, to press the Sudanese parties to implement the agreed-upon ceasefire and disarm the Janjaweed militia.

It calls on the Government of Sudan to immediately allow a U.N. peacekeeping force to enter Darfur and to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement.

It calls on NATO to enforce the no-fly zone over Darfur, if requested by the U.N., and to provide airlift, and logistical and intelligence support to the peacekeepers.

It calls on the international community to act promptly to meet the outstanding humanitarian assistance

needs. We must do our part too. The legislation authorizes $150 million in additional funds for each of the next 5 fiscal years to meet these needs.

Under the legislation, the President will report on whether the Sudanese Government is implementing the peace agreement and has agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission to enter Darfur. If so, then the Presidential special envoy for Sudan will be requested to develop recommendations to advance the peace process. If the Sudanese Government refuses, then the President will impose sanctions targeted on the leaders of Sudan, urge the international community to do the same, and continue to oppose normalization of its relations with Sudan.

In addition, the bill requires reports from the Commerce Department identifying companies investing $5 million or more in Sudan and a listing of the assets of Sudanese leaders in the United States and elsewhere.

With so much other violence erupting in the world, we must not ignore the crisis in Darfur. Without international action, the genocide will go on. The Sudanese Government will balk or move slowly on disarming the Janjaweed and bringing an end to the violence. Experts estimate that since the conflict in Darfur began in 2004, up to 300,000 people have been killed, and an estimated 1.9 million have been displaced. Every day that we fail to act, those shameful numbers will increase.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Enzi, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I are introducing the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2006. The goals of this legislation are to enhance the Food and Drug Administration's authority over the safety of prescription drugs after they are approved; to encourage innovation in medical products; to improve access to clinical trials for patients and ensure that the doctors and patients learn about the results of clinical trials involving the drugs they prescribe and use; and to improve the screening of members of FDA's scientific advisory committees to avoid conflicts of interest.

The withdrawal of the drug Vioxx from the market nearly 2 years ago showed us once again that all prescription drugs have risks, many of which we may not know about when a drug is approved or even for years after approval. That is why we need a more effective system to identify and assess the serious risks of drugs, inform health care providers and patients about such risks, and manage or minimize these risks as soon as they are detected.

Our bill will require every drug to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, when it is approved. For many drugs, the REMS will include only the drug labeling, reports of adverse events, a justification for why only such reporting is needed, and a timetable for assessing how the REMS is working.

The FDA will be able to include additional requirements for a drug that poses serious risks, such as by requiring the drug to be dispensed to patients with labeling that patients can understand, that the drug company have a plan to inform health care providers about how to use the drug safely, or that a drug should not be advertised directly to consumers for up to 2 years after approval. If a serious safety signal needs to be understood, FDA can require further studies or even clinical trials after the drug is approved. Enhanced data-collection and data-mining techniques will help identify risk signals earlier and more thoroughly.

For a drug with the most serious side effects, FDA will be able to require that its REMS include the restrictions on distribution and use needed to assure its safe use.

The FDA will be able to impose any of these requirements at the time a drug is approved, and the agency can also modify the labeling or otherwise alter a drug's REMS after the approval. The drug's manufacturer will propose the REMS, or modifications to it, and the FDA and the company will try to work out an adequate REMS. If the agency and the company cannot agree, the agency's Drug Safety Oversight Board can review the dispute and recommend a resolution to senior FDA officials, who will make the final decision.

Civil monetary penalties are added to FDA's traditional enforcement tools to ensure compliance. Drug user fees will be used to review and implement the program.

The bill formalizes and makes mandatory what is now only informal and voluntary. Our intent is not to change standards for approving drugs but to ensure that the FDA has the ability to identify, assess, and manage risks as they become known. Better risk management will mean that drugs with special benefits for some patients will remain available, despite their serious risks for other patients, because FDA can better identify the risks and minimize them.

The bill helps to improve drug safety in other ways as well. The Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research will be a new public-private partnership at the FDA to advance the agency's Critical Path Initiative, which is intended to improve the science of developing, manufacturing, and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and diagnostics.

The institute will be supported by Federal funds and by contributions from the pharmaceutical and device industries. Philanthropic organizations will be able to supplement Federal support. The institute will have a board of directors and an executive director, and will report to Congress annually on its operations.

The bill will also expand the public database at NIH to encourage more patients to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. This database would build on the current systems and would include late phase II, phase III, and all phase IV clinical trials for all drugs.

A second, publicly available database would include the results of phase III and phase IV clinical trials of drugs, with the possibility that late phase II trials would be added later. Posting of results could be delayed for up to 2 years, pending the approval of the drug or the publication of trial results in a peer-reviewed journal. The public needs to know about the results of clinical trials on drugs. Tragically, such information was not adequately available for the clinical studies of antidepressants in children.

Posting information in the clinical trials registry and the clinical trials results database will be requirements for Federal research funding and for drug review and approval by the FDA. Both the FDA and the Inspector General Office of the Department of Health and Human Services would review the content of submissions to the results database to ensure they are truthful and nonpromotional. These Federal requirements would preempt State requirements for clinical trial databases.

