[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7822-S7867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1341. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve
transitional assistance provided for members of the armed forces being
discharged, released from active duty, or retired, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will enhance and strengthen transition services that are provided to
our military personnel.
As the Senate conducts its business today, thousands of our brave men
and women in uniform are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere around the globe. These men and women serve with distinction
and honor, and we owe them our heartfelt gratitude.
We also owe them our best effort to ensure that they receive the
benefits to which their service in our Armed Forces has entitled them.
I have heard time and again from military personnel and veterans who
are frustrated with the system by which they apply for benefits or
appeal claims for benefits. I have long been concerned that
[[Page S7823]]
tens of thousands of our veterans are unaware of Federal health care
and other benefits for which they may be eligible, and I have
undertaken numerous legislative and oversight efforts to ensure that
the Department of Veterans Affairs makes outreach to our veterans and
their families a priority.
While we should do more to support our veterans, we must also ensure
that the men and women who are currently serving in our Armed Forces
receive adequate pay and benefits, as well as services that help them
to make the transition from active duty to civilian life. I am
concerned that we are not doing enough to support our men and women in
uniform as they prepare to retire or otherwise separate from the
service or, in the case of members of our National Guard and Reserve,
to demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian
lives while staying in the military or preparing to separate from the
military. We must ensure that their service and sacrifice, which is
much lauded during times of conflict, is not forgotten once the battles
have ended and our troops have come home.
The bill that I am introducing today, the Veterans Enhanced
Transition Services Act (VETS Act), will help to ensure that all
military personnel have access to the same transition services as they
prepare to leave the military to reenter civilian life, or, in the case
of members of the National Guard and Reserve, as they prepare to
demobilize from active duty assignments and return to their civilian
lives and jobs or education while remaining in the military.
I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites and members of military
and veterans service organizations that our men and women in uniform do
not all have access to the same transition counseling and medical
services as they are demobilizing from service in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere. I have long been concerned about reports of uneven
provision of services from base to base and from service to service.
All of our men and women in uniform have pledged to serve our country,
and all of them, at the very least, deserve to have access to the same
services in return.
I introduced similar legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am
pleased that a provision that I authored which was based on that bill
was enacted as part of the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill.
In response to concerns I have heard from a number of my
constituents, my amendment, in part, directed the Secretaries of
Defense and Labor to jointly explore ways in which DoD training and
certification standards could be coordinated with government and
private sector training and certification standards for corresponding
civilian occupations. Such coordination could help military personnel
who wish to pursue civilian employment related to their military
specialties to make the transition from the military to comparable
civilian jobs. I look forward to reviewing this report.
In addition, this amendment required the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to undertake a comprehensive analysis of existing
transition services for our military personnel that are administered by
the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor and to make
recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be improved. My
amendment required GAO to focus on two issues: how to achieve the
uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military
personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health
assessments as part of the larger transition program. GAO released its
study ``Military and Veterans' Benefits: Enhanced Services Could
Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National Guard'' in May
2005, and it plans to release its study on health assessments in the
near future.
Just yesterday, GAO provided testimony on its transition services
report to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity. That hearing could not have been more timely. We
owe it to our men and women in uniform to improve transition programs
now as we continue to welcome home thousands of military personnel who
are serving our country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We should
not miss an opportunity to help the men and women who are currently
serving our country.
My bill, which is consistent with GAO's recommendations on transition
assistance, will help to ensure that all military personnel receive the
same services by making a number of improvements to the existing
Transition Assistance Program/Disabled Transition Assistance Program
(TAP/DTAP), by improving the process by which military personnel who
are being demobilized or discharged receive medical examinations and
mental health assessments, and by ensuring that military and veterans
service organizations and state departments of veterans affairs are
able to play an active role in assisting military personnel with the
difficult decisions that are often involved in the process of
discharging or demobilizing.
Under current law, the Department of Defense, together with the
Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Labor, provide pre-separation
counseling for military personnel who are preparing to leave the Armed
Forces. This counseling provides servicemembers with valuable
information about benefits that they have earned through their service
to our country such as education benefits through the GI Bill and
health care and other benefits through the VA. Personnel also learn
about programs such as Troops to Teachers and have access to employment
assistance for themselves and, where appropriate, their spouses.
My bill would ensure that National Guard and Reserve personnel who
are on active duty are able to participate in this important counseling
prior to being demobilized. In addition, my bill would require state-
based follow-up within 180 days of demobilization to give newly
demobilized personnel the opportunity to follow up on any questions or
concerns that they may have during a regular unit training period.
Currently, most of the responsibility for getting information about
benefits and programs falls on the military personnel. The Department
of Defense should make every effort to ensure that all members
participate in this important program, and that is what my bill would
do.
In its recent report on transition services, GAO found that
``[d]uring their rapid demobilization, the Reserve and National Guard
members may not receive all the information on possible benefits to
which they are entitled. Notably, certain education benefits and
medical coverage require servicemembers to apply while they are still
on active duty. However, even after being briefed, some Reserve and
National Guard members were not aware of the time frames within which
they needed to act to secure certain benefits before returning home. In
addition, most members of the Reserves and National Guard did not have
the opportunity to attend an employment workshop during
demobilization.''
In response to these findings, GAO recommended that ``DoD, in
conjunction with DoL and the VA, determine what demobilizing Reserve
and National Guard members need to make a smooth transition and explore
options to enhance their participation in TAP.'' GAO also recommended
that ``VA take steps to determine the level of participation in DTAP to
ensure those who may have especially complex needs are being served.''
In addition to ensuring that all discharging and demobilizing
military personnel are able to participate in TAP/DTAP, my bill would
help to improve the uniformity of services provided to personnel by
directing the Secretary of Defense to ensure that consistent transition
briefings occur across the services and at all demobilization/discharge
locations. In its report, GAO noted that ``[t]he delivery of TAP may
vary in terms of the amount of personal attention participants receive,
the length of the components, and the instructional methods used.'' We
should make every effort to ensure that those who have put themselves
in harm's way on our behalf have access to the same transition services
no matter their discharge/demobilization location or the branch of the
Armed Forces in which they serve.
My bill would also ensure, consistent with GAO's recommendation, that
there are programs that are directed to the specific needs of active
duty and National Guard and Reserve personnel. And my bill includes a
provision to ensure that personnel who are on the temporary disability
retired list and
[[Page S7824]]
who are being retired or discharged from alternate locations will have
access to transition services at a location that is reasonably
convenient to them.
In addition, my bill would enhance the information that is presented
to members by requiring that pre-separation counseling include the
provision of information regarding certification and licensing
requirements in civilian occupations and information on identifying
military occupations that have civilian counterparts, information
concerning veterans small business ownership and entrepreneurship
programs offered by the Federal Government, information concerning
employment and reemployment rights and veterans preference in Federal
employment and Federal procurement opportunities, information
concerning homelessness and housing counseling assistance, and a
description of the health care and other benefits to which the member
may be entitled under the laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs including a referral (to be provided with the
assistance of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs) for a VA medical and
pension examination, as appropriate.
Participation in pre-separation counseling through a TAP/DTAP program
is a valuable tool for personnel as they transition back to civilian
life. My bill is in no way intended to lengthen the time that military
personnel spend away from their families or to provide them with
information that is not relevant to their civilian lives or that they
otherwise do not need. In order to ensure that this information remains
a valuable tool and does not become a burden to demobilizing members of
the National Guard and Reserve who experience multiple deployments for
active duty assignments, my bill clarifies that participation in the
Department of Labor's transitional services employment program will not
be required if a member has previously participated in the program or
if a member will be returning to school or to a position of employment.
My bill would also require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans
Affairs to submit a plan to Congress for increasing access to the joint
DoD-VA Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, which assists personnel
in applying for VA disability benefits before they are discharged from
the military. This very successful program has helped to cut the red
tape and to speed the processing time for many veterans who are
entitled to VA disability benefits.
In addition to the uneven provision of transition services, I have
long been concerned about the immediate and long-term health effects
that military deployments have on our men and women in uniform. I
regret that, too often, the burden of responsibility for proving that a
condition is related to military service falls on the personnel
themselves. Our men and women in uniform deserve the benefit of the
doubt, and should not have to fight the Department of Defense or the VA
for benefits that they have earned through their service to our nation.
Since coming to the Senate in 1993, I have worked to focus attention
on the health effects that are being experienced by military personnel
who served in the Persian Gulf War. More than ten years after the end
of the Gulf War, we still don't know why so many veterans of that
conflict are experiencing medical problems that have become known as
Gulf War Syndrome. Military personnel who are currently deployed to the
Persian Gulf region face many of the same conditions that existed in
the early 1990s. I have repeatedly pressed the Departments of Defense
and Veterans Affairs to work to unlock the mystery of this illness and
to study the role that exposure to depleted uranium may play in this
condition. We owe it to these personnel to find these answers, and to
ensure that those who are currently serving in the Persian Gulf region
are adequately protected from the many possible causes of Gulf War
Syndrome.
Part of the process of protecting the health of our men and women in
uniform is to ensure that the Department of Defense carries out its
responsibility to provide post-deployment physicals for military
personnel. I am deeply concerned about stories of personnel who are
experiencing long delays as they wait for their post-deployment
physicals and who end up choosing not to have these important physicals
in order to get home to their families that much sooner. I am equally
concerned about reports that some personnel who did not receive such a
physical--either by their own choice or because such a physical was not
available--are now having trouble as they apply for benefits for a
service-connected condition.
I firmly believe, as do the military and veterans groups that support
my bill, that our men and women in uniform are entitled to a prompt,
high quality physical examination as part of the demobilization
process. These individuals have voluntarily put themselves into harm's
way for our benefit. We should ensure that the Department of Defense
makes every effort to determine whether they have experienced, or could
experience, any health effects as a result of their service.
In light of concerns raised by many that each service and each
installation uses a different process for demobilization physicals, my
bill would require the Secretary of Defense to set minimum standards
for these important medical examinations and to ensure that these
standards are applied uniformly at all installations and by all
branches of the Armed Forces. In addition, to ensure that all personnel
receive these important exams, my bill stipulates that the exam may not
be waived by the Department or by individual personnel.
My bill also would strengthen current law by ensuring that these
medical examinations also include a mental health assessment. Our men
and women in uniform serve in difficult circumstances far from home,
and too many of them witness or experience violence and horrific
situations that most of us cannot even begin to imagine. I have heard
concerns that these brave men and women, many of whom are just out of
high school or college when they sign up, may suffer long-term physical
and mental fallout from their experiences and may feel reluctant to
seek counseling or other assistance to deal with their experiences.
My bill would improve mental health services for demobilizing
military personnel by requiring that the content and standards for the
mental health screening and assessment that are developed by the
Secretary include content and standards for screening acute and delayed
onset post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and, specifically,
questions to identify stressors experienced by military personnel that
have the potential to lead to PTSD. These efforts should build on--not
replace--the mental health questions that the Pentagon is already using
as part of its post-deployment health screening process.
Some Wisconsinites have told me that they are concerned that the
multiple deployments of our National Guard and Reserve could lead to
chronic PTSD, which could have its roots in an experience from a
previous deployment and which could come to the surface by a triggering
event that is experienced on a current deployment. The same is true for
full-time military personnel who have served in a variety of places
over their careers.
We can and should do more to ensure that the mental health of our men
and women in uniform is a top priority, and that the stigma that is too
often attached to seeking assistance is ended. One step in this process
is to ensure that personnel who have symptoms of PTSD and related
illnesses have access to appropriate clinical services, through DoD,
the VA, or a private sector health care provider. To that end, my bill
would require that the health care professionals who are assessing
demobilizing military personnel provide all personnel who may need
follow-up care for a physical or psychological condition with
information on appropriate resources through DoD or the VA and in the
private sector that these personnel may use to access additional
follow-up care if they so choose.
I commend the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for
issuing in March 2005 a memorandum to the Assistant Secretaries for the
Army, Navy, and Air Force directing them to extend the Pentagon's
current post-deployment health assessment process to include a
reassessment of ``global health with a specific emphasis on mental
health'' to occur three to six months post-deployment. At a hearing of
the Senate Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee earlier
[[Page S7825]]
this year, the Assistant Secretary stated that the services were in the
process of implementing a program that would include a ``screening
procedure with a questionnaire and a face-to-face interaction at about
three months'' post-deployment. He also noted that the idea for this
program came from ``front line people'' and that he ``asked them. . .
`do you think we should make it mandatory?' and the answer was: yes.''
This sentiment makes it even more important that the initial post-
deployment mental health assessment be strengthened and that it be
mandatory as well so that health care professionals have a benchmark
against which to measure the results of the follow-up screening
process.
In order to gain a better understanding of existing programs, my bill
requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to report to
Congress on the services provided to current and former members of the
Armed Forces who experience PTSD and related conditions. This report
will include an analysis of the number of persons treated, the types of
interventions, and the programs that are in place for each branch of
the Armed Forces to identify and treat cases of PTSD and related
conditions.
In addition, in order to ensure that all military personnel who are
eligible for medical benefits from the VA learn about and receive these
benefits, my bill would require that, as part of the demobilization
process, assistance be provided to eligible members to enroll in the VA
health care system.
My bill would also make improvements to the DoD demobilization and
discharge processes by ensuring that members of military and veterans
service organizations (MSOs and VSOs) are able to counsel personnel on
options for benefits and other important questions. The demobilization
and discharge process presents our servicemembers with a sometimes
confusing and often overwhelming amount of information and paperwork
that must be digested and sometimes signed in a very short period of
time. My bill would authorize a ``veteran to veteran'' counseling
program that will give military personnel the opportunity to speak with
fellow veterans who have been through this process and who have been
accredited to represent veterans in VA proceeding by the VA. These
veterans can offer important advice about benefits and other choices
that military personnel have to make as they are being discharged or
demobilized.
Under current law, the Secretary of Defense may make use of the
services provided by MSOs and VSOs as part of the transition process.
But these groups tell me that they are not always allowed access to
transition briefings that are conducted for our personnel. In order to
help facilitate the new veteran-to-veteran program, my legislation
would require the Secretary to ensure that representatives of MSOs,
VSOs, and state departments of veterans affairs, are invited to
participate in all transition and Benefits Delivery at Discharge
programs. In addition, my legislation requires that these dedicated
veterans, who give so much of their time and of themselves to serving
their fellow veterans and their families, are able to gain access to
military installations, military hospitals, and VA hospitals in order
to provide this important service. By and large, these groups are able
to speak with our military personnel at hospitals and other facilities.
But I am disturbed by reports that representatives of some of these
groups were having a hard time gaining access to these facilities in
order to visit with our troops. For that reason, I have included this
access requirement in my bill.
I want to stress that my bill in no way requires military personnel
to speak with members of MSOs or VSOs if they do not wish to do so. It
merely ensures that our men and women in uniform have this option.
I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a wide range of
groups that are dedicated to serving our men and women in uniform and
veterans and their families. These groups include: the American Legion;
the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States;
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; the Paralyzed Veterans of
America; the Reserve Officers Association; the Veterans of Foreign
Wars; the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin
National Guard; the American Legion, Department of Wisconsin; Disabled
American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Paralyzed
Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of
Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of
America.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1341
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Enhanced
Transition Services Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS.
(a) Preseparation Counseling.--Section 1142 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``provide for individual
preseparation counseling'' and inserting ``shall provide
individual preseparation counseling'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) For members of the reserve components who have been
serving on active duty continuously for at least 180 days,
the Secretary concerned shall require that preseparation
counseling under this section be provided to all such members
(including officers) before the members are separated.
``(5) The Secretary concerned shall ensure that commanders
of members entitled to services under this section authorize
the members to obtain such services during duty time.''.
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(4) Information
concerning'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Provision of information on civilian occupations and
related assistance programs, including information
concerning--
``(A) certification and licensure requirements that are
applicable to civilian occupations;
``(B) civilian occupations that correspond to military
occupational specialties; and
``(C)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Information concerning the priority of service for
veterans in the receipt of employment, training, and
placement services provided under qualified job training
programs of the Department of Labor.
``(12) Information concerning veterans small business
ownership and entrepreneurship programs of the Small Business
Administration and the National Veterans Business Development
Corporation.
``(13) Information concerning employment and reemployment
rights and obligations under chapter 43 of title 38.
``(14) Information concerning veterans preference in
federal employment and federal procurement opportunities.
``(15) Information concerning homelessness, including risk
factors, awareness assessment, and contact information for
preventative assistance associated with homelessness.
``(16) Contact information for housing counseling
assistance.
``(17) A description, developed in consultation with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, of health care and other
benefits to which the member may be entitled under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(18) If a member is eligible, based on a preseparation
physical examination, for compensation benefits under the
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a
referral for a medical examination by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (commonly known as a `compensation and
pension examination').'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Additional Requirements.--(1) The Secretary concerned
shall ensure that--
``(A) preseparation counseling under this section includes
material that is specifically relevant to the needs of--
``(i) persons being separated from active duty by discharge
from a regular component of the armed forces; and
``(ii) members of the reserve components being separated
from active duty;
``(B) the locations at which preseparation counseling is
presented to eligible personnel include--
``(i) each military installation under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary;
``(ii) each armory and military family support center of
the National Guard;
``(iii) inpatient medical care facilities of the uniformed
services where such personnel are receiving inpatient care;
and
``(iv) in the case of a member on the temporary disability
retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title who is
being retired under another provision of this title or is
being discharged, a location reasonably convenient to the
member;
``(C) the scope and content of the material presented in
preseparation counseling at
[[Page S7826]]
each location under this section are consistent with the
scope and content of the material presented in the
preseparation counseling at the other locations under this
section; and
``(D) follow up counseling is provided for each member of
the reserve components described in subparagraph (A) not
later than 180 days after separation from active duty.
``(2) The Secretary concerned shall, on a continuing basis,
update the content of the materials used by the National
Veterans Training Institute and such officials' other
activities that provide direct training support to personnel
who provide preseparation counseling under this section.
``(e) National Guard Members on Duty in State Status.--(1)
Members of the National Guard, who are separated from long-
term duty to which ordered under section 502(f) of title 32,
shall be provided preseparation counseling under this section
to the same extent that members of the reserve components
being discharged or released from active duty are provided
preseparation counseling under this section.
``(2) The preseparation counseling provided personnel under
paragraph (1) shall include material that is specifically
relevant to the needs of such personnel as members of the
National Guard.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe, by
regulation, the standards for determining long-term duty
under paragraph (1).''; and
(4) by amending the heading to read as follows:
``Sec. 1A1142. Members separating from active duty:
preseparation counseling''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 58 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 1142 and
inserting the following:
``1142. Members separating from active duty: preseparation
counseling.''.
