Educational Opportunity for All Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Brownback, Clinton, Santorum, Landrieu, Ensign and Durbin, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, or CAMRA Act. We believe there is an urgent need to establish a federal role for targeting research on the impact of media on children. From the cradle to the grave, our children now live and develop in a world of media--a world that is increasingly digital, and a world where access is at their fingertips. This emerging digital world is well known to our children, but its effects on their development are not well understood. Young people today are spending an average of 6 and a half hours with media each day. For those who are under age 6, two hours of exposure to screen media each day is common, even for those who are under age 2. That is about as much time as children under age 6 spend playing outdoors, and it is much more time than they spend reading or being read to by their parents. How does this investment of time affect children's physical development, their cognitive development, or their moral values? Unfortunately, we still have very limited information about how media, particularly the newer interactive media, affect children's development. Why? We have not charged any Federal agency with ensuring an ongoing funding base to establish a coherent research agenda about the impact of media on children's lives. This lack of a coordinated government-sponsored effort to understand the effects of media on children's development is truly an oversight on our part, as the potential payoffs for this kind of knowledge are enormous.

Consider our current national health crisis of childhood obesity. The number of U.S. children and teenagers who are overweight has more than tripled from the 1960's through 2002. We think that media exposure is partly the cause of this epidemic. Is it? Is time spent viewing screens and its accompanying sedentary lifestyle contributing to childhood and adolescent obesity? Or is the constant bombardment of advertisements for sugar-coated cereals, snack foods, and candy that pervade children's television advertisements the culprit? How do the newer online forms of ``stealth marketing'', such as advergaming where food products are embedded in computer games, affect children's and adolescents' purchasing patterns? What will happen when pop-up advertisements begin to appear on children's cell phones that specifically target them for the junk food that they like best at a place where that food is easily obtainable? The answer to the obesity and media question is complex. A committee at the National Academy of Sciences is currently charged with studying the link between media advertising and childhood obesity. Will the National Academy of Sciences panel have the data they need to answer this important question? A definitive answer has the potential to save a considerable amount of money in other areas of our budget. For example, child health care costs that are linked to childhood obesity issues could be reduced by understanding and altering media diets.

Or take the Columbine incident. After two adolescent boys shot and killed some of their teachers, classmates, and then turned their guns on themselves at Columbine High School, we asked ourselves if media played some role in this tragedy. Did these boys learn to kill in part from playing first-person shooter video games like Doom where they acted as a killer? Were they rehearsing criminal activities when playing this game? We looked to the research community for an answer. In the violence and media area, Congress had passed legislation in the past so that research was conducted about the relationship between media violence and childhood aggression, and as a result, we knew more. Even though much of this data base was older and involved the link between exposure to violent television programs and childhood aggression, some answers were forthcoming about how the Columbine tragedy could have taken place. Even so, there is still a considerable amount of speculation about the more complex questions. Why did these particular boys, for example, pull the trigger in real life while others who played Doom confine their aggressive acts to the gaming context? We need to be able to answer questions about which children under what circumstances will translate game playing into real-life lethal actions. Investing in media research could potentially reduce our budgets associated with adolescent crime and delinquency as well as reduce real-life human misery and suffering.

Many of us believe that our children are becoming increasingly materialistic. Does exposure to commercial advertising and the ``good life'' experienced by media characters partly explain materialistic attitudes? We're not sure. Recent research using brain-mapping techniques finds that an adult who sees images of desired products demonstrates patterns of brain activation that are typically associated with reaching out with a hand. How does repeatedly seeing attractive products affect our children and their developing brains? What will happen when our children will be able to click on their television screen and go directly to sites that advertise the products that they see in their favorite programs? Or use their cell phones to pay for products that they want in the immediate environment? Exactly what kind of values are we cultivating in our children, and what role does exposure to media content play in the development of those values?

