S. 1425Senate110th Congress (2007-2009)In Committee

A bill to enhance the defense nanotechnology research and development program.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6303)

Armed Services Committee

May 17, 2007

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

May 17, 2007

SenateIntro Referral

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6302-6303)

May 17, 2007

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6303)

Armed Services Committee

May 17, 2007

Floor Debate

10 members

What members said about S. 1425 on the floor

2 Republicans8 Democrats

Sen. Barack ObamaD-IL · May 17, 2007

I rise today, along with Senator Brownback, to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. Before proceeding, I want to commend Chairman Frank for introducing similar legislation on the House side--he is a major force behind this legislation and should be recognized for his work on this issue.

This bill will enable citizens, institutional investors, and State and local governments to ensure that their money is not being used by companies that help develop Iran's oil and gas industry. This would place additional economic pressure on the Iranian regime with the goal of changing Iranian policies.

The Obama-Brownback legislation does this in three ways:

First, this legislation requires the U.S. government, every 6 months, to publish a list of companies that are investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. This sunshine provision accomplishes two important objectives. It provides investors with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about the consequences of their investments. And, since it is already illegal for U.S. companies to make such investments, it provides a powerful incentive for foreign companies to discontinue investments in Iran.

Second, this legislation authorizes State and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Several states, such as Florida and Missouri, have already taken actions to achieve these ends. But the States' authority to undertake these measures is unclear, so an explicit authorization from Congress, contained in this bill, will resolve this issue.

Third, this legislation seeks to give fund managers safe harbor and also provide investors with more choices. For fund managers who divest from companies on this list, the Obama-Brownback bill helps protect these managers from lawsuits brought by unhappy investors. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the government's own 401(k) fund, the Thrift Savings Plan, should create a ``terror-free'' and ``genocide-free'' investment options for government employees.

We need this bill, as Iranian actions have been well-documented. Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, and its unwillingness to allow comprehensive international oversight, pose unacceptable risks to the United States and our allies. The international community has voiced its opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. For example, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions last December, and again in March of this year, increasing sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend uranium enrichment.

The Iranian regime has been actively sowing the seeds of instability and violence in Iraq, with deadly consequences for American soldiers. Beyond Iraq's borders, Iranian leaders are exporting militancy, sectarianism, and rejectionism throughout the Middle East. Fueled by the billions of dollars it earns from oil and gas exports, Iran has been pumping money into radical Islamist terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Every bit as worrying is the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly calling to ``wipe Israel off the map.''

It is quite a list. But in the midst of all of this, there are signs that some Iranians understand the impact their regime's behavior is having on Iran's national interests. Conservatives in Iran look where the radicals are trying to take the country--more confrontation and more radicalism, and they are worried.

We should send a message that, if Iran wishes to benefit from the international system, it must play by international rules. If it chooses to flout those rules, then the world will turn its back on Iran. Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is an important piece of that process, and we should allow pension funds to do so.

For all of its bluster, Iran is not a strong country. Its oil infrastructure is weak and badly in need of investment. The economy lurches under the weight of quasi-state run industries, and billions of dollars in Iranian cash sit offshore because Iranians have so little faith in their government's management of the economy. This is precisely why we need legislation along the lines of what I am introducing here today.

In general, we need to think carefully about allowing divestment, which is a tool that can be misused. However, I believe that Iran is a special case. And, in this case, divestment legislation can dissuade foreign companies from investing in energy operations whose profits will be used to threaten us. It is not a magic bullet--there is none in this situation--but is one of a menu of actions, each of which can help us to deter Iranian aggression.

We are currently involved in one ruinous war, and we need to avoid indiscriminate saber-rattling which could involve us in another. This administration's failure in Iraq has emboldened and empowered Iran, and the forces allied with it, including Hamas and Hezbollah. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to deal with Iran. It is incumbent upon us to find and implement ways to pressure Iran short of war, ways that demonstrate our deep concern about Iran's behavior, and ways that will help us to exert leadership on this issue. This bill is one of those ways.

I have called for direct engagement with Iran over its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But, direct dialogue, as we conducted with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, should be part of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to head off this unacceptable threat. So should the legislation Senator Brownback and I are introducing today.

I hope my colleagues will cosponsor the Obama-Brownback legislation. On the House side, I hope my colleagues in that Chamber sign on to the Frank bill. I look forward to working with others to get this bill signed into law.