(c) Department of Labor Transitional Services Program.--
Section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)''
in the second sentence and inserting ``paragraph (6)(A)'';
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Participation.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
require participation by members of the armed forces eligible
for assistance under the program carried out under this
section.
``(2) The Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security
need not require, but shall encourage and otherwise promote,
participation in the program by the following members of the
armed forces described in paragraph (1):
``(A) Each member who has previously participated in the
program.
``(B) Each member who, upon discharge or release from
active duty, is returning to--
``(i) a position of employment; or
``(ii) pursuit of an academic degree or other educational
or occupational training objective that the member was
pursuing when called or ordered to such active duty.
``(3) The Secretary concerned shall ensure that commanders
of members entitled to services under this section authorize
the members to obtain such services during duty time.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Updated Materials.--The Secretary concerned shall, on
a continuing basis, update the content of all materials used
by the Department of Labor that provide direct training
support to personnel who provide transitional services
counseling under this section.''.
SEC. 3. BENEFITS DELIVERY AT DISCHARGE PROGRAMS.
(a) Plan for Maximum Access to Benefits.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall jointly submit to Congress a plan to maximize access to
benefits delivery at discharge programs for members of the
Armed Forces.
(2) Contents.--The plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include a description of efforts to ensure that services
under programs described in paragraph (1) are provided, to
the maximum extent practicable--
(A) at each military installation under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary;
(B) at each armory and military family support center of
the National Guard;
(C) at each installation and inpatient medical care
facility of the uniformed services at which personnel
eligible for assistance under such programs are discharged
from the armed forces; and
(D) in the case of a member on the temporary disability
retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of title 10, United
States Code, who is being retired under another provision of
such title or is being discharged, at a location reasonably
convenient to the member.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``benefits
delivery at discharge program'' means a program administered
jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide information and assistance on
available benefits and other transition assistance to members
of the Armed Forces who are separating from the Armed Forces,
including assistance to obtain any disability benefits for
such members may be eligible.
SEC. 4. POST-DEPLOYMENT MEDICAL ASSESSMENT AND SERVICES.
(a) Improvement of Medical Tracking System for Members
Deployed Overseas.--Section 1074f of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``(including an
assessment of mental health'' and inserting ``(which shall
include mental health screening and assessment'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Physical Medical Examinations.--(1) The Secretary
shall--
``(A) prescribe the minimum content and standards that
apply for the physical medical examinations required under
this section; and
``(B) ensure that the content and standards prescribed
under subparagraph (A) are uniformly applied at all
installations and medical facilities of the armed forces
where physical medical examinations required under this
section are performed for members of the armed forces
returning from a deployment described in subsection (a).
``(2) An examination consisting solely or primarily of an
assessment questionnaire completed by a member does not meet
the requirements under this section for--
``(A) a physical medical examination; or
``(B) an assessment.
``(3) The content and standards prescribed under paragraph
(1) for mental health screening and assessment shall
include--
``(A) content and standards for screening mental health
disorders; and
``(B) in the case of acute post-traumatic stress disorder
and delayed onset post-traumatic stress disorder, specific
questions to identify stressors experienced by members that
have the potential to lead to post-traumatic stress disorder,
which questions may be taken from or modeled after the post-
deployment assessment questionnaire used in June 2005.
``(4) An examination of a member required under this
section may not be waived by the Secretary (or any official
exercising the Secretary's authority under this section) or
by the member.
``(d) Follow up Services.--(1) The Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
ensure that appropriate actions are taken to assist a member
who, as a result of a post-deployment medical examination
carried out under the system established under this section,
receives an indication for a referral for follow up treatment
from the health care provider who performs the examination.
``(2) Assistance required to be provided to a member under
paragraph (1) includes--
``(A) information regarding, and any appropriate referral
for, the care, treatment, and other services that the
Secretary or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may provide to
such member under any other provision of law, including--
``(i) clinical services, including counseling and treatment
for post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health
conditions; and
``(ii) any other care, treatment, and services;
``(B) information on the private sector sources of
treatment that are available to the member in the member's
community; and
``(C) assistance to enroll in the health care system of the
Department of Veterans Affairs for health care benefits for
which the member is eligible under laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.''.
(b) Report on PTSD Cases.--(1) The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly submit to
Congress a report on the services provided to members and
former members of the Armed Forces who experience post-
traumatic stress disorder (and related conditions) associated
with service in the Armed Forces.
(2) The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) the number of persons treated;
(B) the types of interventions; and
(C) the programs that are in place for each of the Armed
Forces to identify and treat cases of post-traumatic stress
disorder and related conditions.
SEC. 5. ACCESS OF MILITARY AND VETERANS SERVICE AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Department of Defense.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 58 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1A1154. Veteran-to-veteran preseparation counseling
``(a) Cooperation Required.--The Secretary shall carry out
a program to facilitate the access of representatives of
military and veterans' service organizations and
representatives of veterans' services agencies of States to
provide preseparation counseling and services to members of
the armed forces who are scheduled, or are in the process of
being scheduled, for discharge, release from active duty, or
retirement.
``(b) Required Program Element.--The program under this
section shall provide for representatives of military and
veterans' service organizations and representatives of
veterans' services agencies of States to be invited to
participate in the preseparation counseling and other
assistance briefings provided to members under the programs
carried out under sections 1142 and 1144 of this title and
the benefits delivery at discharge programs.
``(c) Locations.--The program under this section shall
provide for access to members--
``(1) at each installation of the armed forces;
[[Page S7827]]
``(2) at each armory and military family support center of
the National Guard;
``(3) at each inpatient medical care facility of the
uniformed services administered under chapter 55 of this
title; and
``(4) in the case of a member on the temporary disability
retired list under section 1202 or 1205 of this title who is
being retired under another provision of this title or is
being discharged, at a location reasonably convenient to the
member.
``(d) Consent of Members Required.--Access to a member of
the armed forces under the program under this section is
subject to the consent of the member.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `benefits delivery at discharge program'
means a program administered jointly by the Secretary and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide information and
assistance on available benefits and other transition
assistance to members of the armed forces who are separating
from the armed forces, including assistance to obtain any
disability benefits for which such members may be eligible.
``(2) The term `representative', with respect to a
veterans' service organization, means a representative of an
organization who is recognized by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs for the representation of veterans under section 5902
of title 38.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 58 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``1154. Veteran-to-veteran preseparation counseling.''.
(b) Department of Veterans Affairs.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 17 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1A1709. Veteran-to-veteran counseling
``(a) Cooperation Required.--The Secretary shall carry out
a program to facilitate the access of representatives of
military and veterans' service organizations and
representatives of veterans' services agencies of States to
veterans furnished care and services under this chapter to
provide information and counseling to such veterans on--
``(1) the care and services authorized by this chapter; and
``(2) other benefits and services available under the laws
administered by the Secretary.
``(b) Facilities Covered.--The program under this section
shall provide for access to veterans described in subsection
(a) at each facility of the Department and any non-Department
facility at which the Secretary furnishes care and services
under this chapter.
``(c) Consent of Veterans Required.--Access to a veteran
under the program under this section is subject to the
consent of the veteran.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `veterans'
service organization' means an organization who is recognized
by the Secretary for the representation of veterans under
section 5902 of this title.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1708
the following:
``1709. Veteran-to-veteran counseling.''.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 342. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the
outreach activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation
that will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal
benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs
conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I am please to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Arkansas,
Mrs. Lincoln.
Five years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA)
launched a Statewide program called ``I Owe You,'' which encourages
veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from
their service to our country in the Armed Forces.
As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored 20 events around
Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which
veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for
federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Information about additional benefits through WDVA is also provided.
These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia,
supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and
veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect
with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which
they may be eligible.
More than 18,650 veterans and their families have attended the
supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives
from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety
of Federal, State, and local agencies. I am proud to have had members
of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these
events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn
about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability
claim, and pre-registration for internment in veterans cemeteries.
According to WDVA, this program has helped Wisconsin to receive
approximately $250 million in additional VA funding and benefits for
our veterans each year.
The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by
naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American
Government Award. The program was featured in the March/April 2003
issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine. And in August 2003, the
Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments
named the program a finalist in its 2003 Innovations in American
Government Awards Program.
The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the
obligation of the VA. These are federal benefits that we owe to our
veterans and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure
that they receive them. The VA has a statutory obligation to perform
outreach, and current budget pressures should not be used as an excuse
to halt or reduce these efforts.
The legislation that I am introducing today was spurred by the
overwhelming response to the WDVA's ``I Owe You'' program and the
supermarkets of veterans benefits. If more than 18,000 Wisconsin
veterans want to make sure they know about all the benefits that are
owed to them, there must be many more veterans around our country who
deserve to be told about the benefits they have earned. We can and
should do better for our veterans, who selflessly served our country
and protected the freedoms that we all cherish. And it is important to
address gaps in the VA's outreach program as we welcome home and
prepare to enroll into the VA system the tens of thousands of dedicated
military personnel who are serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other
places around the globe.
In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's
outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would create a
statutory definition of the term ``outreach.''
My bill also would help to improve outreach activities performed by
the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line
items for outreach activities within the budgets of the VA and its
agencies (the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits
Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration). Currently
funding for outreach is taken from the general operating expenses for
these agencies. These important programs should have a dedicated
funding source instead of being forced to compete for scarce funding
with other crucial VA programs.
I have long supported efforts to adequately fund VA programs. We can
and should do more to provide the funding necessary to ensure that our
brave veterans are getting the health care and other benefits that they
have earned in a timely manner and without having to travel long
distances or wait more than a year to see a doctor or to have a claim
processed.
Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require
the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the
VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more
closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their
efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of
effort that could waste scarce funding.
Finally, the bill would ensure that the VA can enter into cooperative
agreements with state departments of veterans affairs regarding
outreach activities and would give the VA grant-making authority to
award funds to State Departments of Veterans Affairs for outreach
activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.'' Grants that are
awarded to state departments under this program could be used to
enhance outreach activities and to improve activities relating to
veterans claims processing, which is a key component of the VA benefits
process. State departments that receive grants
[[Page S7828]]
under this program may choose to award portions of their grants to
local governments, other public entities, or private or non-profit
organizations that engage in veterans outreach activities. I want to be
clear that it is not my intention that the funding for these grants be
taken from existing VA programs.
I am pleased that this bill has the support of a number of national
and Wisconsin organizations that are committed to improving the lives
of our nation's veterans, including: Disabled American Veterans;
Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; the
National Association of County Veterans Service Officers; the National
Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin
Department of Veterans Affairs; the Wisconsin Association of County
Veterans Service Officers; the American Legion, Department of
Wisconsin; the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of Wisconsin;
Disabled American Veterans, Department of Wisconsin; the Wisconsin
Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department
of Wisconsin; and the Wisconsin State Council, Vietnam Veterans of
America.
I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that our
veterans know about the benefits for which they may be eligible as a
result of their service to our country. I ask unanimous consent that
the text of my bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1342
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Outreach
Improvement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF OUTREACH.
Section 101 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(34) The term `outreach' means the act or process of
reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively provide
information, services, and benefits counseling to veterans,
and to the spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may
be eligible to receive benefits under the laws administered
by the Secretary, to ensure that such individuals are fully
informed about, and assisted in applying for, any benefits
and programs under such laws.''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF
OUTREACH OF ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--OUTREACH
``Sec. 561. Outreach activities: funding
``(a) Separate Account for Outreach Activities.--The
Secretary shall establish a separate account for the funding
of the outreach activities of the Department, and shall
establish within such account a separate subaccount for the
funding of the outreach activities of each element of the
Department specified in subsection (c).
``(b) Budget Requirements.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the
Secretary shall include a separate statement of the amount
requested for such fiscal year for activities as follows:
``(1) For outreach activities of the Department in
aggregate.
``(2) For outreach activities of each element of the
Department specified in subsection (c).
``(c) Covered Elements.--The elements of the Department
specified in this subsection are as follows:
``(1) The Veterans Health Administration.
``(2) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
``(3) The National Cemetery Administration.
``Sec. 562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities
within Department
``(a) Procedures for Effective Coordination.--The Secretary
shall establish and maintain procedures for ensuring the
effective coordination of the outreach activities of the
Department between and among the following:
``(1) The Office of the Secretary.
``(2) The Office of Public Affairs.
``(3) The Veterans Health Administration.
``(4) The Veterans Benefits Administration.
``(5) The National Cemetery Administration.
``(b) Review and Modification.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) periodically review the procedures maintained under
subsection (a) for the purpose of ensuring that such
procedures meet the requirement in that subsection; and
``(2) make such modifications to such procedures as the
Secretary considers appropriate in light of such review in
order to better achieve that purpose.
``Sec. 563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with
States; grants to States for improvement of outreach
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist
States in carrying out programs that offer a high probability
of improving outreach and assistance to veterans, and to the
spouses, children, and parents of veterans who may be
eligible to receive veterans' or veterans'-related benefits,
to ensure that such individuals are fully informed about, and
assisted in applying for, any veterans' and veterans'-related
benefits and programs (including under State veterans'
programs).
``(b) Location of Provision of Outreach.--The Secretary
shall ensure that outreach and assistance is provided under
programs referred to in subsection (a) in locations proximate
to populations of veterans and other individuals referred to
in that subsection, as determined utilizing criteria for
determining the proximity of such populations to veterans
health care services.
``(c) Cooperative Agreements With States.--The Secretary
may enter into cooperative agreements and arrangements with
veterans agencies of the States in order to carry out,
coordinate, improve, or otherwise enhance outreach by the
Department and the States (including outreach with respect to
State veterans' programs).
``(d) Grants.--(1) The Secretary may award grants to
veterans agencies of States in order to achieve purposes as
follows:
``(A) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise
enhance outreach, including activities pursuant to
cooperative agreements and arrangements under subsection (c).
``(B) To carry out, coordinate, improve, or otherwise
enhance activities to assist in the development and submittal
of claims for veterans' and veterans'-related benefits,
including activities pursuant to cooperative agreements and
arrangements under subsection (c).
``(2) A veterans agency of a State receiving a grant under
this subsection may use the grant amount for purposes
described in paragraph (1) or award all or any portion of
such grant amount to local governments in such State, other
public entities in such State, or private non-profit
organizations in such State for such purposes.
``(e) Funding.--Amounts available for the Department for
outreach in the account under section 561 of this title shall
be available for activities under this section, including
grants under subsection (d).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new items
``Subchapter IV--Outreach
``561. Outreach activities: funding
``562. Outreach activities: coordination of activities within
Department
``563. Outreach activities: cooperative activities with States; grants
to States for improvement of outreach''.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
S. 1346. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study of maritime sites in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will help celebrate Michigan's lighthouses and maritime heritage.
The Great Lakes are an inseparable part of Michigan's identity and
cultural history. One of our symbols of that identity are the over 120
lighthouses that define our shorelines--more lighthouses than any other
state in the nation.
These beautiful beacons not only serve their purpose as a
navigational tool for ships, but they also draw thousands of tourists
to Michigan's shores. Our lakeshore communities host visitors from
across the country, who travel to view the magnificence of our coastal
areas and the lighthouses that illuminate them. Our maritime museums
detail the Great Lakes' rich history and unique character.
As the economy in Michigan faces numerous challenges, these small
communities are more dependant than ever on tourism dollars. We must
help them by ensuring that there are coordinated efforts to protect
Michigan's lighthouses and promote the Great Lakes' maritime culture.
If we don't, we risk losing these symbols of our history and our future
for all time.
The Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act would help
develop Federal, State and local partnerships by requiring the National
Park Service to work with the State of Michigan and local communities
to study and make recommendations to Congress on the best ways to
promote and protect Michigan's lighthouses and maritime resources.
These recommendations would include specific legislative proposals for
the preservation of lighthouses and maritime history. For example, they
may call for
[[Page S7829]]
the creation of a statewide trail highlighting the historical features
of our shorelines and lighthouses. The recommendations would also
include the identification of funding sources for Michigan communities,
which are critical to this effort.
This bill has strong bipartisan support from all of Michigan's
members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to join us in expediting
passage of the Michigan Maritime Heritage and Lighthouse Trail Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1346
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Michigan Lighthouse and
Maritime Heritage Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) surrounded by the Great Lakes, the State of Michigan
gives the Midwest region a unique maritime character;
(2) the access of the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean
has--
(A) given the shipping industry in the State of Michigan an
international role in trade; and
(B) contributed to industrial and natural resource
development in the State;
(3) the State of Michigan offers unequaled opportunities
for maritime heritage preservation and interpretation, based
on the fact that the State has--
(A) more deepwater shoreline than any other State in the
continental United States;
(B) more lighthouses than any other State; and
(C) the only freshwater national marine sanctuary in the
United States;
(4) the maritime history of the State of Michigan includes
the history of--
(A) the routes and gathering places of the fur traders and
missionaries who opened North America to European settlement;
and
(B) the summer communities of people who mined copper,
hunted and fished, and created the first agricultural
settlements in the State;
(5) in the 19th century, the natural resources and maritime
access of the State made the State the leading producer of
iron, copper, and lumber in the United States; and
(6) the maritime heritage of Michigan is evident in--
(A) the more than 120 lighthouses in the State;
(B) the lifesaving stations, dry docks, lightships,
submarine, ore docks, piers, breakwaters, sailing clubs, and
communities and industries that were built on the lakes in
the State;
(C) the hotels and resort communities in the State;
(D) the more than 12 maritime-related national landmarks in
the State;
(E) the 2 national lakeshores in the State;
(F) the 2 units of the National Park System in the State;
(G) the various State parks and sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places in the State;
(H) the database information in the State on--
(i) 1,500 shipwrecks;
(ii) 11 underwater preserves; and
(iii) the freshwater national marine sanctuary; and
(I) the Great Lakes, which have played an important role--
(i) for Native Americans, fur traders, missionaries,
settlers, and travelers;
(ii) in the distribution of wheat, iron, copper, and
lumber;
(iii) providing recreational opportunities; and
(iv) stories of shipwrecks and rescues.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Maritime heritage resource.--The term ``maritime
heritage resource'' includes lighthouses, lifesaving and
coast guard stations, maritime museums, historic ships and
boats, marine sanctuaries and preserves, fisheries and
hatcheries, locks and ports, ore docks, piers and
breakwaters, marinas, resort communities (such as Bay View
and Epworth Heights), cruises, performing artists that
specialize in maritime culture, interpretive and educational
programs and events, museums with significant maritime
collections, maritime art galleries, maritime communities,
and maritime festivals.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service
Midwest Regional Office.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Michigan.