A report linked very early television viewing with later symptoms that are common in children who have attention deficit disorders. However, we don't know the direction of the relationship. Does television viewing cause attention deficits, or do children who have attention deficits find television viewing experiences more engaging than children who don't have attention problems? Or do parents whose children have difficulty sustaining attention let them watch more television to encourage more sitting and less hyperactive behavior? How will Internet experiences, particularly those where children move rapidly across different windows, influence attention patterns and attention problems? Once again, we don't know the answer. If early television exposure does disrupt the development of children's attention patterns, resulting in their placement in special education programs, actions taken to reduce screen exposure during the early years could lead to subsequent reductions in children's need for special education classes, thereby saving money while fostering children's development in positive ways.

We want no child left behind in the 21st century. Many of us believe that time spent with computers is good for our children, teaching them the skills that they will need for success in the 21st century. Are we right? How is time spent with computers different from time spent with television? What are the underlying mechanisms that facilitate or disrupt children's learning from these varying media? Can academic development be fostered by the use of interactive online programs designed to teach as they entertain? In the first six years of life, Caucasian more so than African American or Latino children have Internet access from their homes. Can our newer interactive media help ensure that no child is left behind, or will disparities in access result in leaving some behind and not others?

The questions about how media affect the development of our children are clearly important, abundant, and complex. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are in short supply. Such gaps in our knowledge base limit our ability to make informed decisions about media policy.

We know that media are important. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings in these chambers about how exposure to media violence affects childhood aggression. We passed legislation to maximize the documented benefits of exposure to educational media, such as the Children's Television Act which requires broadcasters to provide educational and informational television programs for children. Can we foster children's moral values when they are exposed to prosocial programs that foster helping, sharing, and cooperating like those that have come into being as a result of the Children's Television Act? We acted to protect our children from unfair commercial practices by passing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act which provides safeguards from exploitation for our youth as they explore the Internet, a popular pastime for them. Yet the Internet has provided new ways to reach children with marketing that we barely know is taking place, making our ability to protect our children all the more difficult. We worry about our children's inadvertent exposure to online pornography--about how that kind of exposure may undermine their moral values and standards of decency. In these halls of Congress, we acted to protect our children by passing the Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection Act, and the Children's Internet Protection Act to shield children from exposure to sexually-explicit online content that is deemed harmful to minors. While we all agree that we need to protect our children from online pornography, we know very little about how to address even the most practical of questions such as how to prevent children from falling prey to adult strangers who approach them online. There are so many areas in which our understanding is preliminary at best, particularly in those areas that involve the effects of our newer digital media.

In order to ensure that we are doing our very best for our children, the behavioral and health recommendations and public policy decisions we make should be based on objective behavioral, social, and scientific research. Yet no Federal research agency has responsibility for overseeing and setting a coherent media research agenda that can guide these policy decisions. Instead, Federal agencies fund media research in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in a patch work quilt of findings. We can do better than that.

The bill we are introducing today would remedy this problem. The

CAMRA Act will provide an overarching view of media effects by establishing a program devoted to Children and Media within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This program of research, to be vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, will fund and energize a coherent program of research that illuminates the role of media in children's cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and behavioral development. The research will cover all forms of electronic media, including television, movies, DVDs, interactive video games, cell phones, and the Internet, and will encourage research involving children of all ages--even babies and toddlers. The bill also calls for a report to Congress about the effectiveness of this research program in filling this void in our knowledge base. In order to accomplish these goals, we are authorizing $90 million dollars to be phased in gradually across the next five years. The cost to our budget is minimal and can well result in significant savings in other budget areas.

Our Nation values the positive, healthy development of our children. Our children live in the information age, and our country has one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology systems in the world. While this system entertains them, it is not harmless entertainment. Media have the potential to facilitate the healthy growth of our children. They also have the potential to harm. We have a stake in finding out exactly what that role is. We have a responsibility to take action. Access to the knowledge that we need for informed decision-making requires us to make an investment: an investment in research, an investment in and for our children, an investment in our collective future. The benefits to our youth and our nation's families are immeasurable.