In closing, I want to thank Daniel McGlinchey and James Segel of Chairman Frank's staff for their work on this bill. They were extraordinarily helpful in putting together this legislation, and I would be remiss I did not recognize their efforts.

Sen. Christopher J. DoddD-CT · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007. This bill seeks to drastically…

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, the United States Commitment to Global Child Survival Act of 2007.

This bill seeks to drastically reduce child and maternal mortality rates abroad. It is a goal entirely within our reach, relying on tools that are already within our grasp. We have the power to save millions of innocent lives; and there is no better measure for the success of our foreign aid.

The legislation would perform three simple yet vital functions. First, it would require the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries.

Second, it would establish a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of the relevant departments and agencies of our Government in meeting by 2015 the U.N. Millennium Development Goals related to reducing mortality rates for mothers and for children under 5.

Third, it would authorize appropriations for programs that improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in developing countries. Specifically, it would increase funding for child survival programs from the current level of around $350 million to $600 million in fiscal year 2008, $900 million in fiscal year 2009, $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2010, and up to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2011-2012.

I know that some of my colleagues will dispute the wisdom of such a large investment. None of them would deny this issue's importance; but some may question its priority. How can we answer them?

In a world of seemingly intractable problems, we have here an opportunity for quick and uncomplicated success. Each dollar we spend in this cause helps to save a vulnerable life.

And what is more, we have already given our word. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States made an explicit commitment, along with 188 other countries, to reducing child and maternal mortality. But at current funding levels, we are set to renege on that promise by a wide margin.

On September 14, 2005, President Bush stated that the United States is ``committed to the Millennium Development Goals.'' I commend the President for his words, but they have not been matched with action.

As we reach the goals' halfway mark, the world's progress is distressingly slow. The leading medical journal The Lancet reports that, of the 60 countries accounting for 90 percent of child

deaths, ``only 7 are on track to meet the goal for reducing child mortality, 39 are making some progress, and 14 are cause for serious concern.''

Now what does that mean in real, human terms? It means each year over 10 million children under the age of 5 die in the developing world, that's approximately 30,000 each day. About 4 million of those children die in their first 4 weeks of life. In many cases, they aren't even provided with a fighting chance. Preventable or treatable diseases such as measles, tetanus, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria are the most common causes of death.

Similarly, more than 525,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, more than 1,400 each day. Some of the most common risk factors for maternal death include early pregnancy and childbirth, closely spaced births, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and complications during childbirth.

Nearly every one of those deaths is entirely preventable. And that fact makes a poor American commitment inexcusable.

That commitment will not require new medicine. It will not require sophisticated technology. The tools we need are already at hand. Even now, simple measures are saving lives in the developing world.

Studies in the Lancet tell us that, for just over $5 billion, the world could prevent two-thirds of under-5 child deaths with proven, low-cost, high-impact interventions. For 6 million lives, that is a bargain.

How cheap are these lifesaving measures? Oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea costs 6 cents per treatment. Antibiotics to treat respiratory infections cost a quarter per treatment. Encouraging breastfeeding, providing vitamin supplements and immunizations, and expanding basic clinical care are just as cost effective.

This bill incrementally scales up U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs up to $1.6 billion by 2011. That is a third of the money the world needs to save those 6 million children's lives, and it is proportionate to our efforts against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria. And it is less money than we spend in Iraq in just 1 week. Yes, 1 week.

To be clear, America is not new to this battle. We've had some significant successes: Between 1960 and 1990, U.S. investment in reducing child mortality in the developing world contributed to a 50 percent reduction in under-5 deaths. Over the past 20 years, we have devoted over $6 billion to child survival programs.

But as I have noted, at current funding levels in the U.S. and abroad, the world will not meet the Millennium Development Goals. Certainly, America cannot meet them alone. But with a strong effort, we can galvanize other nations to do their part and come forward with the funds we need to save lives.

So I am proud to offer the Global Child Survival Act of 2007, a bill with widespread, bipartisan, bicameral support. It has been endorsed by Save the Children, the US Fund for UNICEF, and the One Campaign; is being jointly introduced with my good friend Senator Gordon Smith from across the aisle; and was introduced last week in the House in a bipartisan manner by Congresswoman Betty McCollum and Congressman Chris Shays.