(4) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the State of
Michigan.
SEC. 4. STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
State, the State historic preservation officer, local
historical societies, State and local economic development,
tourism, and parks and recreation offices, and other
appropriate agencies and organizations, shall conduct a
special resource study of the study area to determine--
(1) the potential economic and tourism benefits of
preserving State maritime heritage resources;
(2) suitable and feasible options for long-term protection
of significant State maritime heritage resources; and
(3) the manner in which the public can best learn about and
experience State maritime heritage resources.
(b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) review Federal, State, and local maritime resource
inventories and studies to establish the context, breadth,
and potential for interpretation and preservation of State
maritime heritage resources;
(2) examine the potential economic and tourism impacts of
protecting State maritime heritage resources;
(3) recommend management alternatives that would be most
effective for long-term resource protection and providing for
public enjoyment of State maritime heritage resources;
(4) address how to assist regional, State, and local
partners in efforts to increase public awareness of and
access to the State maritime heritage resources;
(5) identify sources of financial and technical assistance
available to communities for the conservation and
interpretation of State maritime heritage resources; and
(6) address ways in which to link appropriate national
parks, State parks, waterways, monuments, parkways,
communities, national and State historic sites, and regional
or local heritage areas and sites into a Michigan Maritime
Heritage Destination Network.
(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out the study under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report that describes--
(1) the results of the study; and
(2) any findings and recommendations of the Secretary.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $500,000.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 1347. A bill to authorize demonstration project grants to entities
to provide low-cost, small loans; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Cost
Alternatives to Payday Loans Act, which would authorize demonstration
project grants to eligible entities to provide low-cost, short-term
alternatives to expensive, predatory payday loans. Payday loans are
small cash loans repaid by borrowers' postdated checks or borrowers'
authorizations to make electronic debits against existing financial
accounts. Payday loan amounts are usually in the range of $100 to $500
with payment in full due in two weeks. Finance charges on payday loans
are typically in the range of $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed, which
translates into triple digit interest rates in the range of 390 percent
to 780 percent when expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR). Loan
flipping, which is a common practice, is the renewing of loans at
maturity by paying additional fees without any principal reduction.
Loan flipping often leads to instances where the fees paid for a payday
loan well exceed the principal borrowed. This situation often creates a
cycle of debt that is hard to break. Currently, there is a lack of low-
cost, short-term credit product alternatives available to consumers. My
legislation is intended to encourage the development of products that
satisfy the current demand for small loans of a short duration, but at
a fair interest rate.
The payday loan business has grown rapidly in recent years, with
industry revenues ballooning from $810 million in 1998 to $40 billion
in 2004. A study by the investment bank, Stephens, Inc., of Little
Rock, AK, estimated payday loan volume of $25 to $27 billion to 9 to 14
million U.S. households, generating between $4 and $4.3 billion in
fees. According to a 2004 study conducted by the Consumer Federation of
America (CFA), there were an estimated 22,000 payday lender storefronts
nationally. Through these storefronts, payday lenders originated an
estimated $40 billion in loans and received $6 billion in finance
charges.
Payday loan providers claim that they are offering a simple financial
product that addresses an emergency or temporary credit need that
usually cannot be met by traditional financial institutions. An
analysis of payday lending statistics by the Center for Responsible
Lending indicates that the
[[Page S7830]]
majority of payday loan borrowers have multiple loans each year. Two of
three borrowers have five or more payday loans annually, and half of
these borrowers have 12 or more payday loans annually. Only 33 percent
of payday borrowers use four or fewer payday loans annually. Some
borrowers seek loans from two or more payday lenders, multiplying the
potential for getting trapped in debt. Research by the Community
Financial Services Association of America, the payday loan industry's
national trade association, found that 40 percent of payday loan
customers renew their payday loans five times or more. Many of these
customers are lower or middle income working families who need a small
amount of money for a short period of time. This becomes a financial
bridge to help pay for unexpected expenses.
More and more predatory lenders locate near military installations,
targeting vulnerable military servicemembers and their families. The
Army has gone to the extent of offering payday lenders some competition
through its Army Emergency Relief (AER) initiative. AER, a private,
nonprofit organization, has been working on a national program called
Commanders Referral that will debut at Fort Hood, Texas, later this
year. This program will offer soldiers up to two no-interest, $500
loans a year, in an attempt to undercut the aggressive tactics of
payday lenders. Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Life Issues
on February 16, 2005, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
testified that the payday industry ``has made it a practice to prey
upon our Sailors.'' He went on to say ``it is not being dramatic to
state these payday loans to our troops could be a threat to their
military readiness.'' As the ranking member of the Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, this is an issue of
grave concern to me.
I am heartened to see that some federal credit unions have developed
alternatives to payday loan products. The Pentagon Federal Credit Union
Foundation, Pentagon Federal, and Langley Federal Credit Union, Langley
Federal, have each introduced a payday loan alternative. Pentagon
Federal offers the Asset Recovery Kit (ARK). For ARK, borrowers must
agree to financial counseling, or already be receiving counseling, in
order to receive a loan of up to $500. The borrower pays a $6 flat fee
for the loan and no credit report is required, but financial counseling
is mandatory. Langley Federal's QuickCash product features the quick
turnaround of a payday loan, but at an 18 percent annual percentage
rate. It does not have the financial counseling requirement of the
Pentagon Federal's ARK, but is still a viable alternative to a high
cost payday loan. In my home state, Windward Community Federal Credit
Union, located in Kailua, Hawaii, has developed a payday loan
alternative. This credit union is offering simple short-term loans,
with a short approval period, at a fair interest rate. With the
demonstration grants offered through my legislation, it is my hope that
more credit unions, community development financial institutions and
banks will develop and offer similar types of innovative credit
products that can serve as alternatives to payday loans.
The payday loan industry exploits people that are in financial need.
There is a demand for this type of loan, but these loans are
excessively priced. My bill authorizes the Department of the Treasury
to award demonstration project grants to banks, credit unions, and
community development financial institutions to develop and implement a
credit product subject to the APR promulgated by the National Credit
Union Administration's Loan Interest Rates, which is currently capped
at an APR of 18 percent. The grants would provide consumers with a
lower-cost, short-term alternative to predatory payday loans. The
demonstration project grants would require individuals seeking a loan
through this program to pursue financial literacy and education
opportunities that will help them better prepare to manage their
finances.
I have a letter in support of my legislation that is signed by the
Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group
and the Center for Responsible Lending. I ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the Record.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation so that
affordable alternatives to payday loans can be found.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of
America, U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
May 3, 2005.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: Consumer Federation of America, Center
for Responsible Lending and U.S. Public Interest Research
Group write in support of your legislation to encourage
mainstream financial institutions to meet the small loan
needs of their own customers. We agree with you that banks,
credit unions, and community development financial
institutions can and should provide affordable small loans to
depositors, along with financial literacy training and asset
development to turn debtors into savers.
When consumers turn to the under-regulated small loan
market, they typically pay triple-digit interest for very
short term loans and risk valuable assets to coercive
collection tactics. Last year consumers paid $6 billion to
borrow $40 billion for check-based small loans from payday
loan outlets. National Consumer Law Center and CFA recently
reported that low to moderate income consumers paid almost
$1.4 billion to borrow against their anticipated income tax
refunds. The Center for Responsible Lending and CFA report on
car title lending describes the booming business of making
one-month loans secured by a title to a paid for vehicle.
We believe that the solutions to the use of fringe lenders
by low to moderate income consumers include effective state
and federal consumer protections, a stronger safety net of
financial literacy and credit counseling, and the development
of beneficial alternatives by mainstream financial
institutions. Your bill seeks to expand mainstream
alternatives by authorizing Treasury demonstration grants to
non-profit organizations and qualifying financial
institutions. It is very important that the bill limits the
cost of loans made per these grants to the federal credit
union cap of 18% annual interest rate and requires that
borrowers also receive educational resources.
Sincerely,
Jean Ann Fox,
Director of Consumer Protection,
Consumer Federation of America.
Edmund Mierzwinski,
Consumer Program Director,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Mark Pearce,
President,
Center for Responsible Lending.
____
S. 1347
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANT PROGRAM FOR LOW-COST ALTERNATIVES TO PAYDAY
LOANS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Low-
Cost Alternatives to Payday Loans Act''.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Community development financial institution.--The term
``community development financial institution'' means any
organization that has been certified as a community
development financial institution pursuant to section
1805.201 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Federally insured depository institution.--The term
``federally insured depository institution'' means any
insured depository institution (as defined in section 3 of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) or any
insured credit union (as defined in section 101 of the
Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752)).
(3) Payday loan.--The term ``payday loan'' means any
transaction in which a small cash advance is made to a
consumer in exchange for--
(A) the personal check or share draft of the consumer, in
the amount of the advance plus a fee, where presentment or
negotiation of such check or share draft is deferred by
agreement of the parties until a designated future date; or
(B) the authorization of the consumer to debit the
transaction account or share draft account of the consumer,
in the amount of the advance plus a fee, where such account
will be debited on or after a designated future date.
(c) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of the
Treasury (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') is
authorized to award demonstration project grants (including
multi-year grants) to eligible entities to provide low-cost,
small loans to consumers that will provide alternatives to
more costly, predatory payday loans.
(d) Eligible Entities.--An entity is eligible to receive a
grant under this Act if such an entity is--
(1) an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code;
[[Page S7831]]
(2) a federally insured depository institution;
(3) a community development financial institution; or
(4) a partnership comprised of 1 or more of the entities
described in paragraphs (1) through (3).
(e) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under
this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary in such
form and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
(f) Terms and Conditions.--
(1) Percentage rate.--For purposes of this Act, an eligible
entity that is a federally insured depository institution
shall be subject to the annual percentage rate promulgated by
the National Credit Union Administration's Loan Interest
Rates under part 701 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations
in connection with a loan provided to a consumer pursuant to
this Act.
(2) Financial literacy and education opportunities.--Each
eligible entity awarded a grant under this Act shall offer
financial literacy and education opportunities, such as
relevant counseling services or educational courses, to each
consumer provided with a loan pursuant to this Act.
(g) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Each eligible
entity awarded a grant under this Act may use not more than 6
percent of the total amount of such grant in any fiscal year
for the administrative costs of carrying out the programs
funded by such grant in such fiscal year.
(h) Evaluation and Report.--For each fiscal year in which a
grant is awarded under this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress containing a description of the activities
funded, amounts distributed, and measurable results, as
appropriate and available.
(i) Regulations.--The Secretary is authorized to promulgate
regulations to implement and administer the grant program
under this Act.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary, for the grant program
described in this Act, such sums as may be necessary, which
shall remain available until expended.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 1348. A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code,
relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of
discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in
Litigation Act of 2005, a bill to curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy
orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes
in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important
health and safety information from the public.
This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in
products liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of
action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted
from a defect in one of its products. The plaintiff has limited
resources and faces a corporation that can spend an unlimited amount of
money on delay tactics. Facing a formidable opponent, plaintiffs are
discouraged from continuing and often seek to settle the litigation. In
exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to
agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing
information disclosed during the litigation.
While the plaintiff gets a respectable award and the defendant is
able to keep damaging information from getting out, others are forced
to pay the price. Because they remain unaware of critical public health
and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American
public incurs the greatest cost.
Currently, judges have broad discretion in granting protective orders
when ``good cause'' is shown. Too much discretion, however, can
sometimes lead to abuse. Tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers
and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the
legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could
protect the American public. Surely, there are appropriate uses for
such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential
company information. Our legislation makes sure such information is
protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used
to hide public safety information from the public to protect a
company's reputation or profit margin.
The most famous case of abuse involved Bridgestone/Firestone. From
1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires
were causing accidents across the country, many resulting in serious
injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes
and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of
lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until
1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that
the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires.
By then, it was too late; too many unnecessary injuries and deaths had
already occurred.
If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were
just an aberration, maybe there would be no cause for concern. But,
unfortunately, the list goes on. In January 2004, Jodie Lane was
walking her dog in Manhattan when she slipped and fell on a Con Edison
cable cover. She was electrocuted and killed. It has since been
discovered that Con Edison has settled eleven similar cases, all
involving secrecy agreements.
Then there is the case of General Motors (``GM''). Although an
internal memo suggests that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths
from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an
estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving these fuel tanks.
When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders
and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these
documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15
years before being discontinued.
There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders
accepted by state or federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence
suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent.
Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone and Con Edison, secrecy
agreements had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-
Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products to remain in
the market. And those are only the ones we know about.
While some States have already begun to move in the right direction,
we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal
solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest
proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple
balancing test to ensure that the defendant's interest in secrecy truly
outweighs the public interest in information related to public health
and safety. Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case
confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine by making a
particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the
disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety.
Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from
issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant
regulatory agencies.
This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the
board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It
simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs
legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important
health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some
sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.
______
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 1349. A bill to promote deployment of competitive video services,
eliminate redundant and unnecessary regulation, and further the
development of next generation broadband networks; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Rockefeller to
introduce the Video Choice Act of 2005. This bill will promote
competition and help bring choice to consumers in the video market. In
addition, the bill will further the development of next generation
broadband networks and spur economic development in rural areas of the
country, like Wallowa, OR.
A recent Government Accountability Office study underscores the
benefits of competition in the video market. In August 2004, GAO
concluded that cable rates are on average 15 percent lower in markets
with a wire-based competitor to the incumbent cable operator. My
legislation promotes competition and lowers rates by eliminating
redundant and unnecessary video franchises.
Specifically, my legislation permits any company that has already
obtained a franchise to build and operate a network to offer video
services over that
[[Page S7832]]
network without obtaining a second, redundant franchise. These
competitive video service providers will still be subject to the
important social policy obligations of cable operators, including the
obligation to pay fees to local governments; to comply with the
retransmission consent and must-carry provisions of the Act; to carry
public, educational, governmental and non-commercial, educational
channels; to protect the privacy of subscribers and to comply with all
statutory consumer protections and customer service requirements.
Importantly, my legislation also preserves State and local government
authority to manage the public rights-of-way and to enact or enforce
any consumer protection law. In so doing, we have ensured that local
communities continue to play a meaningful role in the management of
these networks.
We recognize that the video franchising process imposes burdens on
cable operators and welcome the opportunity to investigate and address
those concerns as this debate moves forward.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1349
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Video Choice Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Cable rates continue to rise substantially faster than
the overall rate of inflation.
(2) Wire-based competition in video services is limited to
very few markets. According to the Federal Communications
Commission, only 2 percent of all cable subscribers have the
opportunity to choose between 2 or more wire-based video
service providers.
(3) It is only through wire-based video competition that
price competition exists. The Government Accountability
Office has confirmed that where wire-based competition
exists, cable rates are 15 percent lower than in markets
without competition.
(4) It is in the public interest to further wire-based
competition in the video services market in order to provide
greater consumer choice and lower prices for video services.
(5) To spur competition in the communications industry,
Congress has decreased the regulatory burden on new entrants,
thereby increasing entry into the market and creating
competition.
(6) The United States continues to fall behind in broadband
deployment rates. According to a recent study by the
International Telecommunications Union, the United States is
now ranked 16th in the world in broadband deployment.
(7) The deployment of advanced high capacity networks would
greatly spur economic development in rural America.
(8) The deployment of advanced networks that can offer
substantially higher capacity are critical to the long-term
competitiveness of the United States.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS ACT.
Title VI of the Communication Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 521 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART VI--VIDEO CHOICE
``SEC. 661. DEFINITION.
``In this part, the term `competitive video services
provider' means any provider of video programming,
interactive on-demand services, other programming services,
or any other video services who has any right, permission, or
authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any
cable franchise obtained pursuant to section 621 or pursuant
to any other Federal, State, or local law.
``SEC. 662. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.
``(a) Redundant Franchises Prohibited.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, no competitive video services
provider may be required, whether pursuant to section 621 or
to any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, to
obtain a franchise in order to provide any video programming,
interactive on-demand services, other programming services,
or any other video services in any area where such provider
has any right, permission, or authority to access public
rights-of-way independent of any cable franchise obtained
pursuant to section 621 or pursuant to any other Federal,
State, or local law.
``(b) Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Any competitive video services provider
who provides a service that otherwise would qualify as a
cable service provided over a cable system shall be subject
to the payment of fees to a local franchise authority based
on the gross revenues of such provider that are attributable
to the provision of such service within such provider's
service area.
``(2) Considerations.--In determining the fees required by
this subsection--
``(A)(i) the rate at which fees are imposed shall not
exceed the rate at which franchise fees are imposed on any
cable operator providing cable service in the franchise area,
as determined in accordance with section 622 and any related
regulations; or
``(ii) in any jurisdiction in which no cable operator
provides service, the rate at which franchise fees are
imposed shall not exceed the statewide average; and
``(B) the only revenues that shall be considered are those
attributable to services that would be considered in
calculating franchise fees if such provider were deemed a
cable operator for purposes of section 622 and any related
regulations.
``(3) Billing.--A competitive video services provider shall
designate that portion of the bill of a subscriber
attributable to the fee under paragraph (2) as a separate
item on the bill.
``(c) Terms of Service.--A competitive video services
provider shall--
``(1) be subject to the retransmission consent provisions
of section 325(b);
``(2)(A) carry, within each local franchise area, any
public, educational, or governmental use channels that are
carried by cable operators within such franchise area
pursuant to section 611; or
``(B) provide, in any jurisdiction in which no cable
operator provides service, reasonable public, educational and
government access facilities pursuant to section 611;
``(3) be subject to the must-carry provisions of section
614;
``(4) carry noncommercial, educational channels as required
by section 615;
``(5) be considered a multichannel video programming
distributor for purposes of section 628 and be entitled to
the benefits and protection of that section;
``(6) protect the personally identifiable information of
its subscribers as required in section 631;
``(7) comply with any consumer protection and customer
service requirements promulgated by the Commission pursuant
to section 632;
``(8) not be subject to any other provisions of this title;
and
``(9) not deny services to any group of potential
residential subscribers because of the income of the
residents of the local area in which such group resides.