By passing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, we can advance knowledge and enhance the constructive effects of media while minimizing the negative ones. We can make future media policies that are grounded in a solid knowledge base. We can be proactive, rather than reactive. In so doing, we build a better nation for our youth, fostering the kinds of values that are the backbone of this great nation of ours, and we create a better foundation to guide future media policies about the digital experiences that pervade our children's daily lives.

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

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

s. 579

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. President, I am introducing the Information Security and Protection Act. It has to do with a subject matter about which we have had breaking news over the course of the last several days, and that is identity theft.

Two weeks ago we found out a company named ChoicePoint, a Georgia company, because of the conviction in a plea bargain with someone who had under false pretenses broken into the database of this information broker, had 400,000 individual records stolen and thus subject to the taking of the personal identity of those 400,000 people. Of those we know of, 10,000 of them are in my State, and I can tell you, having met with a group of Floridians we picked at random in the central Florida area I met with a week and a half ago, it has been a tale of extraordinarily horrific circumstances for these Americans when their identity was stolen to, No. 1, stop the theft, and then, No. 2, to reclaim their identity and to get back their identity, for example, with a credit card on which bills have been run up and therefore their credit becomes bad. Trying to get back their good name and their good credit has become a horrific process.

One of the central Floridians I met with is a truckdriver who has a special license to drive trucks with hazardous materials. This particular individual is so frustrated because whenever he goes to this Government agency or that Government agency, they always send him to another one, saying we can't help you. There is someone out there with his identity who keeps violating traffic rules and laws all over the country and he keeps getting summonses to courts in States all over the country, and he can't get back his identity.

That is just one example. Or take the example of the mom recently widowed, so her grown daughter takes over the paying of her bills, and because the mom has always been frugal, the daughter sees a charge on the credit card for $10,000 and thinks, well, my mom is suddenly going to start spending a little on herself. The daughter continues to pay these kinds of bills until she finally gets a call from a store in San Francisco and the clerk says, I want to see if you will approve this $26,000 charge for your mother. And she says, well, that is not my mother because my mother is not in San Francisco, she is here with me in Cocoa, FL right now. Fortunately, the game was up. They stopped that process, but that daughter had already paid $40,000 worth of bills thinking they were legitimate charges by her mother, and she will never get back that $40,000.

These are just a couple of examples of identity theft. But now the problem has gotten to be so much larger because these data collectors, which I call information brokers, with the advance of technology are able to gather billions and billions of records. This particular company that has come to light over the last couple of weeks with the theft of 400,000 records--ChoicePoint is the name of the company--has stored, now listen to this, 17 to 19 billion--that is with a B-- records. With that amount of data, they virtually have information on every American. It is not just credit reports that are protected by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It is Social Security numbers and driver's licenses. It is job applications. It is DNA tests. It is medical records.

With this kind of information, centralized under the control of one company, if there is a penetration of the security of that company, then you see what the invasion of our privacy is about to cause.

Indeed, we are going to be in a situation where no American has any privacy, and we are going to continue to go through this process until we say, enough already, and the people stand up and say: You have to protect our privacy.

That is what the bill I am introducing, the Information Security and Protection Act, sets out to do. It is going to require legal safeguards, put some teeth in the law, that is going to require not just credit reports, which is covered by existing Federal law, but it is going to require these collectors of information who sell them for a profit-making business to have the safeguards to protect the consumers.

Additionally, it is going to have the safeguards for the consumers so they can have access to those records and see if, in fact, they are correct, and if they are not, correct them and have a list of the people who are seeking the information about them.

We had another case come to light a week ago, and that was the case of records that are missing. We do not know if they were destroyed, if they were lost, or if they were stolen, but they are the records of customers of the Bank of America. We are talking about 1.2 million customers. And, oh, by the way, some of those customers

are Federal employees who happen to have this particular card. It is the Federal travel card. This card is distributed additionally to the Members of the Senate.