Finally, the bill will improve FDA's process for screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest. The agency relies on its advisory committees to provide independent, expert, nonbinding recommendations on significant issues. Ideally, committee members should be free of any financial ties to the companies affected by an issue before a committee. But at times, there may be no individual without financial ties to such companies--for example, when the issue involves a rare disease or a cutting edge medical technology. In these cases, the FDA must be able to grant a waiver to allow an individual with essential expertise to serve on the committee. The bill will require the agency to seek qualified experts with minimal conflicts, clarify how it makes waiver decisions, and disclose those decisions at least 15 days before a committee meeting.

Our bill is a comprehensive response to drug safety and other important issues involving prescription drugs and other medical technologies. I commend Chairman Enzi and his dedicated staff-- especially Amy Muhlberg--for working closely with us on this proposal, and I urge our Senate colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill designed to reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. This bill's primary purpose is to ensure that small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds they need to compete for contracts, grow, and hire more employees.

Surety bonds are critical to small companies' survival and competitiveness. Without bonding, small firms cannot secure the contracts they need to grow. Unfortunately, many new, small businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets they need to secure surety bonding. Many sureties also refuse to bond small companies because of the greater risk that comes with insuring unproven firms. For many small businesses, difficulties obtaining surety bonds act as a barrier to entry and prevent them from competing in defense contracting, construction, services, and other markets.

Insuring against loss, surety bonds are most often used on large contracts where the sequential work of many subcontractors is necessary to finish a project on time. The principal contractor will require that each subcontractor obtain a surety bond. A subcontractor's surety bond will guarantee that they will meet their contract's time and quality requirements whether it be for framing a building or installing specific computer equipment. The majority of small and large businesses fulfill their contractual obligations, and claims against surety bonds are infrequent. If a claim occurs, the surety firm is responsible for any monetary damages that occur because the bonded company did not fulfill its contractual obligations.

Many new small contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program. In order to reduce the risk to- surety firms, the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible claims on bonds underwritten through the Surety Bond Guarantee Program. The Surety Bond Guarantee Program then helps small businesses establish a bonding history so that with time they can outgrow the program and obtain bonds in the competitive marketplace.

It is critical to understand that the number of participating sureties in the Surety Bond Guarantee Program directly affects the number of small companies that can receive surety bonds. Over the last several years, a number of SBA actions have greatly reduced the profitability of surety companies participating in this SBA program. Declining profitability has forced sureties to leave the program, causing a severe downturn in the total number of small businesses obtaining surety bonds.

In 2003, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program issued 8,974 bonds to small businesses. In 2004, the number declined to 7,803 bonds, and in 2005, the number declined again to 5,678 bonds. This year, even though the need for surety bonds has not decreased, as of March 2006, only 1,760 surety bonds have been issued. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and continue participating in the program.

One of the greatest obstacles to profitability is the Preferred Surety Bond Program's outdated fee structure. Currently, sureties in the preferred program are forced to use insurance rates set on August 1, 1987, almost 20 years ago. Many sureties have left the program because the SBA's outdated rates prevent them from making a profit on the small business bonds they issue.

To address this problem, my bill would grant participating sureties greater rate setting flexibility by allowing them to charge rates that are approved by the insurance commissioner of the State in which the contract will be performed. It will also raise the current limit on the maximum amount of a contract that a company can bond through the program from $2 million to $3 million, an adjustment that inflation makes necessary.

My bill prohibits the SBA from unwinding a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already underwritten and approved the bond. Currently, the SBA will often find technical reasons, which should have been discovered during the underwriting process, to avoid paying on a claim against an SBA guaranteed bond. When this occurs, the surety companies must honor the SBA's financial obligations and cover any losses caused by the breach of contract. Most sureties can only afford to have the SBA unwind a bond once or twice before they are forced to leave the Surety Bond Program.

My bill also addresses recent SBA fee increases. In August of 2005, the SBA moved to increase surety bonding companies' premium fees by 60 percent and then directed that none of the fee increase could be passed along to small companies seeking surety bonds. I was concerned that this fee increase would provide an additional reason for surety companies to stop underwriting small companies and further decrease the ability of small firms to receive surety bonds.

The SBA's fee increase made it necessary for me to evaluate the underlying terms of the surety program. After working with the SBA, eventually the agency agreed to allow the surety companies to split the fee increase with small firms, a much more palatable solution than forcing the bonding companies--or the small businesses--to absorb all of the increase.

The bill requires the SBA to be transparent in its fee structure and any calculations the agency uses to justify future fee increases. The bill also clarifies that Congress does not require the Surety Bond Guarantee Program to be entirely self funding or self sufficient.

I am working with the SBA to reverse the decline in participating sureties and increase the number of small businesses receiving surety bonding. To achieve this goal, the Surety Bond Guarantee Program is working to reduce approval times by increasing companies' ability to submit underwriting applications and claim requests online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety bonding. These changes, along with the necessary legislative changes I have proposed today, will help the program attract new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to secure sureties underwriting through the program.