``(d) Regulatory Treatment.--Except to the extent expressly
provided in this part, neither the Commission nor any State
or political subdivision thereof may regulate the rates,
charges, terms, conditions for, entry into, exit from,
deployment of, provision of, or any other aspect of the
services provided by a competitive video services provider.
``(e) State and Local Government Authority.--Except as
provided in subsection (a), nothing in this section affects
the authority of a State or local government to manage the
public rights-of-way or to enact or enforce any consumer
protection law.''.
SEC. 4. REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIERS.
Section 651(a)(3) of the Federal Communications Act (47
U.S.C. 571(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) if such carrier is a competitive video services
provider providing video programming pursuant to part VI of
this title, such carrier shall not be subject to the
requirements of this title but instead shall be subject only
to the provisions of part VI of this title.''.
SEC. 5. EXISTING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS.
Any franchise agreement entered into by a franchising
authority and a competitive video service provider for the
provision of video service prior to the date of enactment of
this Act shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act for
the term of such agreement.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Smith in
introducing the Video Choice Act of 2005. We believe that our bill will
increase competition in the video marketplace and spur the deployment
of advanced broadband networks.
Cable and telephone companies are competing to offer a bundle of
Internet, video and telephone service to consumers. Cable companies are
now offering telephone services. Cable companies offer both traditional
telephone services over the public switched telephone network and
recently have begun a major expansion into offering voice services over
the internet. Congress, in an effort to spur entry into the voice
market, decided to minimally regulate or deregulate cable companies'
entry in these voice services.
As cable enters the voice market, it is driving prices down and
creating innovative new voice services and products. At present, cable
companies control nearly 70 percent of the multi-channel video market
and are not subject to effective price competition for video services.
The Senate Commerce Committee, of which Senator Smith and I are both
members, spent much of the last Congress examining options to address
the ever escalating price of cable television. I recognize that the
cable industry has invested heavily in its networks and programming
costs continue to rise, but I am hearing from some of my constituents
that they feel
[[Page S7833]]
captive to the pricing decisions of their local cable company.
I believe the government should encourage facilities-based video
competition. The Government Accountability Office has reported that in
areas where cable faces competition from a facilities-based competitor,
cable television prices are, on average, 15 percent less and as much as
41 percent less than in areas without effective competition.
To compete with cable, traditional telephone companies are slowly
entering the video marketplace. Instead of offering video services over
cable, the telephone companies will offer it over their high capacity
fiber networks. Fiber-optic cables consist of bundles of hair-thin
glass strands. Laser-generated pulses of light transmit voice, data,
and video signals via the fiber at speeds and capacities far exceeding
today's copper-cable systems. Fiber technology provides nearly
unlimited capacity, as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
high-speed data connections.
Even more importantly, our bill would speed the deployment of super
fast broadband networks. To offer video services, telephone companies
will have to either lay fiber optic cables or develop other networks
that have enough capacity to transmit hundreds of television channels.
These networks will also be able to offer consumers the ability to
receive and send vast amounts of data.
Our Nation continues a precipitous decline in the world's broadband
deployment rate. As Asian countries develop broadband networks capable
of delivering consumers 30 to 100 megabits of data, the United States
falls further behind in deployment of next generation broadband
technologies. The deployment of fiber optic or technologically
equivalent networks would spur economic development as well as consumer
choice in the cable television market.
I have worked for almost eight years on legislation to provide
incentives to promote the deployment of next generation broadband
technology and services. The Senate has adopted this measure numerous
times, but because of opposition in the House of Representatives, it
has never been enacted into law. We must examine other policies if we
are to achieve universal broadband penetration. I believe that our
legislation will serve as a catalyst for the deployment of next
generation broadband networks that will bring enormous economic
benefits to Americans, especially rural Americans.
I know that many local governments are concerned about changing the
existing regulatory framework for video regulation. I recognize that
municipal governments have an important role to play in the
telecommunications debate. As a former governor, I am aware of the
important local revenues that cable franchise fees provide local
government in West Virginia and across the Nation. I have always
supported the local government's ability to collect local fees and
taxes on telecommunications services, and I want to state that I will
continue to do so.
Our legislation states that competitive video providers, as defined
by the bill, do not have to secure a local franchise agreement to offer
competitive video services. However, the legislation mandates that all
vital social policy obligations of current cable television operators
will also have to be met by the competitive video industry. First and
foremost, our bill mandates that competitive video providers pay a
franchise fee to the appropriate local government. This fee would be
equal to the fee the incumbent video provider pays. Our bill also
requires that competitive video providers carry all existing local
public, educational, and government use channels; carry all local
broadcast stations; carry all noncommercial, educational channels;
adhere to strict consumer privacy obligations; and comply with all
statutory consumer protections and customer service requirements. The
bill explicitly prohibits economic redlining in the provision of
competitive video services. Finally, the legislation explicitly states
that nothing in the bill affects the authority of a State or local
government to manage the public-rights-of-way or to enact or enforce
any consumer protection law.
Senator Smith and I have crafted a narrowly tailored bill to promote
the entry of new competitors into the video marketplace. Our
legislation balances the need to promote competition in this market
with preserving the core social and policy obligations that we have
always imposed on providers of video services.
In addition to promoting competition in the video marketplace, this
bill gives us the opportunity to foster an exponential growth in
advanced broadband networks. By having advanced communications networks
that are exponentially faster than our existing networks, we will
unleash our economic potential, especially in places like my home State
of West Virginia.
Again, I would like to thank Senator Smith for all of his hard work
on this bill.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1350. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect
the privacy rights of subscribers to wireless communications services;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the
Wireless 411 Privacy Act. As every Senator is aware, consumers, today
rely on their wireless telephones as a vital and important means of
communication. Wifeless telephones enable families to stay connected,
permit commerce to be conducted anywhere at any time, and provide a
vital link in the event of an emergency. Some people have even
abandoned traditional telephones and now use their wireless phones as
their primary phone service. In fact, when I last introduced this bill
in November 2003, the Federal Communications Commission began requiring
number portability for wireless phones so that consumers, if they wish,
can make their wireless phone their only phone.
The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ``wireless
white pages'' service, and though this step could have positive
benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers' expectation of
privacy will be protected. The legislation I am introducing today,
along with Senator Boxer, ensures that consumers' expectations will be
preserved.
An important reason that Americans increasingly trust their cell
phone service is that they have a great deal of privacy in their cell
phone numbers. For more than 20 years of cellular service, consumers
have become accustomed to not having their wireless phone numbers
available to the public. The protection of wireless telephone numbers
is important. For example, wireless customers are typically charged for
incoming calls. Without protections for wireless numbers, subscribers
could incur large bills, or use up their allotted minutes of use,
simply by receiving calls they do not want--from telemarketers and
others. Because consumers often take their cell phones with them
everywhere, repeated unwanted calls are particularly disruptive, and
may even present safety concerns for those behind the wheel.
Since 2003, four States--California, Georgia, South Dakota and
Washington--have passed similar laws that prohibit a carrier from
divulging a customer's wireless telephone number without permission.
While the industry remains poised to introduce wireless directory
assistance services as early as this year, it is important for Congress
to act now to preserve the expectation of privacy that consumers across
the country have in their wireless phone numbers. The legislation I am
introducing today strikes an important balance by providing privacy
protections that are important to consumers, while enabling those
consumers who want to be reached to be accessible.
This legislation permits wireless subscribers to choose not to have
their wireless telephone number listed in wireless directory assistance
databases. This feature gives consumers the ultimate ability to keep
their numbers entirely private. In addition to divulging subscribers'
phone numbers, wireless directory assistance services may forward calls
to wireless subscribers without prior notice or permission. My bill
requires that these services must not divulge a subscriber's wireless
number, unless the subscriber consents to disclosure, must provide
identifying information to the wireless subscriber so that the
subscriber knows who is calling through a forwarding service, and must
give a subscriber the option
[[Page S7834]]
of rejecting or accepting each incoming call. Finally, this legislation
prohibits wireless carriers from charging any special fees to consumers
who wish to receive the privacy protections provided by the bill. There
should be no ``privacy tax'' for consumers to continue the privacy
protection they have long enjoyed, and this bill ensures that will be
the case.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1350
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Wireless 411 Privacy Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) there are roughly 150 million wireless subscribers in
the United States, up from approximately 15 million
subscribers just a decade ago;
(2) wireless phone service has proven valuable to millions
of Americans because of its mobility, and the fact that
government policies have expanded opportunities for new
carriers to enter the market, offering more choices and ever
lower prices for consumers;
(3) in addition to the benefits of competition and
mobility, subscribers also benefit from the fact that
wireless phone numbers have not been publicly available;
(4) up until now, the privacy of wireless subscribers has
been safeguarded and thus vastly diminished the likelihood of
subscribers receiving unwanted or annoying phone call
interruptions on their wireless phones;
(5) moreover, because their wireless contact information,
such as their phone number, have never been publicly
available in any published directory or from any directory
assistance service, subscribers have come to expect that if
their phone rings it's likely to be a call from someone to
whom they have personally given their number;
(6) the wireless industry is poised to begin implementing a
directory assistance service so that callers can reach
wireless subscribers, including subscribers who have not
given such callers their wireless phone number;
(7) while some wireless subscribers may find such directory
assistance service useful, current subscribers deserve the
right to choose whether they want to participate in such a
directory;
(8) because wireless users are typically charged for
incoming calls, consumers must be afforded the ability to
maintain the maximum amount of control over how many calls
they may expect to receive and, in particular, control over
the disclosure of their wireless phone number;
(9) current wireless subscribers who elect to participate,
or new wireless subscribers who decline to be listed, in any
new wireless directory assistance service directory,
including those subscribers who also elect not to receive
forwarded calls from any wireless directory assistance
service, should not be charged for exercising such rights;
(10) the marketplace has not yet adequately explained an
effective plan to protect consumer privacy rights;
(11) Congress previously acted to protect the wireless
location information of subscribers by enacting prohibitions
on the disclosure of such sensitive information without the
express prior authorization of the subscriber; and
(12) the public interest would be served by similarly
enacting effective and industry-wide privacy protections for
consumers with respect to wireless directory assistance
service.
SEC. 3. CONSUMER CONTROL OF WIRELESS PHONE NUMBERS.
Section 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Wireless consumer privacy protection.--
``(A) In general.--A provider of commercial mobile
services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent of
such a provider, may not include the wireless telephone
number information of any subscriber in any wireless
directory assistance service database unless--
``(i) the mobile service provider provides a conspicuous,
separate notice to the subscriber informing the subscriber of
the right not to be listed in any wireless directory
assistance service; and
``(ii) the mobile service provider obtains express prior
authorization for listing from such subscriber, separate from
any authorization obtained to provide such subscriber with
commercial mobile service, or any calling plan or service
associated with such commercial mobile service, and such
authorization has not been subsequently withdrawn.
``(B) Cost-free de-listing.--A provider of commercial
mobile services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent
of such a provider, shall remove the wireless telephone
number information of any subscriber from any wireless
directory assistance service database upon request by that
subscriber and without any cost to the subscriber.
``(C) Wireless accessibility.--A provider of commercial
mobile services, or any direct or indirect affiliate or agent
of such provider, may connect a calling party from a wireless
directory assistance service to a commercial mobile service
subscriber only if--
``(i) such subscriber is provided prior notice of the
calling party's identity and is permitted to accept or reject
the incoming call on a per-call basis;
``(ii) such subscriber's wireless telephone number
information is not disclosed to the calling party; and
``(iii) such subscriber has not declined or refused to
participate in such database.
``(D) Protection of wireless phone numbers.--A
telecommunications carrier shall not disclose in its billing
information provided to customers wireless telephone number
information of subscribers who have indicated a preference to
their commercial mobile services provider for not having
their wireless telephone number information disclosed.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a telecommunications
carrier may disclose a portion of the wireless telephone
number in its billing information if the actual number cannot
be readily ascertained.
``(E) Publication of directories prohibited.--A provider of
commercial mobile services, or any direct or indirect
affiliate or agent of such a provider, may not publish, in
printed, electronic, or other form, or sell or otherwise
disseminate, the contents of any wireless directory
assistance service database, or any portion or segment
thereof unless--
``(i) the mobile service provider provides a conspicuous,
separate notice to the subscriber informing the subscriber of
the right not to be listed; and
``(ii) the mobile service provider obtains express prior
authorization for listing from such subscriber, separate from
any authorization obtained to provide such subscriber with
commercial mobile service, or any calling plan or service
associated with such commercial mobile service, and such
authorization has not been subsequently withdrawn.
``(F) No consumer fee for retaining privacy.--A provider of
commercial mobile services may not charge any subscriber for
exercising any of the rights under this paragraph.
``(G) State and local laws pre-empted.--To the extent that
any State or local government imposes requirements on
providers of commercial mobile services, or any direct or
indirect affiliate or agent of such providers, that are
inconsistent with the requirements of this paragraph, this
paragraph preempts such State or local requirements.
``(H) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Calling party's identity.--The term `calling party's
identity' means the telephone number of the calling party or
the name of subscriber to such telephone, or an oral or text
message which provides sufficient information to enable a
commercial mobile services subscriber to determine who is
calling.
``(ii) Unlisted commercial mobile services subscriber.--The
term `unlisted commercial mobile services subscriber' means a
subscriber to commercial mobile services who has not provided
express prior consent to a commercial mobile service provider
to be included in a wireless directory assistance service
database.
``(iii) Wireless telephone number information.--The term
`wireless telephone number information' means the telephone
number, electronic address, and any other identifying
information by which a calling party may reach a subscriber
to commercial mobile services, and which is assigned by a
commercial mobile service provider to such subscriber, and
includes such subscriber's name and address.
``(iv) Wireless directory assistance service.--The term
`wireless directory assistance service' means any service for
connecting calling parties to a subscriber of commercial
mobile service when such calling parties themselves do not
possess such subscriber's wireless telephone number
information.''.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON:
S. 1351. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for
the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces
who served honorably during the Cold War era; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the Cold War Medal Act of 2005, a bill to provide for the award of a
military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served
honorably during the Cold War era, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1351
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as ``Cold War Medal Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. COLD WAR SERVICE MEDAL.
(a) Authority.--Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
[[Page S7835]]
``Sec. 1135. Cold War service medal
``(a) Medal Authorized.--The Secretary concerned shall
issue a service medal, to be known as the `Cold War service
medal', to persons eligible to receive the medal under
subsection (b). The Cold War service medal shall be of an
appropriate design approved by the Secretary of Defense, with
ribbons, lapel pins, and other appurtenances.
``(b) Eligible Persons.--The following persons are eligible
to receive the Cold War service medal:
``(1) A person who--
``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as an
enlisted member during the Cold War;
``(B) completed the person's initial term of enlistment or,
if discharged before completion of such initial term of
enlistment, was honorably discharged after completion of not
less than 180 days of service on active duty; and
``(C) has not received a discharge less favorable than an
honorable discharge or a release from active duty with a
characterization of service less favorable than honorable.
``(2) A person who--
``(A) performed active duty or inactive duty training as a
commissioned officer or warrant officer during the Cold War;
``(B) completed the person's initial service obligation as
an officer or, if discharged or separated before completion
of such initial service obligation, was honorably discharged
after completion of not less than 180 days of service on
active duty; and
``(C) has not been released from active duty with a
characterization of service less favorable than honorable and
has not received a discharge or separation less favorable
than an honorable discharge.
``(c) One Award Authorized.--Not more than one Cold War
service medal may be issued to any person.
``(d) Issuance to Representative of Deceased.--If a person
described in subsection (b) dies before being issued the Cold
War service medal, the medal shall be issued to the person's
representative, as designated by the Secretary concerned.
``(e) Replacement.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, a Cold War service medal that is lost,
destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect
on the part of the person to whom it was issued may be
replaced without charge.
``(f) Application for Medal.--The Cold War service medal
shall be issued upon receipt by the Secretary concerned of an
application for such medal, submitted in accordance with such
regulations as the Secretary prescribes.
``(g) Uniform Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the
military departments under this section are uniform so far as
is practicable.
``(h) Definition.--In this section, the term `Cold War'
means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending
at the end of December 26, 1991.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``1135. Cold War service medal.''.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1352. A bill to provide grants to States for improved workplace
and community transition training for incarcerated youth offenders; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
introduce the Improved Workplace and Community Transition Training for
Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act of 2005, which is legislation designed
to enhance educational opportunities and reduce recidivism for adult
and juvenile offenders. Following the repeal of Pell Grant eligibility
for incarcerated individuals, I worked to create the Grants to States
for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth
Offenders program. This program is aimed at providing postsecondary
education and workplace and community transition training for
incarcerated youth offenders while in prison, as well as employment
counseling and other services that continue when the individual is
released.
This legislation, which I am introducing today, builds upon my
earlier efforts by increasing flexibility and accountability within the
Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for
Incarcerated Youth Offenders. This legislation is a positive step
forward in providing realistic rehabilitation by increasing access to
the current program for incarcerated youth offenders.
With over two million incarcerated adults, the United States has the
highest incarceration rate in the world. The National Adult Literacy
Study indicates that the majority of prison inmates either are
illiterate or have marginal reading, writing, and math skills. This
year more than 650,000 inmates will be released from United States
prisons. Most of these adults and juveniles will leave correctional
institutions having received little to no education and no more skilled
than when they arrived. Frustrated by a lack of marketable skills,
burdened with a criminal record, and released without transitional
services, nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested for
either a felony or a serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It
should come as no surprise that an individual who is released and who
is illiterate or lacks the necessary skills to get a job returns to a
life of crime.
The key to preventing recidivism has proven to be educational access
and opportunity. A Correctional Educational Association report
published findings from a study of education programs provided in
correctional facilities. The findings show a remarkable decrease of
approximately 10 percent in recidivism for those inmates that
participated in education programs while incarcerated. The study also
shows that the higher the education level reached by the offender, the
lower the resulting recidivism rate.
Most incarcerated youth offenders will one day return back to their
communities, so this legislation is about making sure they have an
opportunity to turn their lives around before they are released. It is
about focusing on literacy and job training in order to reduce
recidivism and prevent incarcerated youth offenders from becoming
career criminals. I believe that criminal offenders, especially
juveniles, should be given a chance at rehabilitation and gainful
employment. This chance can only come through education.