On that stolen or missing information is the very personal and private information of 60 Senators in this Chamber. Let's hope we do not become the victims of identity theft and that we have to go through all of these horrific experiences I have heard in talking with some of my constituents. But, in fact, we may. Until we find out what happened to those records of 1.2 million individuals, Federal employees, then we are subject to these kinds of traumas that come from identity theft.

Today we have learned of a major breach at the Boca Raton based company called SizeNet. It is a part of Lexis-Nexis. Information that was accessed included names, addresses, Social Security and driver's license numbers; not the credit history, medical records, or financial information. This group said--and they put out a statement to the London Stock Exchange--that this was information on 32,000 U.S. citizens. It may have been accessed from one of the databases. The company said the breach, made on its legal and business information service, Lexis-Nexis, which had recently acquired this SizeNet unit, was being investigated by staff and U.S. law enforcement authorities. So here we have another 32,000 U.S. citizens who could possibly be the victims of identity theft.

Are we going to do anything about it? I sure hope so, and I am hopeful that we are going to have the Congress start to take action on a bill Congressman Markey in the House, a Member of the House Commerce Committee, and I, a Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, have introduced.

This bill requires the Federal Government to begin to regulate the products offered by information brokers. Under the legislation, the Federal Trade Commission would pass regulations that would empower consumers to have control over the personal information they have compiled in these databases. Consumers would be given, for the first time, the right to find out what files information brokers keep about them, and they would be given the right to make sure the information in the files is correct. They would be given the right to promptly correct the inaccurate information. They would be permitted to find out which people have asked for copies of their personal information.

What would be the responsibility of the information broker? It would require the Federal Trade Commission to come up with standards to ensure that those brokers know to whom they are selling that consumer information and the purposes for which it is being used. Those information brokers would be required to safeguard and protect the privacy of the billions of consumer records they hold.

Under present law, there is no protection unless you fall under a law such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act which protects consumer credit records. But all the amassing of this additional data is not protected under current law.

This bill I am filing also allows Government law enforcers and consumers to bring tough legal actions against the brokers if they violate the new regulations that the FTC would promulgate. Then it clearly gives a nod to the States to pass their own laws that they believe are necessary to effectively regulate information brokers.

This bill is not a catchall bill. This bill is meant to focus very narrowly on information brokers. It instructs the FTC to carve out appropriate regulatory exemptions that are in the public interest. So there is flexibility for the FTC to adjust to different circumstances.

After the FTC passes its new regulations, then the FTC, in our oversight capacity, would be reporting back to us and specifically would be reporting to our committees--the Commerce Committees in both the House and the Senate--and then Congress would determine whether further statutory changes were necessary, as is the prerogative to adjust and adapt as circumstances change.

I want to work with all the people who are involved in this situation. We do not want something that is overreaching, but were are getting to the point that with the advance of technology, something has to be done or virtually none of us will have any privacy.

By the way, there is another reason to pass this legislation. We are in a new kind of war, and that war is against terrorists. The terrorist deals by stealth, and one way is to assume the identity of someone else. If we do not have the protections of all our identities, there is another source for the terrorist.

What is it going to take to spur the Congress into action? I thank the time is here. We have three examples in the last 2 weeks-- ChoicePoint, Bank of America, and today Lexis-Nexis. I ask for the support of the Senate in passing the Information Protection and Security Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills to increase the security of the Nation's agriculture and food supply: the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act. Both measures build on legislation I sponsored in the 107th and 108th Congresses. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Durbin, who cosponsored my agriculture security bills last session, for continuing his support of this legislation.

The first bill, the Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act, will enhance coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies responsible for food and agriculture security. The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will increase coordination between Federal and State, local, and tribal officials and offer financial and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, and veterinarians to improve preparedness.