For me it's simple. As the world's only superpower and largest economy, the United States is in a unique position to tackle the toughest challenges of our times. Where we can make a concrete difference, we must not fail to act. Where we have the tools to alleviate death and suffering, we must deliver them.

So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Millions of lives are in the balance.

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

Sen. Mark L. PryorD-AR · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Warner from Virginia to introduce legislation to strengthen the Department of Defense nanotechnology initiative. I greatly appreciate their strong leadership on this issue and their understanding of the importance of how the development of nanotechnology will impact our armed forces in the future.

This bill, the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2007, sustains the Department's nanotechnology research and development program while at the same time transitioning the technologies developed into products that can enhance the United States military capability.

The Department of Defense has done a tremendous job conducting nanotechnology research and development. Examples of this nanotechnology research include improved energy absorbing body armor, lightweight batteries, and novel chemical and biological sensor. I believe now is the time to start the transition of this research into new technologies and products to protect our military personnel and enhance our war fighting capability.

The Department of Defense has a long history of successfully supporting innovative nanotechnology research efforts for the future advancement of the war fighter and battle systems. Congress established the defense nanotechnology research program Section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, Public Law 107-314, which this bill updates and enhances. Section 246 requires the Secretary of Defense to carry out a defense nanotechnology research and development program in coordination with other Federal agencies performing nanotechnology research and development activities established by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Public Law 108-153. The investment strategy described in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, Strategic Plan identifies and defines 7 major subject categories, or program component areas, relating to areas of investment that are critical to accomplishing the overall goals of the NNI. The Department of Defense has organized its nanotechnology research to align with these 7 program component areas and each year since 2004 has submitted to Congress an annual report on the nanotechnology programs within the Department of Defense.

This bill requires the Secretary of Defense to act through the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, who shall supervise the planning, management, and coordination of the program. We believe this office can best achieve the goals of maintaining a state- of-the-art research and development program while simultaneously accomplishing technology transition. The bill directs the Department to coordinate all nanoscale research and development within the Department of Defense with other departments and agencies of the United States that are involved in the NNI and with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, NNCO, including providing appropriate funds to support the NNCO. The bill also directs the Department to develop a strategic plan for defense nanotechnology research and development that integrates with the NNI strategic plan, issue policy guidance each year to the defense agencies and services that prioritizes the Program's research initiatives, state a clear strategy for transitioning the research into products needed by the Department of Defense, and develop a plan to transition nanoscale research and development within the Department of Defense, including the Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Research programs, to the Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology program.

Finally, the bill requires the Department to submit a biennial report to the congressional defense committees describing the Department's coordination with the other departments and agencies participating in the NNI, a review of the findings relating to the Department by the NNI triennial external review, an assessment of the Department's technology transition from research to enhanced war fighting capability, an evaluation of nanotechnology used in foreign defense systems, and an appraisal of the defense nanotechnology manufacturing and industrial base. Because there is a need for metrics and goals to ensure that the Department's nanotechnology program is well structured and successfully developing needed defense technologies, the bill requires a review by the Government Accountability Office of the overall Department nanotechnology program.

Nanotechnology is one of the next great scientific frontiers with the potential to enable novel applications that can enhance war fighting and battle system capabilities. I am proud to say that in Arkansas several universities including the University of Arkansas, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and Arkansas State University are performing research and technology development in support of the Department of Defense nanotechnology program. One example of particular note is the Center for Ferroelectric Electronic-Photonic Nanodevices that is developing new nanomagnetic devices for high performance information and communication technology. Our Arkansas small businesses are also contributing to the defense nanotechnology industrial base by developing novel nanoscale materials, devices, and products.

I am very excited by the future nanotechnology holds for Arkansas and the United States. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I look forward to working to strengthen the Department of Defense nanotechnology program.

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

Sen. Mark L. PryorD-AR · May 17, 2007

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

Sen. Orrin G. HatchR-UT · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad and Roberts in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act of 2007. Some background on why this bill is necessary might be…

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad and Roberts in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act of 2007.

Some background on why this bill is necessary might be useful.

Among the provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, was a provision that instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment. It was a good concept--we have all seen the advantages to Medicare beneficiaries and to the Federal Government of competitive bidding in Medicare Part D. The government and beneficiaries are paying lower prices for prescription drugs as a result of fair competition.