This legislation would authorize $30 million to provide incarcerated
youth offenders, up to 35 years of age who are eligible for parole or
release within 5 years, an opportunity to acquire postsecondary
education while incarcerated, as well as employment counseling and
other services that continue for up to one year after the individual is
released. Currently, the Grants to States for Workplace and Community
Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders program provides
formula grant funding to State correctional education agencies to
provide postsecondary education and related services to incarcerated
youth offenders up to 25 years of age. This legislation would increase
eligibility for incarcerated youth offenders to individuals 35 years of
age to allow more individuals to participate in the program, as the
average age of inmates in most States is 35.
This legislation also aims to increase flexibility with regard to the
delivery of postsecondary education and related services to
incarcerated youth offenders. To that end, this legislation would raise
the allowable expenditure permitted for each youth offender to the
maximum Federal Pell Grant level. The current program limits
expenditures per youth offender to $1,500 for tuition and books, and an
additional $300 for related services. Under this legislation, State
correctional education agencies have increased flexibility to address
the unique needs of each inmate due to the elimination of the caps on
funding, which currently dictate the specific amounts permitted to be
used for tuition and books, and related services.
Additionally, this legislation requires State correctional education
agencies to more thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of the goals and
objectives of the program by tracking and reporting specific and
quantified student outcomes referenced to the outcomes of non-program
participants. Increased accountability included in this legislation
will allow a more in-depth study of the impact of education on key
goals, such as, knowledge and skill attainment, employment attainment,
job retention and advancement and recidivism rates.
Recognizing the impact that education and job training can have on
incarcerated youth offenders, it is my sincere hope that this
legislation will encourage incarcerated individuals to achieve
independence and to gain the skills necessary to become productive
members of society upon their release. With realistic rehabilitation,
including literacy training and job training, we can stop the cycle of
catch-and-release.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, and
urge its swift adoption.
[[Page S7836]]
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Warner, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Corzine, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Vitter):
S. 1353. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ALS Registry Act. I
am pleased that Senators Warner, Stabenow, Murkowski, Bingaman,
Cochran, Durbin, Vitter, and Corzine are joining me as original
cosponsors of this important legislation.
ALS is a fatal, progressive disease where the nerve cells that
connect the brain and spinal cord to the muscles slowly die. As the
disease progresses, patients slowly lose control of their muscles.
Through it all, patients remain completely aware of what is happening
to their bodies because ALS does not affect the mind. The harsh reality
of ALS is that a person can expect to live on average only two to five
years from the time the first signs of the disease appear.
Lou Gehrig brought Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) to the
public's attention more than 65 years ago and his courage put a human
face on this terrible disease. Each of us has a Lou Gehrig back in our
home State--someone who shows great courage in the face of ALS. Over
the years, I have worked closely with the Nevada ALS Association and
have met with many Nevadans who have been touched by this devastating
illness. One of these Nevadans was a man by the name of Steve Rigazio
who was invited to testify before the Labor/HHS/Education
Appropriations Subcommittee in May of 2000. Steve was at the height of
his career when he was diagnosed with ALS. He worked through the ranks
of the Nevada Power Company, the largest utility company in the State,
for 16 years until he became President. He coached and played
recreational hockey and at one point played semi-pro baseball. After
his diagnosis, Steve continued to show up at work at 6 a.m. for as long
as he could. Steve Rigazio died of ALS on December 27, 2001 at the age
of 47 and left behind a family that included a wife, two children and
hundreds of friends. The ALS Steve Rigazio Voice of Courage Award was
named in his honor as a living testimony to the life of this special
man.
Sadly, every year approximately 5,600 Americans will learn they have
ALS. There is no cure for ALS and there is only one FDA approved drug
to specifically treat ALS. That drug extends life for only a few months
and only works in 20 percent of patients.
ALS has proven particularly hard for scientists and doctors to tackle
for a number of reasons; including the fact that there is also not a
centralized place where data on the disease is collected and no one
place for patients to go to find out about clinical trials and new
research findings. Currently, there is only a patchwork of data about
ALS that does not include the entire U.S. population and only includes
limited data for specific purposes, such as to determine the
relationship between military service and the disease. Perhaps the most
obvious example of the limitations of current surveillance systems and
registries is that we do not know with certainty how many people are
living with ALS in the United States today. Over 136 years after the
discovery of ALS, estimates on its prevalence still vary by as much as
100 percent--from a low of about fifteen thousand patients to as many
as thirty thousand.
The legislation I am introducing today would create an ALS registry
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and will aid in the
search for a cure to this devastating disease. The registry will
collect data concerning: the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the
U.S.; the environmental and occupational factors that may contribute to
the disease; the age, race or ethnicity, gender and family history of
individuals diagnosed; and other information essential to the study of
ALS. The registry will also provide a secure method to put patients in
contact with scientists conducting clinical trials and scientists
studying the environmental and genetic causes of ALS.
A national registry will help arm our Nation's researchers and
clinicians with the tools and information they need to make progress in
the fight against ALS. The data made available by a registry will
potentially allow scientists to identify causes of the disease, and
maybe even lead to the discovery of new treatment, a cure for ALS, or
even a way to prevent the disease in the first place.
The establishment of a registry will bring new hope to thousands of
patients and their families that ALS will no longer be a death
sentence. No one wants to wait another 65 years before a cure is found.
I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of the ALS Registry
Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1353
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``ALS Registry Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (referred to in this
section as ``ALS'') is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative
disease that affects motor nerve cells in the brain and the
spinal cord.
(2) The average life expectancy for a person with ALS is 2
to 5 years from the time of diagnosis.
(3) The cause of ALS is not well understood.
(4) There is only one drug currently approved by the Food
and Drug Administration for the treatment of ALS, which has
thus far shown only modest effects, prolonging life by just a
few months.
(5) There is no known cure for ALS.
(6) More than 5,000 individuals in the United States are
diagnosed with ALS annually and as many as 30,000 individuals
may be living with ALS in the United States today.
(7) Studies have found relationships between ALS and
environmental and genetic factors, but those relationships
are not well understood.
(8) Scientists believe that there are significant ties
between ALS and any motor neuron diseases.
(9) Several ALS disease registries and databases exist in
the United States and throughout the world, including the
SOD1 database, the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke repository, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs ALS Registry;
(10) A single national system to collect and store
information on the prevalence and incidence of ALS in the
United States does not exist.
(11) The establishment of a national registry will help--
(A) identify the incidence and prevalence of ALS in the
United States;
(B) collect data important to the study of ALS;
(C) promote a better understanding of ALS;
(D) promote research into the genetic and environmental
factors that cause ALS;
(E) provide a means for patients to contact scientists
researching the environmental and genetic factors that cause
ALS as well as those engaged in clinical trials; and
(F) enhance efforts to find treatments and a cure for ALS.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 399O. AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS REGISTRY.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the
receipt of the report described in subsection (b)(2)(A), the
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with a
national voluntary health organization with experience
serving the population of individuals with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (referred to in this section as `ALS'),
shall--
``(A) develop a system to collect data on ALS, including
information with respect to the incidence and prevalence of
the disease in the United States; and
``(B) establish a national registry for the collection and
storage of such data to include a population-based registry
of cases of ALS in the United States.
``(2) Purpose.--It is the purpose of the registry
established under paragraph (1)(B) to--
``(A) gather data concerning--
``(i) ALS, including the incidence and prevalence of ALS in
the United States;
``(ii) the environmental and occupational factors that may
be associated with the disease;
``(iii) the age, race or ethnicity, gender, and family
history of individuals who are diagnosed with the disease;
and
``(iv) other matters as recommended by the Advisory
Committee established under subsection (b); and
``(B) establish a secure method to put patients in contact
with scientists studying
[[Page S7837]]
the environmental, and genetic causes of motor neuron disease
or conducting clinical trials on therapies for motor neuron
disease.
``(b) Advisory Committee.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, shall establish a committee to be known as the
Advisory Committee on the National ALS Registry (referred to
in this section as the `Advisory Committee'). The Advisory
Committee shall be composed of at least one member, to be
appointed by the Secretary, acting through the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, representing
each of the following:
``(A) National voluntary health associations that focus
solely on ALS that have a demonstrated experience in ALS
research, care, and patient services.
``(B) The National Institutes of Health, to include, upon
the recommendation of the Director of the National Institutes
of Health, representatives from the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences.
``(C) The Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(D) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
``(E) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(F) Patients with ALS or their family members.
``(G) Clinicians who have worked with data registries.
``(H) Epidemiologists with experience in data registries.
``(I) Geneticists or experts in genetics who have
experience with the genetics of ALS or other neurological
diseases.
``(J) Statisticians.
``(K) Ethicists.
``(L) Attorneys.
``(M) Other individuals with an interest in developing and
maintaining the National ALS Registry
``(2) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall conduct a study
and make recommendations to the Secretary concerning--
``(A) the development and maintenance of the National ALS
Registry;
``(B) the type of information to be collected and stored in
the Registry;
``(C) the manner in which such data is to be collected;
``(D) the use and availability of such data including
guidelines for such use; and
``(E) the collection of information about diseases and
disorders that primarily affect motor neurons that are
considered essential to furthering the study and cure of ALS.
``(3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on
which the Advisory Committee is established, the Advisory
Committee shall submit a report concerning the study
conducted under paragraph (2) that contains the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee with respect to the
results of such study.
``(c) Grants.--Notwithstanding the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee under subsection (b), the Secretary,
acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, may award grants to, and enter into
contracts and cooperative agreements with, public or private
nonprofit entities for the collection, analysis, and
reporting of data on ALS.
``(d) Coordination With State, Local, and Federal
Registries.--
``(1) In general.--In establishing the National ALS
Registry under subsection (a), the Secretary, acting through
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, shall--
``(A) identify, build upon, expand, and coordinate among
existing data and surveillance systems, surveys, registries,
and other Federal public health and environmental
infrastructure wherever possible, including--
``(i) the Department of Veterans Affairs ALS Registry;
``(ii) the DNA and Cell Line Repository of the National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Human Genetics
Resource Center;
``(iii) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
studies, including studies conducted in Illinois, Missouri,
El Paso and San Antonio Texas, and Massachusetts;
``(iv) State-based ALS registries, including the
Massachusetts ALS Registry;
``(v) the National Vital Statistics System; and
``(vi) any other existing or relevant databases that
collect or maintain information on those motor neuron
diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee established in
subsection (b); and
``(B) provide for public access to an electronic national
database that accepts data from State-based registries,
health care professionals, and others as recommended by the
Advisory Committee established in subsection (b) in a manner
that protects personal privacy consistent with medical
privacy regulations.
``(2) Coordination with nih and department of veterans
affairs.--Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Advisory
Committee established in subsection (b), the Secretary shall
ensure that epidemiological and other types of information
obtained under subsection (a) is made available to the
National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
``(e) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the
term `national voluntary health association' means a national
non-profit organization with chapters or other affiliated
organizations in States throughout the United States.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010.''.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1354. A bill to establish commissions to review the facts and
circumstances surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans,
European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment
Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one
commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German
Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World
War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's
treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War
II. This bill is long overdue.
I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators
Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman, Corzine and Wyden, have joined me as
cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support.
The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a
triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed
by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of
great pride for all Americans.
But, as so many brave Americans fought against enemies in Europe and
the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people
here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to
protect itself during wartime, the U.S. government must respect the
basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to
defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our nation's
recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict,
when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we
must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the
Constitution or of basic freedoms.
Many Americans are aware of the fact that, during World War II, under
the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than
100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes into internment camps.
Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods,
and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military
guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in
1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement
and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988,
people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or
internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the
people of the United States.
While I commend our government for finally recognizing and
apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War
II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the
mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans,
and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.
The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact-
finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that
Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it
never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the
U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other
European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World
War II.
I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with
Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic
Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other
European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and
placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from our
history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to
protect basic freedoms.
[[Page S7838]]
A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by
the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi
persecution and genocide. We must review the facts and determine how
our restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe
harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. The
United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many
refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.
As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for
Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is
now time for the U.S. government to complete an accounting of this
period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact-
finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the
treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and
Jewish refugees during World War II.
Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of
German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who
were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes,
subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their
personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.
There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who
were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported
to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for
Americans being held in those countries.
Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like
those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from
hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's
shores.
Although the injustices to European Americans, European Latin
Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred fifty years ago, it is never
too late for Americans to learn from these tragedies. We should never
allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we
should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not
let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans
by their own government.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment
Study Act. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in
our nation's history.
I ask that the full text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1354
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Wartime Treatment Study
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) During World War II, the United States successfully
fought the spread of Nazism and fascism by Germany, Italy,
and Japan.
(2) Nazi Germany persecuted and engaged in genocide against
Jews and certain other groups. By the end of the war,
6,000,000 Jews had perished at the hands of Nazi Germany.
United States Government policies, however, restricted entry
to the United States to Jewish and other refugees who sought
safety from Nazi persecution.
(3) While we were at war, the United States treated the
Japanese American, German American, and Italian American
communities as suspect.
(4) The United States Government should conduct an
independent review to assess fully and acknowledge these
actions. Congress has previously reviewed the United States
Government's wartime treatment of Japanese Americans through
the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians. An independent review of the treatment of German
Americans and Italian Americans and of Jewish refugees
fleeing persecution and genocide has not yet been undertaken.
(5) During World War II, the United States Government
branded as ``enemy aliens'' more than 600,000 Italian-born
and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and
their families and required them to carry Certificates of
Identification, limited their travel, and seized their
personal property. At that time, these groups were the two
largest foreign-born groups in the United States.
(6) During World War II, the United States Government
arrested, interned or otherwise detained thousands of
European Americans, some remaining in custody for years after
cessation of World War II hostilities, and repatriated,
exchanged, or deported European Americans, including
American-born children, to hostile, war-torn European Axis
nations, many to be exchanged for Americans held in those
nations.
(7) Pursuant to a policy coordinated by the United States
with Latin American countries, many European Latin Americans,
including German and Austrian Jews, were captured, shipped to
the United States and interned. Many were later expatriated,
repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis
nations during World War II, most to be exchanged for
Americans and Latin Americans held in those nations.
(8) Millions of European Americans served in the armed
forces and thousands sacrificed their lives in defense of the
United States.
(9) The wartime policies of the United States Government
were devastating to the Italian Americans and German American
communities, individuals and their families. The detrimental
effects are still being experienced.
(10) Prior to and during World War II, the United States
restricted the entry of Jewish refugees who were fleeing
persecution and sought safety in the United States. During
the 1930's and 1940's, the quota system, immigration
regulations, visa requirements, and the time required to
process visa applications affected the number of Jewish
refugees, particularly those from Germany and Austria, who
could gain admittance to the United States.
(11) Time is of the essence for the establishment of
commissions, because of the increasing danger of destruction
and loss of relevant documents, the advanced age of potential
witnesses and, most importantly, the advanced age of those
affected by the United States Government's policies. Many who
suffered have already passed away and will never know of this
effort.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) During world war ii.--The term ``during World War II''
refers to the period between September 1, 1939, through
December 31, 1948.
(2) European americans.--
(A) In general.--The term ``European Americans'' refers to
United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of
European ancestry, including Italian Americans, German
Americans, Hungarian Americans, Romanian Americans, and
Bulgarian Americans.
(B) Italian americans.--The term ``Italian Americans''
refers to United States citizens and permanent resident
aliens of Italian ancestry.
(C) German americans.--The term ``German Americans'' refers
to United States citizens and permanent resident aliens of
German ancestry.
(3) European latin americans.--The term ``European Latin
Americans'' refers to persons of European ancestry, including
Italian or German ancestry, residing in a Latin American
nation during World War II.
TITLE I--COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF EUROPEAN AMERICANS
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF
EUROPEAN AMERICANS.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission on
Wartime Treatment of European Americans (referred to in this
title as the ``European American Commission'').
(b) Membership.--The European American Commission shall be
composed of 7 members, who shall be appointed not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act as follows:
(1) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
(2) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, in consultation with the minority
leader.
(3) Two members shall be appointed by the majority leader
of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader.
(c) Terms.--The term of office for members shall be for the
life of the European American Commission. A vacancy in the
European American Commission shall not affect its powers, and
shall be filled in the same manner in which the original
appointment was made.
(d) Representation.--The European American Commission shall
include 2 members representing the interests of Italian
Americans and 2 members representing the interests of German
Americans.
(e) Meetings.--The President shall call the first meeting
of the European American Commission not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Quorum.--Four members of the European American
Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may
hold hearings.
(g) Chairman.--The European American Commission shall elect
a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members. The term
of office of each shall be for the life of the European
American Commission.
(h) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Members of the European American
Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Reimbursement of expenses.--All members of the European
American Commission shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel
and subsistence, and other reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
SEC. 102. DUTIES OF THE EUROPEAN AMERICAN COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the European
American Commission to review
[[Page S7839]]
the United States Government's wartime treatment of European
Americans and European Latin Americans as provided in
subsection (b).
(b) Scope of Review.--The European American Commission's
review shall include the following:
(1) A comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances
surrounding United States Government actions during World War
II that violated the civil liberties of European Americans
and European Latin Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemies
Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24), Presidential Proclamations 2526,
2527, 2655, 2662, Executive Orders 9066 and 9095, and any
directive of the United States Government pursuant to such
law, proclamations, or executive orders respecting the
registration, arrest, exclusion, internment, exchange, or
deportment of European Americans and European Latin
Americans. This review shall include an assessment of the
underlying rationale of the United States Government's
decision to develop related programs and policies, the
information the United States Government received or acquired
suggesting the related programs and policies were necessary,
the perceived benefit of enacting such programs and policies,
and the immediate and long-term impact of such programs and
policies on European Americans and European Latin Americans
and their communities.
(2) A review of United States Government action with
respect to European Americans pursuant to the Alien Enemies
Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24) and Executive Order 9066 during World
War II, including registration requirements, travel and
property restrictions, establishment of restricted areas,
raids, arrests, internment, exclusion, policies relating to
the families and property that excludees and internees were
forced to abandon, internee employment by American companies
(including a list of such companies and the terms and type of
employment), exchange, repatriation, and deportment, and the
immediate and long-term effect of such actions, particularly
internment, on the lives of those affected. This review shall
include a list of all temporary detention and long-term
internment facilities.
(3) A brief review of the participation by European
Americans in the United States Armed Forces including the
participation of European Americans whose families were
excluded, interned, repatriated, or exchanged.
(4) A recommendation of appropriate remedies, including how
civil liberties can be better protected during war, or an
actual, attempted, or threatened invasion or incursion, an
assessment of the continued viability of the Alien Enemies
Acts (50 U.S.C. 21-24), and public education programs related
to the United States Government's wartime treatment of
European Americans and European Latin Americans during World
War II.