Mr. President, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support the Surety Bond Improvement Act. This bill was written after consulting with small business owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this critical program. Without these changes, the number of sureties participating in the program will continue to decline--as will the ability of small businesses to secure surety bonds. Without these bonds many small businesses will be unable to compete for contracts and government work. For new companies, obtaining a surety bond will become a barrier to entry and competition they are unable to overcome.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Information Security Act of 2006. This bill will establish within the Small Business Administration a Small Business Information Security Task Force to advise the SBA and help small businesses both understand the information security challenges they face and identify resources to help meet those challenges.

As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of my goals is to ensure small businesses are protected from the mounting information security threats they face every day. This legislation will create a clearinghouse of information, resources, and tools--compiled by a task force consisting of public and private sector experts in the field--that will ease the trouble, confusion, and cost often associated with enhancing information security measures within a small business. The task force will continually update information and resources as new technologies and new threats arise. Currently, potential and existing owners of small businesses turn to the SBA for resources regarding a number of other aspects when developing and maintaining their ventures. But information security resources are not as readily available. This measure will present an opportunity for the SBA to create a repository for small businesses to meet their information security needs.

According to a 2005 survey by the Small Business Technology Institute, more than half of all small businesses in the United States experienced a security breach in the last year. Furthermore, the study concludes that nearly one-fifth of small businesses do not use virus- scanning for e-mail, over 60 percent do not protect their wireless networks with encryption, and two-thirds of small businesses do not have an information security plan.

As these statistics illustrate, small businesses are increasingly at risk of data breaches and other forms of malicious attacks on their information technology infrastructure. The Small Business Information Security Task Force will provide resources and information to small business owners to help them overcome these obstacles and decrease the risks posed to their small businesses by cybercriminals. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this vitally important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail establishments, most of which have less than five employees. This legislation is one in a series of proposals that, if enacted, will reduce both the amount of taxes that small businesses pay, but also the administrative burden that unfairly saddles them as they attempt to comply with our Nation's tax laws.

The proposal reduces from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. Under current law, only retailers that lease their property are allowed this accelerated depreciation, which means it excludes retailers that also own the property in which they operate. My bill simply seeks to provide equal treatment to all retailers.

Before I talk about the specifics of this particular provision, let me first explain why it is so critical that we begin evaluating how we can best reform the Tax Code, which increasingly keeps our small businesses trapped in a paralyzing state of regulatory limbo. As is well-known small businesses are the foundation of our Nation's economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent the private- sector workforce, and contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output.

Despite the fact that small businesses are the real job-creators for our Nation's economy, the current tax system imposes large and expensive requirements in terms of satisfying their reporting and recordkeeping obligations. This is a problem Congress must address because small companies are disadvantaged most in terms of the money and time spent in satisfying their tax obligation. Why create distractions for them as they simply seek to comply with the law?

For example, according to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, small businesses spend an astounding 8 billion hours each year complying with government reports. They also spend more than 80 percent of this time on completing tax forms. What's even more troubling is that companies that employ fewer than 20 employees spend nearly $1,304 per employee in tax compliance costs; an amount that is nearly 67 percent more than larger firms.

These statistics are disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that small businesses are being required to spend so much money on compliance costs means they have fewer earnings to reinvest into their business. This, in turn, means that they have less money to spend on new equipment or on worker training, which unfortunately has an adverse effect on their overall production and the economy as a whole.

Second, the fact that small business owners are required to make such a sizeable investment of their time into completing paperwork means they have less time to spend on doing what they do best--running their business and creating jobs.

Let me be clear that I am in no way suggesting that small business owners are unique in having to pay income taxes, and I am certainly not expecting them to receive a free pass. What I am

asking for, though, is a change to make the Tax Code fairer and simpler so that small companies can satisfy this obligation without having to expend the amount of resources that they do currently.

For that reason, the package of proposals that I have introduced will provide not only targeted, affordable tax relief to small business owners but also simpler rules under the Tax Code. By simplifying the Tax Code, small business owners will be able to satisfy their tax obligation in a cheaper, more efficient manner, allowing them to be able to devote more time and resources to their business.

Specifically, the proposal that I am introducing today will simply conform the tax codes to the realities that retailers on Main Street face. Studies conducted by the Treasury Department, Congressional Research Service and private economists have all found that the 39-year depreciation life for buildings is too long and that the 39-year depreciation life for building improvements is even worse. Retailers generally remodel their stores every 5 to 7 years to reflect changes in customer base and compete with newer stores. Moreover, many improvements such as interior partitions, ceiling tiles, restroom accessories, and paint, may only last a few years before requiring replacement.

Mr. President, this legislation is a tremendous opportunity to help small enterprises succeed by providing an incentive for reinvestment. Every Member of this body has small retail constituents in small towns who may be in buildings that they have owned for generations and are struggling to compete. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation as we work with the President to transform such a critical investment incentive into law. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Kerry for joining me as cosponsors to this legislation.

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