At the time of the passage of the MMA, it was known that Medicare was overpaying substantially for certain durable medical equipment. The MMA instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment in order to bring market discipline to the purchasing process. It also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to establish badly needed quality standards for Medicare's suppliers of durable medical equipment and related services.

The purpose of S. 1428, the Medicare Durable Equipment Access Act, is to correct problems arising from provisions in the MMA that apply to rural areas and urban areas of low population density. The bill seeks to protect the access of Medicare beneficiaries in these areas to homecare equipment and services. It also will allow small businesses to participate in the program, but only if they meet the quality standards established in this legislation and can meet the competitively bid price.

The bill protects Medicare beneficiaries in three ways.

First, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to exempt from the bidding process rural areas and areas with low population density that are not competitive unless there is a significant national market through mail order for a particular item or service. The law also permits suppliers in rural areas to be exempted from the program's quality standards. Medicare patients must be assured that they are dealing with qualified suppliers and our bill assures them that they will be.

Second, the MMA allows the Secretary of HHS to exempt rural areas and sparsely populated urban areas from the bidding process if they lack health care infrastructure, a vague and subjective judgment. This bill defines areas eligible for exemption as metropolitan service areas with fewer than 500,000 people.

Finally, the MMA established a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of the program. The MMA exempted the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee from The Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. FACA was enacted by Congress in 1972. Its purpose is to ensure that committees that advise the executive branch be accessible to the public and objective in their judgments. This bill places this program under FACA.

This legislation also provides important protection to small businesses. The MMA provides that there shall be no administrative or judicial review for businesses participating in competitive bidding. Our bill provides for judicial appeal rights, giving legal recourse to businesses that participate in the competitive bidding process.

The MMA also directs the HHS Secretary to take appropriate steps to ensure that small suppliers have an opportunity to participate. Our bill specifies that such appropriate steps shall include permitting suppliers that are classified as small businesses under the Small Business Act to continue to participate at the single payment amount, so long as they submit bids at less than the fee schedule amount.

In addition, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to use competitive acquisition bid rates from one region to determine payment rates in another noncompetitive acquisition area. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to complete a comparability analysis to ensure that payments in non-competitive areas are fair. It requires the Secretary to publish the analysis in the Federal Register.

Finally, the purpose of the competitive bidding process is to save the Medicare program and its beneficiaries' money from the purchase of durable medical equipment, but a new bureaucracy must be created to implement the program. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to exempt from competitive acquisition requirements any items and services not likely to result in savings of at least 10 percent.

Twenty-five small suppliers of durable medical equipment in Utah have banded together to support this legislation and I believe they speak for hundreds of small suppliers around the United States. They support the establishment of quality standards for all suppliers of durable medical equipment to Medicare. They are willing to price their products competitively. They are used to providing personal services to their customers in small Utah towns. Their customers are also their neighbors. They all fear that their businesses, which are built on personal service, may be sacrificed to large suppliers from distant cities who cannot educate Medicare beneficiaries. A flyer in the mail may not be enough to teach a disabled diabetic how to use a walker.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which permits the potential savings from competitive bidding, mandates quality standards for all of Medicare's durable medical equipment suppliers, and protects small businesses and Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas and in low density urban areas.

Show 6 more

Sen. Dianne FeinsteinD-CA · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to maintain the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center campus for the exclusive use of America's Veterans. This legislation…

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to maintain the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center campus for the exclusive use of America's Veterans.

This legislation is a companion to an identical bill introduced by Congressman Waxman in the House earlier this month.

The bill would:

Prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, from issuing enhanced-use lease agreements on the West Los Angeles VA property; expand the scope of the Cranston Act, which already prohibits the disposal of land and the use of enhanced-use leases on 109 acres, to cover the entire 388-acre West Los Angeles VA property; prohibit the VA from exchanging, trading, auctioning or transferring any land connected to the West Los Angeles VA; require that a master plan related to the West Los Angeles VA property be completed no later than 1 year after this legislation is enacted; prohibit the VA from receiving funding to enact the provisions of a master plan for the West Los Angeles VA without first receiving Congressional authorization; and establish a public advisory committee, consisting of federally elected representatives, local elected officials, local Veterans, and community members to provide input on the master plan.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions previously taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

In March, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson, strongly objecting to recent decisions made by the VA relating to the West Los Angeles VA facility and land.