(c) Field Hearings.--The European American Commission shall
hold public hearings in such cities of the United States as
it deems appropriate.
(d) Report.--The European American Commission shall submit
a written report of its findings and recommendations to
Congress not later than 18 months after the date of the first
meeting called pursuant to section 101(e).
SEC. 103. POWERS OF THE EUROPEAN AMERICAN COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The European American Commission or, on
the authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or
member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of this title, hold such hearings and sit and act
at such times and places, and request the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memorandum, papers, and documents as
the Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem
advisable. The European American Commission may request the
Attorney General to invoke the aid of an appropriate United
States district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise,
such attendance, testimony, or production.
(b) Government Information and Cooperation.--The European
American Commission may acquire directly from the head of any
department, agency, independent instrumentality, or other
authority of the executive branch of the Government,
available information that the European American Commission
considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All
departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities, or
other authorities of the executive branch of the Government
shall cooperate with the European American Commission and
furnish all information requested by the European American
Commission to the extent permitted by law, including
information collected as a result of Public Law 96-317 and
Public Law 106-451. For purposes of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.
552a(b)(9)), the European American Commission shall be deemed
to be a committee of jurisdiction.
SEC. 104. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
The European American Commission is authorized to--
(1) appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as
may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates,
except that the compensation of any employee of the
Commission may not exceed a rate equivalent to the rate
payable under GS-15 of the General Schedule under section
5332 of such title;
(2) obtain the services of experts and consultants in
accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of such title;
(3) obtain the detail of any Federal Government employee,
and such detail shall be without reimbursement or
interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege;
(4) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General
Services for procurement of necessary financial and
administrative services, for which payment shall be made by
reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as
may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the
Administrator;
(5) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the
extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation
Acts; and
(6) enter into contracts with Federal or State agencies,
private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of
research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other
activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the
Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided
in appropriation Acts.
SEC. 105. FUNDING.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Justice, $500,000 shall be available to carry
out this title.
SEC. 106. SUNSET.
The European American Commission shall terminate 60 days
after it submits its report to Congress.
TITLE II--COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF JEWISH REFUGEES
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION ON WARTIME TREATMENT OF
JEWISH REFUGEES.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission on
Wartime Treatment of Jewish Refugees (referred to in this
title as the ``Jewish Refugee Commission'').
(b) Membership.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall be
composed of 7 members, who shall be appointed not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act as follows:
(1) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
(2) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, in consultation with the Minority
Leader.
(3) Two members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader
of the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader.
(c) Terms.--The term of office for members shall be for the
life of the Jewish Refugee Commission. A vacancy in the
Jewish Refugee Commission shall not affect its powers, and
shall be filled in the same manner in which the original
appointment was made.
(d) Representation.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall
include 2 members representing the interests of Jewish
refugees.
(e) Meetings.--The President shall call the first meeting
of the Jewish Refugee Commission not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Quorum.--Four members of the Jewish Refugee Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(g) Chairman.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall elect a
Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members. The term
of office of each shall be for the life of the Jewish Refugee
Commission.
(h) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Members of the Jewish Refugee Commission
shall serve without pay.
(2) Reimbursement of expenses.--All members of the Jewish
Refugee Commission shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel
and subsistence, and other reasonable and necessary expenses
incurred by them in the performance of their duties.
SEC. 202. DUTIES OF THE JEWISH REFUGEE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--It shall be the duty of the Jewish Refugee
Commission to review the United States Government's refusal
to allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution in
Europe entry to the United States as provided in subsection
(b).
(b) Scope of Review.--The Jewish Refugee Commission's
review shall cover the period between January 1, 1933,
through December 31, 1945, and shall include, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following:
(1) A review of the United States Government's refusal to
allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution and
genocide entry to the United States, including a review of
the underlying rationale of the United States Government's
decision to refuse the Jewish and other refugees entry, the
information the United States Government received or acquired
suggesting such refusal was necessary, the perceived benefit
of such refusal, and the impact of such refusal on the
refugees.
(2) A review of Federal refugee policy relating to those
fleeing persecution or genocide, including recommendations
for making it easier for future victims of persecution or
genocide to obtain refuge in the United States.
(c) Field Hearings.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall
hold public hearings in such cities of the United States as
it deems appropriate.
[[Page S7840]]
(d) Report.--The Jewish Refugee Commission shall submit a
written report of its findings and recommendations to
Congress not later than 18 months after the date of the first
meeting called pursuant to section 201(e).
SEC. 203. POWERS OF THE JEWISH REFUGEE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Jewish Refugee Commission or, on the
authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or member
thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions
of this title, hold such hearings and sit and act at such
times and places, and request the attendance and testimony of
such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memorandum, papers, and documents as the
Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem advisable.
The Jewish Refugee Commission may request the Attorney
General to invoke the aid of an appropriate United States
district court to require, by subpoena or otherwise, such
attendance, testimony, or production.
(b) Government Information and Cooperation.--The Jewish
Refugee Commission may acquire directly from the head of any
department, agency, independent instrumentality, or other
authority of the executive branch of the Government,
available information that the Jewish Refugee Commission
considers useful in the discharge of its duties. All
departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities, or
other authorities of the executive branch of the Government
shall cooperate with the Jewish Refugee Commission and
furnish all information requested by the Jewish Refugee
Commission to the extent permitted by law, including
information collected as a result of Public Law 96-317 and
Public Law 106-451. For purposes of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.
552a(b)(9)), the Jewish Refugee Commission shall be deemed to
be a committee of jurisdiction.
SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
The Jewish Refugee Commission is authorized to--
(1) appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as
may be necessary, without regard to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates,
except that the compensation of any employee of the
Commission may not exceed a rate equivalent to the rate
payable under GS-15 of the General Schedule under section
5332 of such title;
(2) obtain the services of experts and consultants in
accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of such title;
(3) obtain the detail of any Federal Government employee,
and such detail shall be without reimbursement or
interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege;
(4) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General
Services for procurement of necessary financial and
administrative services, for which payment shall be made by
reimbursement from funds of the Commission in such amounts as
may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the Commission and the
Administrator;
(5) procure supplies, services, and property by contract in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations and to the
extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation
Acts; and
(6) enter into contracts with Federal or State agencies,
private firms, institutions, and agencies for the conduct of
research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other
activities necessary to the discharge of the duties of the
Commission, to the extent or in such amounts as are provided
in appropriation Acts.
SEC. 205. FUNDING.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Justice, $500,000 shall be available to carry
out this title.
SEC. 206. SUNSET.
The Jewish Refugee Commission shall terminate 60 days after
it submits its report to Congress.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Santorum, Mr.
Thomas, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 1355. A bill to enhance the adoption of health information
technology and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of
healthcare in the United States; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, no matter who we are, where we live or which
Party we belong to, one thing we have in common is that all of us have
been and will again be patients under the care of a health professional
who we may, or may not, have visited before for treatment.
If we have already established a relationship with the doctor who is
about to treat us, our problems will either be minimized, or will not
exist. But, if this is our first experience with a physician or a
specialist, how can we be certain that he or she has all the
information that is necessary to prescribe a course of treatment and
begin our care?
These are the kind of thoughts that run through every patient's mind
as we sit in the waiting room, wondering if the high tech equipment
that surrounds us is also reflected in our physician's access to our
lab reports and previous examinations. In other words, is there any way
for our doctors to get to know us, before we've even set foot in their
examining room?
It's ironic that we live in a world where the latest news, sports and
weather can make their way from the either side of the world to our
computers and television sets as it happens. Our financial information
is kept by our banks and is updated continuously throughout the day and
is available to us almost instantaneously. Our medical records,
however, are still kept the old fashioned way, on paper, and filed
away. It is a tedious system, built the old fashioned way, because
that's the way it was always done. Well, I am here to announce that the
time has come to move to a newer, faster and more reliable system.
Imagine a medical network that will reduce errors, help to lower costs
and improve the quality of care we receive, all at the same time, by
providing a treating physician with the information he needs
immediately at the point of care. Is it possible--yes! Then why hasn't
it happened yet?
Why is our medical system surging ahead in the kinds of technology
that are available to diagnose and treat disease, when, at the same
time, it is falling further and further behind in the creation of
electronic medical records and the ability to share that information
with health care providers who need that material to make what can all
too often be life and death decisions?
Clearly, something has to change when I can carry a fob on my key
chain that provides my local gas station owner with instant access to
my credit information so I can buy fuel for my car, but providing
access to my medical records to my doctor is a much longer and tedious
process. This needs to change and it needs to change now.
We can all see how the information revolution has had a dramatic
impact on virtually every industry in the United States. Its ability to
promote efficiency has helped to reduce costs and increase
effectiveness wherever it has been applied. It is now time to bring
that technology to bear on our healthcare system.
At present, healthcare expenditures are growing faster than the
overall economy. In 2003, we spent more than $1.7 trillion on
healthcare. By 2014, that number is expected to reach $3.1 trillion.
Clearly we need to find ways to increase the efficiency of our health
care system and reduce the costs associated with it.
We have all heard it said that, when it comes to our health care
system, you can't maintain the current standards of quality and control
or reduce costs at the same time. While the implementation of a health
information technology system may not dramatically reduce costs, it
will help move us further down the road of controlling costs.
If we could manage a quick trip to the future, and pay a visit to the
doctor's office when a health information technology system is put in
place, we would see some dramatic changes have been made in the ability
of our doctor to diagnose, treat and provide warnings of current and
future medical problems.
In that future, when I arrived at my new doctor's office I gave the
nurse at the front desk my key fob. She took a moment to swipe it past
their computer access link. It is soon downloading my medical
information and compiling a ``health report'' that focuses on any
trends that are developing as the previous results of my examinations
are charted and compared.
Then, as I sit in the waiting room, my physician is already
consulting those records and monitoring my current and previous test
results which are presented to him in the form of a graph that he has
pulled up on his computer screen. With the simple swipe of a mechanical
key my future doctor has
[[Page S7841]]
been able to unlock my complete medical history, and examined the
results of all the tests I had taken over the years, regardless of
where I had received care.
If my doctor was concerned about my cholesterol level, for example,
he or she could pull up a complete history of blood tests that will
enable my physician to track my blood chemistry and note any changes in
my cholesterol level over the years.
Later, if my doctor considers writing a prescription for a new drug
or medication, he will have the ability to first view all medications I
am currently taking in order to make an informed decision regarding any
potentially dangerous interactions or adverse side effects that might
occur as a result of the new prescription.
Such a system will enable doctors to spend less time gathering
information and quizzing patients about past health problems and spend
more time listening to patients and ensuring their health care needs
are met.
President Bush and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services Michael Leavitt have made their support for this clear. They
recognize that the increased use of health information technology has
the potential of saving this country billions of dollars that are now
spent on duplicative tests, unnecessary inpatient admissions, and the
costs associated with adverse drug effects. Some estimates suggest
that, when an information technology system is established and put into
operation, for each dollar we spend on this new technology we will save
as much as four dollars in reduced costs. In a system with such high,
increasing costs every dollar we can save is magnified.
Fortunately, this is not something that will have to wait for someday
until it is technologically possible and practical. There are already
medical pioneers in the field who are putting the tools together and
working on the network that will be needed to provide for rapid and
complete transmission of our medical history when it is needed. One of
these innovators currently lives in my home State of Wyoming, in Big
Piney, in fact.
The story of Dr. William Close is quite a remarkable one. With a wide
and varied background that includes his love for the outdoors and a
taste for classical music, Dr. Close has spent his life ensuring that
the latest possible technologies were being used to address the health
care needs of people all over the world.
Prior to settling down in Wyoming, Dr. Close spent 16 years in Africa
battling the illnesses and dealing with the medical problems faced by a
nation with a large population of patients, and not enough doctors to
go around. His first year there he was one of only three doctors in a
2,000-bed hospital.
It was during those days that Dr. Close determined to find a way to
bring the tools of modern technology to the diagnosis and treatment of
disease. Faced with such a huge patient population, he needed a tool
that would make the compiling of information and its interpretation
easier.
His work led to the creation of a unique software that enabled a
doctor to input a series of symptoms and come up with a possible
diagnosis. It turned out to be such a valuable tool that it was able to
be used on Palm Pilots, which made it an invaluable program for use on
our Navy subs.
Upon his return to the United States he continued to work on the
development of his computer application so he could track a patient's
medical history over several visits, rather than focus on each
appointment as a unique set of data. That enabled Dr. Close to spot
problems before they became serious and to treat trends before they
became life threatening.
Dr. Close has now logged more than 50 years of medical practice and,
although he's officially retired, he still finds time to see patients
in his office. He still makes house calls, too. That's a rare thing in
most States, but a welcome part of life in Wyoming. He continues to
work at what he calls his ``gentle, limited practice'' as he continues
to provide an example for other health care providers and health
information systems on how to maximize health care choices and
treatments for his patients by getting to know the needs of his
patients, by tracking their past history so he can help create a plan
that will minimize a patient's risk for future health problems.
These are the kinds of things that are possible, if we commit to
working together with our nation's health care providers to establish a
network of information that will address the needs of the people of our
country. I have been pleased to work with my ranking member on the HELP
Committee, Senator Kennedy, and the chair and ranking member of the
Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, on this and other
complementary legislation that will promote the use of health
information technology today, not tomorrow. We have been putting a
considerable amount of time and effort into the crafting of these bills
to ensure that they will increase efficiencies, make our health care
system more effective and responsive, and provide better care to us all
as patients.
I mention the effect our bills will have on individuals because, as
with most changes to our health care system, how well the system will
work is ultimately determined by how well it works for those who rely
on it.
For most Americans, their first and primary concern is the privacy of
their records. That is an important provision of the bill and we have
included strong language to ensure the privacy and security protection
patients were guaranteed under HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act, are preserved. As that medical oath says so
well, first, do no harm.
At present, most of our medical records are kept by well meaning
physicians who, unfortunately, are known for having illegible
handwriting. Some of their handwriting is worse than my own. A
computerized record will eliminate that problem and provide clear,
easily read and interpreted medical data to those who will need it to
prescribe a course of treatment.
As with most things, there will be a great deal of concern about the
system's cost and the availability of funds to pay for it. Our
legislation will award competitive, matching grants to healthcare
providers, states and academic programs to facilitate the purchase and
enhance the utilization of qualified health information technology.
In the months to come, we will continue to encourage the
participation of the private sector in this effort. They have asked
for, and I believe they deserve, a seat at the table when standards are
being determined and policies are being implemented. There is no
question that some of them are closest to the problem at hand and their
experience, ideas, and suggestions for innovation will be invaluable as
we pursue the implementation of this new technology nationwide.
Secretary Leavitt recently announced the formation of what he is
calling the American Health Information Community. He will chair this
17-member public-private collaborative that will help facilitate a
nationwide transition to electronic health records, including common
standards and interoperability, in a smooth, market-led way. I share
his support for such an approach and his efforts to make it a reality.
The implementation of this new technology will make the sharing of
health information more efficient between doctors and health
professionals. And, most importantly, it will help to make our health
care system more effective and provide better care to those who make
use of it. It will also help to begin the vital process of controlling
health care costs, something we must set as a goal and begin to achieve
in the time before us.
This is a vital step in that process. With it, we can continue to
make health care services more affordable and available. Without it we
run the risk of having the best health care system in the world, with
few among us able to afford taking full advantage of it.
I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the months ahead
to ensure that meaningful health information technology legislation is
signed into law later this year.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S7842]]
S. 1355
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Better Healthcare Through
Information Technology Act''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVING HEALTHCARE, QUALITY, SAFETY, AND
EFFICIENCY.
The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XXIX--HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
``SEC. 2901. PURPOSES.
``It is the purpose of this title to improve the quality,
safety, and efficiency of healthcare by--
``(1) protecting the privacy and security of health
information;
``(2) fostering the widespread adoption of health
information technology;
``(3) establishing the public-private American Health
Information Collaborative to identify uniform national data
standards (including content, communication, and security)
and implementation polices for the widespread adoption of
health information technology;
``(4) establishing health information network demonstration
programs;
``(5) awarding competitive grants to facilitate the
purchase and enhance the utilization of qualified health
information technology; and
``(6) awarding competitive grants to States for the
development of State loan programs to facilitate the
widespread adoption of health information technology.
``SEC. 2902. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Collaborative.--The term `Collaborative' means the
public-private American Health Information Collaborative
established under section 2904.
``(2) Healthcare provider.--The term `healthcare provider'
means a hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health
entity, healthcare clinic, community health center, group
practice (as defined in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social
Security Act), a pharmacist, a pharmacy, a laboratory, a
physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of the Social
Security Act), a health facility operated by or pursuant to a
contract with the Indian Health Service, a rural health
clinic, and any other category of facility or clinician
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``(3) Health information.--The term `health information'
means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form
or medium, that--
``(A) is created or received by a health care provider,
health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer,
school or university, or health care clearinghouse; and
``(B) relates to the past, present, or future physical or
mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of
health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future
payment for the provision of health care to an individual.
``(4) Health information network.--The term `health
information network' means an organization of health care
providers and other entities established for the purpose of
linking health information systems to enable the electronic
sharing of health information.
``(5) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance
issuer' has the meaning given that term in section 2791.
``(6) Laboratory.--The term `laboratory' has the meaning
given that term in section 353.
``(7) Pharmacist.--The term `pharmacist' has the meaning
given that term in section 804 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
``(8) Qualified health information technology.--The term
`qualified health information technology' means a
computerized system (including hardware, software, and
training) that--
``(A) protects the privacy and security of health
information and properly encrypts such health information;
``(B) maintains and provides permitted access to patients'
health records in an electronic format;
``(C) incorporates decision support software to reduce
medical errors and enhance healthcare quality;
``(D) is consistent with the standards recommended by the
collaborative; and
``(E) allows for the reporting of quality measures.
``(9) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``SEC. 2903. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR OF HEALTH
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
``(a) Office of National Health Information Technology.--
There is established within the Office of the Secretary an
Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information
Technology (referred to in this section as the `Office'). The
Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be
appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the
Secretary.