The Nation's agriculture industry represents about 13 percent of GDP and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Yet, this critical economic sector is not receiving adequate protection from accidental or intentional contamination that would damage our economy, and, most importantly, could cost lives. Such contamination could be devastating to states such as Hawaii which generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales annually.

Just last week, the President of Interpol warned that the consequences of an attack on livestock are ``substantial'' and ``relatively little'' is being done to prevent such an attack.

The introduction of my bills coincides with the release of a report I requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ``Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain.'' The report reviews the current state of agriculture security in the United States and makes recommendations. While GAO reported some accomplishments, such as conducting vulnerability assessments of agricultural products, establishing the Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council, and funding two university-based Centers of Excellence to research livestock and poultry diseases, GAO found that critical vulnerabilities still exist.

Even though veterinarians may be the first to spot outbreaks of diseases, Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified veterinarians are not required to

demonstrate any knowledge of foreign animal diseases. This is short sighted given how easily animal diseases can travel from country to country as we have seen with the avian flu over the past few years. It is important that veterinarians, who will be our first responders in the event of an agroterrorist attack, be able to identify symptoms of a foreign disease in U.S. livestock.

GAO also highlights USDA's inability to deploy vaccines within 24 hours of an animal disease outbreak as required by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-9). According to GAO, the vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which is the only animal disease vaccine that the United States stockpiles, is purchased from Britain in a concentrate form. To use the vaccine the concentrate must be sent back to Britain to be activated, which adds at least three weeks to the deployment time.

According to a scenario from Dr. Tom McGinn, formerly of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, FMD would spread to 23 States five days after an initial outbreak and to 40 States after 30 days. By the time the vaccine is deployed, FMD could spread across the country. We cannot afford to wait three weeks to start vaccinating livestock. Why is the United States outsourcing this critical security function? USDA should either store ready-to-use vaccines in the U.S. or examine ways to activate the vaccines in this country.

Equally troubling is that over the past 2 years, the number of agricultural inspections performed by the U.S. has declined by 3.4 million since DHS took over the border inspection responsibility from USDA. Mr. Kim Mann, a spokesman from the National Association of Agriculture Employees (NAAE), expressed similar concerns at a February 10, 2005, hearing conducted by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia (OGM). Mr. Mann testified that of the approximately 2,100 Agriculture Quarantine Inspection positions that were transferred from USDA to DHS in 2003, only about 1,300 of those positions are currently filled. According to Mr. Mann, agriculture inspectors have left DHS to return to USDA because of DHS's lack of commitment to its agriculture mission, and DHS is not filling these vacancies. I recently wrote Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson expressing my concern over these reports because agriculture inspections are crucial to the economy of Hawaii which is home to more endangered species than any other State.

GAO also reported a lack of communication between DHS and states regarding the development of emergency response plans, grant guidance, and best practices. States agriculture officials were given as little as three days to provide input on the National Response Plan and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. In addition, the State Homeland Security Grant Program grant guidance puts little emphasis on agriculture as a sector eligible for assistance. In fact, agriculture only became eligible in fiscal year 04 and many states are unaware that funds can be directed towards agriculture security. In addition, State and industry officials reported that there is no mechanism to share lessons learned from exercises or real-life animal disease outbreaks.

GAO further notes that shortcomings exist in DHS's Federal coordination of national efforts to protect against agroterrorism. Federal officials claim that there is confusion in interagency working groups as to which responsibility falls with whom. DHS reportedly also has been unable to coordinate agriculture security research efforts government-wide as is required by HSPD-9. While some program staff from DHS, USDA, and Health and Human Services have engaged in preliminary discussions, there is no overall departmental coordination of policy and budget issues between the various Federal agencies.

My bills address many of the concerns raised by GAO. The Homeland Security Food and Agriculture Act will: increase communication and coordination between DHS and state, local, and tribal homeland security officials regarding agroterrorism; Ensure agriculture security is included in state, local, and regional emergency response plans; and establish a task force of state and local first responders that will work with DHS to identify best practices in the area of agriculture security.