For example, the VA has signed sharing agreements to allow an Enterprise-

Rent-A-Car facility to operate on the VA land. The VA also continues to film on the property and recently allowed Fox Studios to construct a set storage building there.

In 1996, a 65,000-seat NFL Football stadium was proposed for the open space on the West Los Angeles VA land until Congress passed a resolution to prohibit this action.

This legislation also ensures that the VA never issues an enhanced- use lease agreement on the West Los Angeles VA property that would have little or nothing to do with direct veterans services.

The VA now has a number of other effective tools at its disposal to provide services directly to veterans, including sharing agreements and existing legislation to address homeless veterans' needs.

If the VA is already exceeding the scope of its sharing agreements, it is likely to also pursue enhanced-use leases for developing the property. Enhanced-use leases are disposal tools and should not be permitted on the West Los Angeles VA land, as the community and local veterans overwhelmingly oppose them.

Notably, Congress mandated that the VA create a Land Use master plan for the entire West Los Angeles Veterans' property in 1998, Public Law 105-368.

Last year, the Senate approved language in the fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills, including MILCON/VA, were ultimately packaged together in a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 388 acres of land were donated to the Government in 1888 specifically for serving and supporting our Nation's veterans and I strongly believe they should remain that way.

This bill would make sure that this happens.

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

Sen. Hillary Rodham ClintonD-NY · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, from the Department of Homeland Security and restore it as an independent, cabinet-level…

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, from the Department of Homeland Security and restore it as an independent, cabinet-level agency.

In the days after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Americans witnessed incompetence on the part of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Administration in responding to a catastrophe of this magnitude. Countless Americans who were left behind were failed by their government when they needed help the most.

Sadly, the tragedy continues for the more than 80,000 people still living in trailers and for the cities and towns still struggling to rebuild. In the years since the catastrophes of Katrina and Rita, FEMA's failures have continued.

The Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security found that FEMA awarded $3.6 billion in contracts to maintain trailers for hurricane victims to companies with no ties to the Gulf Coast region and bad paperwork.

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA wasted $1 billion in improper payments to individuals. FEMA spent $900 million on trailers that could not be used in flood zones. And FEMA paid $1.8 billion for hotel rooms and cruise ship cabins that were more expensive than apartments.

It was reported recently that more than $40 million worth of stockpiled food for the 2006 hurricane season spoiled due to FEMA's lack of preparation.

FEMA also disclosed in recent days that it will not have a new national response plan ready in time for the start of this year's hurricane season.

It is past time to restore competence and accountability, and to reestablish FEMA as an independent agency outside the Department of Homeland Security.

In the Clinton administration, the head of FEMA reported directly to the President of the United States and that direct communication meant the buck stopped with the President, instead of being lost in the bureaucracy.

The Government Accountability Office says that managing the transformation of an agency of the size and complexity of the Department of Homeland Security will likely span a number of years. Unfortunately with regard to preparing and recovering from a disaster, we cannot wait years for the Department of Homeland Security to live up to its intended mission. When the next disaster or catastrophe happens, we cannot afford to say that we'll be ready next time.

Under my legislation, the Director of FEMA reports directly to the President

and would have full authority to coordinate with all agencies and to take the necessary action to ensure resources and recovery personnel are deployed quickly in an emergency to impacted areas.

When we created the Department of Homeland Security, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, I said then that I was deeply concerned about moving FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security because when it operated as an independent agency, especially on September 11 and in the response thereafter, it was highly-functioning, and well-run.

I remarked then that moving FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security must not force a highly-functioning and competent agency into a bureaucracy that will challenge integration and diminish FEMA's effectiveness in responding to crises of all kinds. Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly what has happened and that is exactly what we must fix.

The bureaucracy created by moving FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security is clearly not working and we must ensure that FEMA has the ability and the authority to respond to a disaster or catastrophe. I thank all of my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation and I hope that every Senator in this chamber will cosponsor this legislation.

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

Sen. Robert MenendezD-NJ · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to…

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush Holt, who has championed the bill in the House and has been a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities. This bill is named in memory of a young woman from New Jersey, Danielle Gruskowski, whose life was cut tragically short by a failure to call 9-1-1. The great State of New Jersey has already passed Danielle's Law, and it is time for Congress to act as well.