``(b) Purpose.--It shall be the purpose of the Office to
carry out programs and activities to develop a nationwide
interoperable health information technology infrastructure
that--
``(1) ensures that patients' health information is secure
and protected;
``(2) improves healthcare quality, reduces medical errors,
and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
``(3) reduces healthcare costs resulting from inefficiency,
medical errors, inappropriate care, and incomplete
information;
``(4) ensures that appropriate information to help guide
medical decisions is available at the time and place of care;
``(5) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater
competition, and increased choice through the wider
availability of accurate information on healthcare costs,
quality, and outcomes;
``(6) improves the coordination of care and information
among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other
entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure
and authorized exchange of healthcare information;
``(7) improves public health reporting and facilitates the
early identification and rapid response to public health
threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and
infectious disease outbreaks;
``(8) facilitates health research; and
``(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases.
``(c) Duties of the National Coordinator.--The National
Coordinator shall--
``(1) serve as a member of the public-private American
Health Information Collaboration established under section
2904;
``(2) serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary
concerning the development, application, and use of health
information technology;
``(3) facilitate the adoption of a national system for the
electronic exchange of health information;
``(4) facilitate the adoption and implementation of
standards for the electronic exchange of health information
to reduce cost and improve healthcare quality; and
``(5) submit the reports described under section 2904(h).
``(d) Detail of Federal Employees.--
``(1) In general.--Upon the request of the National
Coordinator, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to
detail, with or without reimbursement from the Office, any of
the personnel of such agency to the Office to assist it in
carrying out its duties under this section.
``(2) Effect of detail.--Any detail of personnel under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) not interrupt or otherwise affect the civil service
status or privileges of the Federal employee; and
``(B) be in addition to any other staff of the Department
employed by the National Coordinator.
``(3) Acceptance of detailees.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Office may accept detailed personnel
from other Federal agencies without regard to whether the
agency described under paragraph (1) is reimbursed.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the activities of the Office under this section
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
``SEC. 2904. AMERICAN HEALTH INFORMATION COLLABORATIVE.
``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this title, and subject to the provisions of
this title, the Secretary shall establish the public-private
American Health Information Collaborative (referred to in
this section as the `Collaborative').
``(b) Composition.--The Collaborative shall be composed
of--
``(1) the Secretary, who shall serve as the chairperson of
the Collaborative;
``(2) the Secretary of Defense, or his or her designee;
``(3) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or his or her
designee;
``(4) the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology;
``(5) the Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology; and
``(6) one voting member from each of the following
categories to be appointed by the Secretary from nominations
submitted by the public:
``(A) Patient advocates.
``(B) Physicians.
``(C) Hospitals.
``(D) Pharmacists.
``(E) Health insurance plans.
``(F) Standards development organizations.
``(G) Technology vendors.
``(H) Public health entities.
``(I) Clinical research and academic entities.
``(J) Employers.
``(K) An Indian tribe or tribal organization.
``(L) State and local government agencies.
``(c) Recommendations and Policies.--The Collaborative
shall make recommendations to identify uniform national
policies to the Federal Government and private entities to
support the widespread adoption of health information
technology, including--
``(1) protecting the privacy and security of personal
health information;
``(2) measures to prevent unauthorized access to health
information;
``(3) measures to ensure accurate patient identification;
``(4) methods to facilitate secure patient access to health
information;
``(5) recommendations for a nationwide architecture that
achieves interoperability of health information technology
systems; and
``(6) other policies determined to be necessary by the
Collaborative.
[[Page S7843]]
``(d) Standards.--
``(1) In general.--The Collaborative shall, on an ongoing
basis--
``(A) review existing standards (including content,
communication, and security standards) for the electronic
exchange of health information, including such standards
adopted by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(A);
``(B) identify deficiencies and omissions in such existing
standards; and
``(C) identify duplications and omissions in such existing
standards;
and recommend modifications to such standards as necessary.
``(2) Recommendations.--The Collaborative shall recommend
to the President the adoption by the Federal Government of--
``(A) the standards adopted by the Consolidated Health
Informatics Initiative as of the date of enactment of this
title; and
``(B) on an ongoing basis as appropriate, any additional
standards or modifications recommended pursuant to the review
described in paragraph (1).
``(3) Limitation.--The standards described in this section
shall not include any standards developed pursuant to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
``(e) Action by the President.--Upon receipt of a
recommendation from the Collaborative under subsection
(d)(2), the President shall review and if appropriate,
provide for the adoption by the Federal Government of such
recommended standards.
``(f) Coordination of Federal Spending.--Not later than 1
year after the adoption by the Federal Government of a
recommendation as provided for in subsection (e), and in
compliance with chapter 113 of title 40, United States Code,
no Federal agency shall expend Federal funds for the purchase
of hardware, software, or support services for the electronic
exchange of health information that is not consistent with
applicable standards adopted by the Federal Government under
subsection (e).
``(g) Coordination of Federal Data Collection.--Not later
than 2 years after the adoption by the Federal Government of
a recommendation as provided for in subsection (e), all
Federal agencies collecting health data for the purposes of
surveillance, epidemiology, adverse event reporting, or
research shall comply with standards adopted under subsection
(e).
``(h) Voluntary Adoption.--Any standards adopted by the
Federal Government under subsection (e) shall be voluntary
with respect to private entities.
``(i) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee
on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives, on an annual basis, a report that--
``(1) describes the specific actions that have been taken
to facilitate the adoption of a nationwide system for the
electronic exchange of health information;
``(2) describes barriers to the adoption of such a
nationwide system; and
``(3) contains recommendations to achieve full
implementation of such a nationwide system.
``(j) Application of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the Collaborative, except
that the term provided for under section 14(a)(2) shall be 5
years.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.
``SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION OF HEALTH
INFORMATION STANDARDS.
``(a) Implementation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, based upon the
recommendations of the Collaborative, shall develop criteria
to ensure uniform and consistent implementation of any
standards for the electronic exchange of health information
voluntarily adopted by private entities in technical
conformance with such standards adopted under this title.
``(2) Implementation assistance.--The Secretary may
recognize a private entity or entities to assist private
entities in the implementation of the standards adopted under
this title.
``(b) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, based upon the
recommendations of the Collaborative, shall develop criteria
to ensure and certify that hardware, software, and support
services that claim to be in compliance with any standard for
the electronic exchange of health information adopted under
this title have established and maintained such compliance in
technical conformance with such standards.
``(2) Certification assistance.--The Secretary may
recognize a private entity or entities to assist in the
certification described under paragraph (1).
``SEC. 2906. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE WIDESPREAD
ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award competitive
grants to eligible entities to facilitate the purchase and
enhance the utilization of qualified health information
technology systems to improve the quality and efficiency of
healthcare.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a) an entity shall--
``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require;
``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan for the
implementation of data sharing and interoperability measures;
``(3) be a--
``(A) not for profit hospital;
``(B) group practice (including a single physician); or
``(C) another healthcare provider not described in
subparagraph (A) or (B);
``(4) adopt the standards adopted by the Federal Government
under section 2904;
``(5) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to
which such entity has achieved the measures adopted under
section 2909;
``(6) demonstrate significant financial need; and
``(7) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection
(d).
``(c) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
this section shall be used to facilitate the purchase and
enhance the utilization of qualified health information
technology systems.
``(d) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible for a grant
under this section an entity shall contribute non-Federal
contributions to the costs of carrying out the activities for
which the grant is awarded in an amount equal to $1 for each
$3 of Federal funds provided under the grant.
``(e) Preference in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants
under this section the Secretary shall give preference to--
``(1) eligible entities that are located in rural,
frontier, and other underserved areas as determined by the
Secretary;
``(2) eligible entities that will use grant funds to
enhance secure data sharing across various health care
settings or enhance interoperability with regional or
national health information networks; and
``(3) with respect to an entity described in subsection
(b)(3)(C), a not for profit healthcare provider.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $75,000,000 for fiscal year
2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2010.
``SEC. 2907. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF STATE LOAN PROGRAMS TO FACILITATE THE
WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award competitive
grants to States for the establishment of State programs for
loans to healthcare providers to facilitate the purchase and
enhance the utilization of qualified health information
technology.
``(b) Establishment of Fund.--To be eligible to receive a
competitive grant under this section, a State shall establish
a qualified health information technology loan fund (referred
to in this section as a `State loan fund') and comply with
the other requirements contained in this section. A grant to
a State under this section shall be deposited in the State
loan fund established by the State. No funds authorized by
other provisions of this title to be used for other purposes
specified in this title shall be deposited in any State loan
fund.
``(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a) a State shall--
``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require;
``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan in
accordance with subsection (d);
``(3) establish a qualified health information technology
loan fund in accordance with subsection (b);
``(4) require that healthcare providers receiving such
loans consult with the Center for Best Practices established
in section 914(d) to access the knowledge and experience of
existing initiatives regarding the successful implementation
and effective use of health information technology;
``(5) require that healthcare providers receiving such
loans adopt the standards adopted by the Federal Government
under section 2904(d);
``(6) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to
which the State has achieved the measures under section 2909;
and
``(7) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection
(h).
``(d) Strategic Plan.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives a grant under this
section shall annually prepare a strategic plan that
identifies the intended uses of amounts available to the
State loan fund of the State.
``(2) Contents.--A strategic plan under paragraph (1) shall
include--
``(A) a list of the projects to be assisted through the
State loan fund in the first fiscal year that begins after
the date on which the plan is submitted;
``(B) a description of the criteria and methods established
for the distribution of funds from the State loan fund; and
``(C) a description of the financial status of the State
loan fund and the short-term and long-term goals of the State
loan fund.
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Amounts deposited in a State loan fund,
including loan repayments and interest earned on such
amounts, shall be used only for awarding loans or loan
guarantees, or as a source of reserve and security for
leveraged loans, the proceeds of which are deposited in the
State loan fund established under subsection (a). Loans under
this
[[Page S7844]]
section may be used by a healthcare provider to facilitate
the purchase and enhance the utilization of qualified health
information technology.
``(2) Limitation.--Amounts received by a State under this
section may not be used--
``(A) for the purchase or other acquisition of any health
information technology system that is not a qualified health
information technology system;
``(B) to conduct activities for which Federal funds are
expended under this title, or the amendments made by the
Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act; or
``(C) for any purpose other than making loans to eligible
entities under this section.
``(f) Types of Assistance.--Except as otherwise limited by
applicable State law, amounts deposited into a State loan
fund under this section may only be used for the following:
``(1) To award loans that comply with the following:
``(A) The interest rate for each loan shall be less than or
equal to the market interest rate.
``(B) The principal and interest payments on each loan
shall commence not later than 1 year after the loan was
awarded, and each loan shall be fully amortized not later
than 10 years after the date of the loan.
``(C) The State loan fund shall be credited with all
payments of principal and interest on each loan awarded from
the fund.
``(2) To guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local
obligation (all of the proceeds of which finance a project
eligible for assistance under this section) if the guarantee
or purchase would improve credit market access or reduce the
interest rate applicable to the obligation involved.
``(3) As a source of revenue or security for the payment of
principal and interest on revenue or general obligation bonds
issued by the State if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds
will be deposited into the State loan fund.
``(4) To earn interest on the amounts deposited into the
State loan fund.
``(g) Administration of State Loan Funds.--
``(1) Combined financial administration.--A State may (as a
convenience and to avoid unnecessary administrative costs)
combine, in accordance with State law, the financial
administration of a State loan fund established under this
section with the financial administration of any other
revolving fund established by the State if otherwise not
prohibited by the law under which the State loan fund was
established.
``(2) Cost of administering fund.--Each State may annually
use not to exceed 4 percent of the funds provided to the
State under a grant under this section to pay the reasonable
costs of the administration of the programs under this
section, including the recovery of reasonable costs expended
to establish a State loan fund which are incurred after the
date of enactment of this title.
``(3) Guidance and regulations.--The Secretary shall
publish guidance and promulgate regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this section,
including--
``(A) provisions to ensure that each State commits and
expends funds allotted to the State under this section as
efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and
applicable State laws; and
``(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
``(4) Private sector contributions.--
``(A) In general.--A State loan fund established under this
section may accept contributions from private sector
entities, except that such entities may not specify the
recipient or recipients of any loan issued under this
section.
``(B) Availability of information.--A State shall make
publically available the identity of, and amount contributed
by, any private sector entity under subparagraph (A) and may
issue letters of commendation or make other awards (that have
no financial value) to any such entity.
``(5) Reservation of amounts.--A State may reserve not to
exceed 40 percent of amounts in the State loan fund to issue
loans to recipients who serve medically underserved areas.
``(h) Matching Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not make a grant under
subsection (a) to a State unless the State agrees to make
available (directly or through donations from public or
private entities) non-Federal contributions in cash toward
the costs of the State program to be implemented under the
grant in an amount equal to not less than $1 for each $1 of
Federal funds provided under the grant.
``(2) Determination of amount of non-federal
contribution.--In determining the amount of non-Federal
contributions that a State has provided pursuant to paragraph
(1), the Secretary may not include any amounts provided to
the State by the Federal Government.
``(i) Preference in Awarding Grants.--The Secretary may
give a preference in awarding grants under this section to
States that adopt value-based purchasing programs to improve
healthcare quality.
``(j) Reports.--The Secretary shall annually submit to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives, a report summarizing the
reports received by the Secretary from each State that
receives a grant under this section.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of making grants under
subsection (a), there is authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
``(l) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall remain available through fiscal year 2010.
``SEC. 2908. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY INTO CLINICAL EDUCATION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants under
this section to carry out demonstration projects to develop
academic programs integrating qualified health information
technology systems in the clinical education of health
professionals. Such awards shall be made on a competitive
basis and pursuant to peer review.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (a), an entity shall--
``(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require;
``(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan for
integrating qualified health information technology in the
clinical education of health professionals and for ensuring
the consistent utilization of decision support software to
reduce medical errors and enhance healthcare quality;
``(3) be--
``(A) a health professions school; or
``(B) an academic health center;
``(4) provide for the collection of data regarding the
effectiveness of the demonstration project to be funded under
the grant in improving the safety of patients, the efficiency
of health care delivery, and in increasing the likelihood
that graduates of the grantee will adopt and incorporate
health information technology in the delivery of health care
services; and
``(5) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection
(c).
``(c) Matching Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award a grant to an
entity under this section only if the entity agrees to make
available non-Federal contributions toward the costs of the
program to be funded under the grant in an amount that is not
less than $1 for each $2 of Federal funds provided under the
grant.
``(2) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal
contributions under paragraph (1) may be in cash or in kind,
fairly evaluated, including equipment or services. Amounts
provided by the Federal Government, or services assisted or
subsidized to any significant extent by the Federal
Government, may not be included in determining the amount of
such contributions.
``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--In awarding grants
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to
applicants that--
``(1) will use grant funds in collaboration with 2 or more
disciplines; and
``(2) will use grant funds to integrate qualified health
information technology into community-based clinical
education experiences.
``(e) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall take such action as
may be necessary to evaluate the projects funded under this
section and publish, make available, and disseminate the
results of such evaluations on as wide a basis as is
practicable.
``(f) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this title, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a
report that--
``(1) describes the specific projects established under
this section; and
``(2) contains recommendations for Congress based on the
evaluation conducted under subsection (e).
``(g) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of amounts
received under a grant awarded under this section may be used
for administrative expenses.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2006, $5,000,000 for fiscal
year 2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
``(i) Sunset.--This section shall not apply after September
30, 2008.
``SEC. 2909. QUALITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop quality
measurement systems for the purposes of measuring the quality
of care patients receive.
``(b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
quality measurement systems developed under subsection (a)
comply with the following:
``(1) Measures.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall select measures of quality to be used by the
Secretary under the systems.
``(B) Requirements.--In selecting the measures to be used
under each system pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall, to the extent feasible, ensure that--
``(i) such measures are evidence based, reliable and valid,
and feasible to collect and report;
[[Page S7845]]
``(ii) such measures include measures of process,
structure, beneficiary experience, efficiency, and equity;
``(iii) such measures include measures of overuse,
underuse, and misuse of healthcare items and services; and
``(iv) such measures include--
``(I) with respect to the initial year in which such
measures are used, one or more elements of a qualified health
information technology system as defined in section 2901; and
``(II) with respect to subsequent years, additional
elements of qualified health information technology systems
as defined in section 2901.
``(2) Weights of measures.--The Secretary shall assign
weights to the measures used by the Secretary under each
system established under subsection (a).
``(3) Maintenance.--The Secretary shall, as determined
appropriate, but in no case more often than once during each
12-month period, update the quality measurement systems
developed under subsection (a), including through--
``(A) the addition of more accurate and precise measures
under the systems and the retirement of existing outdated
measures under the systems; and
``(B) the refinement of the weights assigned to measures
under the systems.
``(c) Required Considerations in Developing and Updating
the Systems.--In developing and updating the quality
measurement systems under this section, the Secretary shall--
``(1) consult with, and take into account the
recommendations of, the entity that the Secretary has an
arrangement with under subsection (e);
``(2) consult with provider-based groups and clinical
specialty societies; and
``(3) take into account--
``(A) the demonstrations required under this Act;
``(B) the demonstration program under section 1866A of the
Social Security Act;
``(C) the demonstration program under section 1866C of such
Act;
``(D) any other demonstration or pilot program conducted by
the Secretary relating to measuring and rewarding quality and
efficiency of care; and
``(E) the report by the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences under section 238(b) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003.
``(d) Required Considerations in Implementing the
Systems.--In implementing the quality measurement systems
under this section, the Secretary shall take into account the
recommendations of public-private entities--
``(1) that are established to examine issues of data
collection and reporting, including the feasibility of
collecting and reporting data on measures; and
``(2) that involve representatives of health care
providers, consumers, employers, and other individuals and
groups that are interested in quality of care.
``(e) Arrangement With an Entity to Provide Advice and
Recommendations.--
``(1) Arrangement.--On and after July 1, 2006, the
Secretary shall have in place an arrangement with an entity
that meets the requirements described in paragraph (2) under
which such entity provides the Secretary with advice on, and
recommendations with respect to, the development and updating
of the quality measurement systems under this section,
including the assigning of weights to the measures under
subsection (b)(2).
``(2) Requirements described.--The requirements described
in this paragraph are the following:
``(A) The entity is a private nonprofit entity governed by
an executive director and a board.