The Agriculture Security Assistance Act will: provide financial and technical assistance to states and localities for agroterrorism preparedness and response; increase international agricultural disease surveillance and inspections of imported agricultural products; require that certified veterinarians be knowledgeable in foreign animal diseases; and require that USDA study the costs and benefits of developing a more robust animal disease vaccine stockpile.

The United States needs a coordinated approach in dealing with the possibility of an attack on our food supply, which could affect millions. While improvements have occurred since I first voiced my concerns over food and agriculture security in 2001, critical vulnerabilities remain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting America's breadbasket and support these vital pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. President, tax day is right around the corner; just over a month away. For most Americans, April 15 is rather routine. You spend several days or weeks determining the amount you owe and you pay it. But for Christina and Raymond F., two of my constituents--I will not use their last name to maintain their privacy--of Avondale, LA, this upcoming tax day is going to be anything but routine. Earlier this year, Christina and Raymond received a letter from their parish government informing them that they must add $45,000 to their gross income this year.

You see, Christina and Raymond's home is located in a flood zone. That is not unusual in Louisiana. Twenty percent of the coastal zone of my state lies below sea level, including 80 percent of our largest city New Orleans. In order to protect their home from rising waters, they applied to their local parish to get flood mitigation assistance to raise their home above the base flood elevation in their area. To qualify, they had to raise $20,000, which they did by refinancing their home, and the parish paid the remaining $45,000 through FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. What Christina and Raymond did not realize was that at the very same time that they were having this work done on their home, the Internal Revenue Service had decided that FEMA disaster mitigation assistance should be taxable. So now, this couple is going to have to pay taxes on $45,000 even though they never saw a dime of this money.

This news hit this family like a Category 4 hurricane. When Christina called my office she thought she said she would have to sell her house in order pay the IRS. This is a family with modest means, living in a neighborhood that they describe as working class. Her husband's medical costs are astronomical--$1,400 per month for his medication alone. The house is worth about $100,000 and the mitigation work did not add a significant amount to its value according to an appraisal they received. You can imagine that under these circumstances, the taxes on an additional $45,000 would wipe them out.

In a place like Louisiana where hurricanes and floods are as much a part of life as crawfish boils and Mardi Gras, the key to our peace of mind is the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA. In Louisiana, 377,000 property owners participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a real Godsend to the people of my state.

In addition, the National Flood Insurance Program provides funding for property owners to flood-proof their homes through the flood mitigation grant program. FEMA distributes these grant funds to the states which then pass them along to local communities. The local communities select properties for mitigation and contract for the mitigation services. Communities use these funds to put homes on stilts, improve drainage on property, and to acquire flood proofing materials. These mitigation grants encourage property owners to take responsible steps to lessen the potential for loss of life and property damage due to future flooding. The grants also have the added benefit of saving money in the long term for the Flood Insurance program.

But the IRS has turned this valuable disaster preparedness and prevention program into a financial disaster for responsible property owners by making these payments taxable. The first time Christina and Raymond learned that this funding was taxable was when their local community sent them a letter at the beginning of this year.

All the people in my state ask for is a warning and an opportunity to protect themselves, their homes, and their loved ones from these disasters. Through the state-of-the-art systems developed by the National Weather Service, we can get a warning about a hurricane. We have sophisticated radar to track these storms as they move through the Gulf of Mexico, or up the East Coast. When a Category 4 is coming we can prepare and pray. The IRS is making us prepare and pay.

This tax is unfair, unexpected, and an unfortunate policy decision. Unfair and unexpected because no one told Christina and Raymond that they would be taxed for accepting FEMA disaster mitigation assistance. The local officials in their parish were just as surprised as the property owners were. It is unfortunate policy because in the long term, the IRS will undercut the effectiveness of using mitigation as a means of decreasing future costs to the flood insurance program. It will force people to take risks that they will not be hit by a disaster.