In order to understand the importance of this legislation, I would like to share Danielle's story. She was born December 6, 1969, to Diane and Doug Gruskowski and raised in Carteret, NJ. Danielle was developmentally disabled and diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes a delay or regression in development, including speech, hand skills, and coordination. While Danielle needed help with daily activities, she managed to lead a full and active life. As a young adult, Danielle moved to a group home to experience the positive benefits of independent living. Tragically, on November 5, 2002, Danielle passed away at the age of 32 because no one in the group home called 9-1-1 when she was clearly in need of emergency medical attention.

So that no other mother would lose her child in such a tragic circumstance, Danielle's mother and her aunt, Robin Turner, developed a strong coalition of supporters and worked with their State representatives to develop and pass what we know as Danielle's Law. Like the New Jersey law, my bill will require staff working with individuals who have a developmental disability or traumatic brain injury to call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. The legislation would raise the standard of care by improving staff training and ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities get emergency care when they need it.

All Americans deserve an advocate, and today I am speaking for those who often cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to be an advocate for individuals with disabilities, and I am proud to be an advocate for the families in New Jersey who are counting on safe, secure, and healthy independent living environments for their loved ones with disabilities. I also would like to recognize the hard-working caregivers and staff who help provide for the needs of those with disabilities. They show their compassion every day when they show up for work, performing one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in our society--caring for someone's mother, father, son, or daughter. These caregivers play such a critical role in our society and their contributions are to be commended. By raising awareness and education about Danielle's Law, my hope is that more caregivers will realize how important it is to call 9-1-1 for all life-threatening situations and that better training and support will be provided to staff across the country.

I am reintroducing this legislation to remember Danielle and to make sure no other family or community experiences the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to an avoidable death. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill.

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

Sen. Richard G. LugarR-IN · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Farm Risk Management Act for the 21st Century. This bill is a blueprint on how to transition away from the farm programs linked to the Great Depression into a…

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Farm Risk Management Act for the 21st Century. This bill is a

blueprint on how to transition away from the farm programs linked to the Great Depression into a new market driven system. We have also suggested how Congress could utilize achieved savings to improve our farm economy, our environment, alleviate hunger, promote renewable energy, and reduce our Federal deficit.

Current Federal Farm Programs target payments to a relatively narrow sector of American farmers and provide direct payments regardless of commodity prices. The bulk of these payments are made to growers of just 5 crops. Cotton, rice, corn, wheat, and soybean farmers receive about 85 percent of the annual payments provided by U.S. taxpayers. Notably, about 70 percent of these payments go to only 10 percent of our nation's farmers.

The current farm subsidy system is inequitable, inefficient, and disconnected from the core goal of maintaining a family farm safety net. It is also self-perpetuating, in that it stimulates over- production and stagnant prices that produce calls for greater Government support. I believe that what we need is a true safety net that would embrace all farmers, avoid incentives to overproduce commodities when market signals do not exist, and lower costs for taxpayers.

On my farm in Marion County, IN, we have 604 acres of corn, soybeans, and trees. This farm currently qualifies and receives direct payments as well as counter-cyclical and loan deficiency payments when prices dictate. Under this new plan we would continue to receive these payments for one year. After that year the farm will receive direct payments that decline over the next 5 years, and most of those payments would be deposited in an individual risk management account held in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture at a lending institution of our choice. We would be able to use funds from this risk management account to purchase crop or revenue insurance, to invest in enterprises that add value to the crops we produce, or to cover losses not covered by crop or revenue insurance compared to the 5 year revenue average of our operation. This legislation would also provide incentives for employing environmentally responsible farming techniques and other conservation practices.

In addition to being a more market oriented approach, the plan also has the added advantage of saving Federal resources, which will be invested in conservation activities, domestic and international nutrition programs, bioenergy research and deployment, and deficit reduction.

Sen. Kent ConradD-ND · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in reintroducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, DME, Access Act. This bill will help protect rural DME providers from the negative consequences of competitive bidding and ensure that seniors have access to the highest quality of DME supplies. It will also help to rid the system of fraudulent suppliers who are filing improper and illegal claims.

As many of my colleagues know, the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, required Medicare to replace the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process, which is currently underway. In fact, the first round of bids are due on July 13. Our bill would address several issues that could negatively impact the ability of rural suppliers to compete and ensure that seniors are getting high-quality products.

Specifically, our bill would strengthen language in the MMA that allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas by requiring the Secretary to exempt metropolitan statistical areas with fewer than 500,000 people. In addition, the legislation would require that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, include the attainment of quality standards as a factor in computing the winning bid to ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment. Third, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would allow small businesses to continue providing DME in Medicare at the acquisition bid rate, even if the businesses didn't have the winning bid. Finally, the bill would take additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public.

Many argue that there is fraudulent activity in the Medicare DME benefit and that is why competitive bidding is necessary. I agree that it is far too easy to obtain a supplier number and start filing improper and illegal claims. That is why I applaud the efforts of CMS and others who are cracking down on the inappropriate behavior. However, it is also imperative that we ensure sufficient access to quality DME care in the program and protect those suppliers who are acting appropriately. I believe this bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Sen. Daniel K. AkakaD-HI · May 17, 2007

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation intended to ensure that valuable biological specimens and data from a seminal Air Force Health Study will be properly maintained and safeguarded for…

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued May 17, 2007

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1425

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 17, 2007

Mr. Pryor (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To enhance the defense nanotechnology research and development program.

Enhancement of defense nanotechnology research and development program

(a)

Program purposes

Subsection (b) of section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314; 116 Stat. 2500; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (2), by striking in nanoscale research and development and inserting in the National Nanotechnology Initiative and with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office under section 3 of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7502); and

(2)

in paragraph (3), by striking portfolio of fundamental and applied nanoscience and engineering research initiatives and inserting portfolio of nanotechnology research and development initiatives.

(b)

Program administration

(1)

Administration through Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

Subsection (c) of such section is amended—

(A)

by striking the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and inserting the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and

(B)

by striking The Director and inserting The Under Secretary.

(2)

Other administrative matters

Such subsection is further amended—

(A)

in paragraph (2), by striking the Department's increased investment in nanotechnology and the National Nanotechnology Initiative; and and inserting investments by the Department and other departments and agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative in nanotechnology research and development;;

(B)

in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and

(C)

by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

(4)

oversee interagency coordination of the program with other departments and agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, including providing appropriate funds to support the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

(c)

Program activities

Such section is further amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (d); and

(2)

by adding at the end the following new subsection (d):

(d)

Activities

Activities under the program shall include the following:

(1)

The development of a strategic plan for defense nanotechnology research and development that is integrated with the strategic plan for the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

(2)

The issuance on an annual basis of policy guidance to the military departments and the Defense Agencies that—

(A)

establishes research priorities under the program;

(B)

provides for the determination and documentation of the benefits to the Department of Defense of research under the program; and

(C)

sets forth a clear strategy for transitioning the research into products needed by the Department.

(3)

Advocating for the transition of nanotechnologies in defense acquisition programs, including the development of nanomanufacturing capabilities and a nanotechnology defense industrial base.

(d)

Reports

Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(e)

Reports

(1)

Not later than March 1 of each of 2009, 2011, and 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the program.

(2)

Each report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A)

A review of—

(i)

the long-term challenges and specific technical goals of the program; and

(ii)

the progress made toward meeting such challenges and achieving such goals.

(B)

An assessment of current and proposed funding levels for the program, including an assessment of the adequacy of such funding levels to support program activities.

(C)

A review of the coordination of activities under the program within the Department of Defense, with other departments and agencies of the United States, and with the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

(D)

A review and analysis of the findings and recommendations relating to the Department of Defense of the most recent triennial external review of the National Nanotechnology Program under section 5 of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 1704), and a description of initiatives of the Department to implement such recommendations.

(E)

An assessment of technology transition from nanotechnology research and development to enhanced warfighting capabilities, including contributions from the Department of Defense Small Business Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Research programs, and the Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology program, and an identification of acquisition programs and deployed defense systems that are incorporating nanotechnologies.

(F)

An assessment of global nanotechnology research and development in areas of interest to the Department, including an identification of the use of nanotechnologies in any foreign defense systems.

(G)

An assessment of the defense nanotechnology manufacturing and industrial base and its capability to meet the near and far term requirements of the Department.

(H)

Such recommendations for additional activities under the program to meet emerging national security requirements as the Under Secretary considers appropriate.

(3)

Each report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(e)

Comptroller General report on program

Not later than March 31, 2010, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the assessment of the Comptroller General of the progress made by the Department of Defense in achieving the purposes of the defense nanotechnology research and development program required by section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (as amended by this section).