Today, I am introducing legislation to protect these responsible property owners from this unfair tax. My bill excludes disaster mitigation assistance from gross income. I have made it retroactive to last year in order to protect those property owners who received assistance in 2004.

I understand that a companion measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Mark Foley of Florida. It is supported by a number of House members from states with high incidents of flooding and other natural disasters, many from Louisiana. I applaud their efforts.

But this is not a regional, special-interest bill. FEMA makes mitigation grants for a variety of hazards in addition to flooding: fire, tornadoes, earthquakes, thunderstorms, dam failures, and a host of others. This is not a problem just for properties that flood. So if your citizens have used a federal disaster mitigation program to help make their properties safer, the tax man will come for them too.

It is essential that the Congress consider this legislation and pass it as soon as possible. As I said at the start of my remarks, tax day is coming. We need to act to protect responsible property owners from paying this unfair tax.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation important to my great State of Colorado.

Last week, I introduced one bill and proudly cosponsored two others to make good on our Nation's promise to honor and care for our veterans. Today, I am introducing a bill to discharge our debt to another group of patriotic Americans who served our Nation during the cold war--our nuclear weapons workers.

Many Americans contributed to our victory over communism in the cold war, including dedicated and brave men and women working in the laboratories and factories that fashioned the nuclear weapons that helped bring the former Soviet Union to its knees. As a result of this patriotic service, many of these nuclear weapons workers contracted cancer and other disabling and fatal diseases.

In 2000, Congress recognized the sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons

workers by enacting the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act to provide benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses, or to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives

But today, a combination of missing records and bureaucratic red tape prevents many nuclear weapons workers from receiving the benefits that Congress intended, including many workers who served at the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado

Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

These men and women were exposed to radioactive elements and other toxic compounds that we are still trying to identify, in amounts that we can only guess at. We don't know what they were exposed to, how much or when. Part of the problem is that the existing science and technology did not allow us to monitor accurately. Part of the problem is that critical records have been lost or, in many cases, were never created by the government and its contractors.

Thankfully, Congress had the foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the dose of radiation they received.

To protect these workers, Congress designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to radiation exposure

The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of the 2000 Act

As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers can receive benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of Energy and its contractors

My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Bob Beauprez from Colorado. I look forward to bipartisan support in the Senate.

I am also proud to introduce a separate bill, this one to re-inject a small dose of humanity into our Federal bureaucracy.

Betty Dick is an 83-year-old woman who has spent much of the past 25 years on property within the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park. Over the course of those 25 years, Betty Dick has become a cherished part of the Grand Lake community. She has been a good citizen and has been happy to share her family's beautiful cabin for civic events, and she has been a good neighbor to the National Park.

But now, the National Park Service believes that it is compelled to evict Betty Dick. My bill, and a bipartisan companion bill introduced by Congressman Mark Udall and supported by Congressman Tom Tancredo, will authorize and instruct the Park Service to allow Mrs. Dick to spend her last few summers at her cherished Grand Lake home.

Mrs. Dick has been living on this property subject to a 25 year lease with the Park Service. Fred Dick, Betty's husband, died in 1992. Mrs. Dick knows she doesn't have too many summers left, but she would like to spend them in her home.

The Park Service is apparently concerned that it does not have the authority to extend or renew this lease or it is worried that to do so would set a bad precedent. On this, I respectfully disagree with my friends at the Park Service. I think evicting an 83-year-old woman from her family cabin would set a bad precedent.

My bill would simply require the Secretary of the Interior, as boss of the National Park Service, to enter into an agreement that will allow Betty Dick to continue to occupy her family cabin and property within Rocky Mountain National Park for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dick will continue to pay the rent that has been due under the prior lease. Mrs. Dick's children and grandchildren will have no right to occupy the property after her death, and the cabin and property will then be managed by the Park Service.

I hope we haven't reached the point where we can't find a way to play a role in helping Betty Dick spend her last summers on the land that she loves.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.