``(B) The members of the entity include representatives
of--
``(i)(I) health plans and providers receiving reimbursement
under this title for the provision of items and services,
including health plans and providers with experience in the
care of frail elderly and individuals with multiple complex
chronic conditions; or
``(II) groups representing such health plans and providers;
``(ii) groups representing individuals entitled to benefits
under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or
enrolled under part B of such title;
``(iii) purchasers and employers or groups representing
purchasers or employers;
``(iv) organizations that focus on quality improvement as
well as the measurement and reporting of quality measures;
``(v) State government health programs;
``(vi) individuals skilled in the conduct and
interpretation of biomedical, health services, and health
economics research and with expertise in outcomes and
effectiveness research and technology assessment; and
``(vii) individuals or entities involved in the development
and establishment of standards and certification for health
information technology systems and clinical data.
``(C) The membership of the entity is representative of
individuals with experience with urban health care issues and
individuals with experience with rural and frontier health
care issues.
``(D) The entity does not charge a fee for membership for
participation in the work of the entity related to the
arrangement with the Secretary under paragraph (1). If the
entity does require a fee for membership for participation in
other functions of the entity, there shall be no linkage
between such fee and participation in the work of the entity
related to such arrangement with the Secretary.
``(E) The entity--
``(i) permits any member described in subparagraph (B) to
vote on matters of the entity related to the arrangement with
the Secretary under paragraph (1); and
``(ii) ensures that such members have an equal vote on such
matters .
``(F) With respect to matters related to the arrangement
with the Secretary under paragraph (1), the entity conducts
its business in an open and transparent manner and provides
the opportunity for public comment.
``(G) The entity operates as a voluntary consensus
standards setting organization as defined for purposes of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113) and Office of
Management and Budget Revised Circular A-119 (published in
the Federal Register on February 10, 1998).
``SEC. 2910. APPLICABILITY OF PRIVACY AND SECURITY
REGULATIONS.
``The regulations promulgated by the Secretary under part C
of title XI of the Social Security Act and sections 261, 262,
263, and 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 with respect to the privacy,
confidentiality, and security of health information shall--
``(1) apply to any health information stored or transmitted
in an electronic format on or after the date of enactment of
this title; and
``(2) apply to the implementation of standards, programs,
and activities under this title.
``SEC. 2911. STUDY OF REIMBURSEMENT INCENTIVES.
``The Secretary shall carry out, or contract with a private
entity to carry out, a study that examines methods to create
efficient reimbursement incentives for improving healthcare
quality in community health centers and other Federally
qualified health centers, rural health clinics, free clinics,
and other programs reimbursed primarily on a cost basis
deemed appropriate by the Secretary.''.
SEC. 3. CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES.
Section 914 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
299b-3) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Center for Best Practices.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director, shall develop a Center for Best Practices to
provide technical assistance and develop best practices to
support and accelerate the efforts of States and healthcare
providers to adopt, implement, and effectively use health
information technology.
``(2) Center for best practices.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Director shall establish a voluntary Center for Best
Practices (referred to in this subsection as the `Center')
for States and healthcare stakeholders seeking to facilitate
mutual learning and accelerate the pace of innovation in, and
implementation of, health information technology. The Center
shall support activities to meet goals, including--
``(i) providing for the widespread adoption of
interoperable health information technology;
``(ii) providing for the establishment of regional and
local health information networks to facilitate the
development of interoperability across healthcare settings;
``(iii) the development of solutions to barriers to the
exchange of electronic health information; or
``(iv) other activities identified by the States or health
care stakeholders as a focus for developing and sharing best
practices.
``(B) Purposes.--The purpose of the Center is to--
``(i) provide a forum for the exchange of knowledge and
experience;
``(ii) accelerate the transfer of lessons learned from
existing public and private sector initiatives, including
those currently receiving Federal financial support;
``(iii) assemble, analyze, and widely disseminate evidence
and experience related to the adoption, implementation, and
effective use of health information technology;
``(iv) assure the timely provision of technical and expert
assistance from the Agency and its contractors;
``(v) accelerate the pace of health information technology
innovation; and
``(vi) provide technical assistance to entities developing
applications for demonstration grants under subsection (b).
``(C) Support for activities.--To provide support for the
activities of the Center, the Director shall--
``(i) modify the requirements, if necessary, that apply to
the National Resource Center for Health Information
Technology to provide the necessary infrastructure to support
the duties and activities of the Network and facilitate
information exchange across the public and private sectors;
``(ii) expand the Agency's focus on the adoption,
implementation, and effective use of health information
technology through the development of practical
implementation guidance based upon existing knowledge and
support for rapid-cycle implementation research to address
questions for which existing knowledge is insufficient; and
``(iii) develop the capacity to identify and widely share
in a timely manner innovative approaches to advancing health
information technology and its ultimate goal, the improvement
of the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care.
[[Page S7846]]
``(3) Technical assistance telephone number or website.--
The Secretary shall establish a toll-free telephone number or
Internet website to provide healthcare providers with a
single point of contact to--
``(A) learn about Federal grants and technical assistance
services related to health information technology;
``(B) learn about qualified health information software
that has been certified to be in compliance with the
standards adopted by the Federal Government under section
2904 and is available for commercial use;
``(C) receive referrals to regional and local health
information networks for assistance with health information
technology;
``(D) provide information regarding--
``(i) the electronic submission of health data collected by
Federal agencies; and
``(ii) the uniform and consistent implementation of
standards; and
``(E) disseminate additional information determined by the
Secretary to be helpful to such providers.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.''.
SEC. 4. HEALTH INFORMATION NETWORK DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
Section 914 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
299b-3), as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Health Information Network Demonstration Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may establish a
demonstration program under which grants or contracts shall
be awarded to support health information network planning,
implementation, and evaluation activities.
``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant or
contract under the demonstration program under paragraph (1),
an entity shall--
``(A) submit to the Director an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Director may require;
``(B) submit to the Director a strategic plan for the
implementation of data sharing and interoperability measures
across the various health care settings within the proposed
network;
``(C) be a public or nonprofit private entity that is or
represents a network or potential network that includes
healthcare providers and group health plans in a defined area
of geographic proximity or organizational affinity, and that
may include for profit entities so long as such an entity is
not the grantee;
``(D) demonstrate, where appropriate, the involvement and
commitment of the appropriate State or States;
``(E) specify a defined area of geographic proximity or
organizational affinity that the health information network
will encompass;
``(F) demonstrate active participation in the best practice
network described in subsection (d);
``(G) demonstrate compliance with the data standards and
technical policies adopted by the Federal Government under
section 2904(e);
``(H) submit to the Secretary a report on the degree to
which such entity has achieved the measures under section
2909;
``(I) demonstrate financial need; and
``(J) agree to provide matching funds in accordance with
paragraph (4).
``(3) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--Amounts received under a grant under
this subsection shall be used to establish and implement a
regional or local health information network.
``(B) Limitation.--Amounts received under a grant under
this subsection may not be used to purchase a health
information technology system that is not a qualified health
information technology system.
``(4) Matching requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant or contract under this subsection an entity shall
contribute non-Federal funds to the costs of carrying out the
activities for which the grant or contract is awarded in an
amount equal to $1 for each of $2 of Federal funds, provided
under the grant.
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $70,000,000 for fiscal year
2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2010.''.
SEC. 5. EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL ANTI-KICKBACK AND STARK LAWS FOR
THE PROVISION OF PERMITTED SUPPORT.
(a) Anti-kickback.--Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (H), as added by section 237(d) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2213)--
(i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon;
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H), as added by section
431(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat.
2287), as subparagraph (I);
(D) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--
(i) by moving such subparagraph 2 ems to the left; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following new:
``(J) during the 5-year period beginning on the date the
Secretary issues the interim final rule under section 5(c)(1)
of the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act,
the provision, with or without charge, of any permitted
support (as defined in paragraph (4)).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Permitted support.--
``(A) Definition of permitted support.--Subject to
subparagraph (B), in this section, the term `permitted
support' means the provision of any equipment, item,
information, right, license, intellectual property, software,
training, or service used for developing, implementing,
operating, or facilitating the use of systems designed to
improve the quality of health care and to promote the
electronic exchange of health information.
``(B) Exception.--The term `permitted support' shall not
include the provision of--
``(i) any support that is determined in a manner that is
related to the volume or value of any referrals or other
business generated between the parties for which payment may
be made in whole or in part under a Federal health care
program;
``(ii) any support that has more than incidental utility or
value to the recipient beyond the exchange of health care
information; or
``(iii) any health information technology system, product,
or service that is not in compliance with data standards
adopted by the Federal Government under section 2904 of the
Public Health Service Act.''.
(b) Stark.--Section 1877(e) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395nn(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(9) Permitted support.--During the 5-year period
beginning on the date the Secretary issues the interim final
rule under section 5(c)(1) of the Better Healthcare Through
Information Technology Act, the provision, with or without
charge, of any permitted support (as defined in section
1128B(b)(4)).''.
(c) Regulations.--In order to carry out the amendments made
by this section--
(1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue
an interim final rule with comment period by not later than
the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act; and
(2) the Secretary shall issue a final rule by not later
than the date that is 180 days after the date that the
interim final rule under paragraph (1) is issued.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, It is a privilege to join Senator Enzi,
Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus and many other sponsors on this bill
to modernize our health care system with information technology.
The United States has the best doctors and hospitals in the world,
but we will soon be left behind other industrialized nations if we fail
to adopt modern technology. When enacted, this bill will be the first
legislation to address the glaring lack of such technology in U.S.
health care. Modern information technology can transform health care as
profoundly as any medical discovery of the past, and the American
people deserve that transformation.
The Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 98,000 Americans
die in hospitals each year because of medical errors--making it the
eighth leading cause of death in the United States. Elderly patients
are prescribed improper medication in one out of every 12 physician
visits. Adult Americans receive recommended care only 55 percent of the
time. Nearly 30 percent of health care spending, $300 billion a year,
goes for treatments that may not improve health, are redundant, or are
even wrong for the patient's condition. Medical experts agree that most
of these shameful statistics could be drastically reduced by modern
information technology in doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes,
pharmacies, clinical laboratories and public health departments across
the country.
It is not just quality of care that improves with use of Health IT--
the cost goes down as well. National health care spending now exceeds
$1.7 trillion a year--and health spending and health insurance premiums
continue to rise at rates much higher than general inflation. The
Federal Government estimates that savings in the range of $140 billion
a year, close to 10 percent of total health spending, could be achieved
through widespread adoption of health IT. These system-wide savings
would reduce insurance premiums by $700 a year for every family in
America.
Some States, including Massachusetts, are leading the way toward a
fully interconnected health IT system, with cutting edge projects being
conducted by organizations such as the
[[Page S7847]]
Massachusetts e-Health Collaborative, the Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative, the New England Healthcare Institute and the Center for
Information Technology Leadership. But, we still have much to do.
Despite the obvious health benefit, most doctors and hospitals are
not using this technology or preparing to do so. In fact, only 10
percent of hospitals are using computerized prescribing. Another 20
percent of hospitals are currently installing them. That leaves 70
percent out. The United States ranks far below other industrial
countries on IT in healthcare--lower than 12 out of 15 European
nations.
Part of the problem is the up-front cost of these systems. Doctors
are not always confident that the system they invest in will be able to
talk to other parts of the overall system. We need rules and standards
for electronic data sharing to encourage doctors to accept them, as our
bill proposes.
The legislation establishes a public-private partnership to create
national standards for health IT--a common language for doctors'
computer systems to talk to each other. Targeted funding mechanisms
will help doctors and hospitals acquire the technology they need for
their patients. Grants will be available for cases of special need,
such as doctors practicing in underserved areas. Financial assistance
will also help establish regional health information technology
organizations, such as networks of doctors, hospitals, health plans and
pharmacies. These networks will be a crucial testing ground to work out
how all parts of the health system can communicate to provide clinical
information wherever and whenever it is needed.
The bill also creates a Federal-State public-private loan fund to
make loans available at low rates to help health care professionals to
acquire the technology. The State fund will accept private sector
contributions from health plans and large systems that would benefit
from having more doctors using the technology. Insurers and large
hospitals stand to gain the most savings from IT, and should contribute
to this national effort.
The bill will also help providers improve quality by establishing a
Best Practices Center where IT users can learn from the experience of
others, and by funding new programs to train health professionals to
use the technology.
We have a responsibility to make the miracles of modern medicine
available to every American. Rising costs are crushing our health care
system. Premiums are going through the roof. The ranks of the uninsured
grow every day. Families have to choose between health care and
groceries, rent, and college tuition. When millions of Americans
struggle to afford health care for their families, it is profoundly
wrong to squander more than half a trillion dollars each year on
obsolete administrative expenses. That's not the American dream. We can
find a better way.
Other nations are taking action to use this extraordinary technology
to cut costs and save lives--but America lags behind. We can't continue
to let the high cost of health care price American goods and services
out of the global marketplace.
The need for this investment is urgent. In the words of Secretary
Leavitt, ``Every day that we delay, lives are lost.'' The proposals we
are introducing today will improve care, save lives and make health
care more affordable for every American.
I commend Senator Enzi, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their
leadership, and I look forward to working closely with all our
colleagues to see that these important proposals are enacted into law
this year.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join several of my colleagues in
introducing the Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act.
This bill represents a strong step forward in modernizing our health
care system and paving the way to greater efficiency and quality in the
delivery of care.
Health care costs are becoming an enormous drain on employers,
employees, and the Nation as a whole. More Americans are uninsured, and
premiums for health insurance are increasing at an unsustainable rate
of 20, 30, and even 40 percent per year. Health care reform is needed
to address the huge concerns of the American people and our Nation's
businesses. Indeed, the fact that companies like GM are losing
competitiveness and laying off 25,000 workers, in part due to health
costs, is a strong sign that our current health care system is flawed.
Solving these challenges will require new, bold policy initiatives to
make health care coverage more affordable for employers, employees, and
all Americans. Comprehensive efforts at change must be considered in
our approach to health care reform. As a start, there are numerous
improvements that can--and should--be made to fully pull the industry
into the information age with the widespread adoption of information
technology. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that many of our
Nation's other systems, such as our banking systems, are decades ahead
in providing a seamless national network facilitating nearly
instantaneous and universal access to information. It is high time for
this body to act to modernize our health system as well, for its
adoption of IT systems has the promise to improve quality while
simultaneously reducing cost.
There are significant barriers to the adoption of IT by health care
providers, including often-prohibitive costs of capital expenditures
needed for hardware and software and a lack of uniform standards for
the electronic exchange of information. Systems are prohibitively
expensive for many physician practices and there is no guarantee of
interoperability with the system used at a local hospital, lab, or
pharmacy.
The Better Healthcare Through Information Technology Act addresses
many of these barriers. It codifies existing efforts by the government
to spur the use of health IT. It creates a public-private collaborative
to build consensus on a single set of standards. To ensure that these
standards will then be embraced, our bill requires Federal procurement
of information technology, and data collection by Federal agencies to
comply with them.
A similar collaborative on a local scale already exists in Rhode
Island. The Rhode Island Quality Institute links providers, hospitals,
insurers, government, businesses, and the academic community in the
pursuit of improving health care quality. I commend the Rhode Island
Quality Institute for its statewide efforts to make Rhode Island a true
health care improvement ``learning lab,'' and I believe that the bill
we are introducing today will support these and similar efforts around
the country.
To do this, our legislation recognizes and aims to address the
financing challenges faced by providers. The bill establishes a number
of competitive grants and facilitates State loan programs that are
designed to get qualified health IT systems in the hands of doctors,
hospitals, and clinics. Other provisions, including modifications to
Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws and the establishment of a toll-
free telephone number or Web site to assist physicians, will accelerate
the implementation and integration of health IT.
The combination of uniform standards, help for physicians to purchase
health IT systems, and improved exchange of electronic information
through a national system will ultimately move us toward a conversion
to Electronic Medical Records. Records will seamlessly follow the
patient and improve evidence-based medicine by allowing aggregate data
to be used in the determination of best treatment practices. Decision
support systems will provide doctors with the most up-to-date evidence-
based recommendations available.
Perhaps most importantly, though, the use of IT offers the hope of
reducing the thousands of medical errors each year that add to both
unnecessary pain and suffering and the cost of health care.
Computerized Physician Order Entry, or CPOE, could alone bring enormous
savings to the health care system by reducing medication errors in
hospitals and clinics.
Systemic errors such as these account for many of the medical errors
identified by the Institute of Medicine in their seminal study on this
topic that estimated up to 98,000 avoidable deaths from medical errors
each year. It will take government action and investment to bring about
the technological sophistication and interoperability necessary to
substantially reduce the incidence of these errors.
[[Page S7848]]
I want to thank Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Dodd, and others for their
efforts on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with each of
them and the rest of my colleagues to bring our Nation's health system
into the 21st century.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Enzi, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 1356. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide incentives for the provision of high quality care under the
medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in
introducing the Medicare Value Purchasing (MVP) Act of 2005. Senator
Baucus shares my strong commitment to ensuring the vitality of the
Medicare program for generations of beneficiaries to come. Two years
ago, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the first ever
Medicare prescription drug benefit, to create new coverage choices
under the Medicare Advantage program, and to cover more preventive
screening tests. The Medicare Modernization Act transformed Medicare
benefits and choices.
Over the past 40 years, Medicare has made immeasurable differences in
the lives of our Nation's seniors and disabled citizens by providing
beneficiaries with access to care. The bill that we are introducing
today will ensure that they continue not only to have that access, but
also have access to good care. Some folks might think I am saying that
beneficiaries don't receive good care today. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I know that physicians, hospitals, nurses and other
providers across the country work every day to provide quality care.
But just like all Medicare beneficiaries have the same benefits, all
Medicare beneficiaries should get the highest quality care possible.
And today, that's just not the case; there is tremendous room for
improvement.
A May 2005 Commonwealth Fund review of more than four hundred studies
and data sets painted a mixed picture on the quality of care received
by Medicare beneficiaries. The analysis found that many improvements
are occurring--breast cancer screening rates have tripled and many
patients with diabetes get the tests they need to keep them healthy. At
the same time, the review showed that in some parts of the country,
beneficiaries get recommended treatments, such as immunizations, but in
other parts they don't. They found that improvements in care for
Medicare beneficiaries have not kept pace with improvements among other
groups. For example, between 1988 and 1994, the percent of forty-five-
year-olds to sixty-four-year-olds whose blood pressure was controlled,
increased from 33 percent to 40 percent. Among Medicare beneficiaries,
it stayed the same--just 24 percent. They also zeroed in on the need to
strengthen programs to care for beneficiaries with a chronic illness.
Research shows that twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five
or more chronic illnesses. Caring for these beneficiaries accounts for
nearly 70 percent of Medicare spending.
One of the study's most disturbing findings was the States with
higher spending per Medicare beneficiary tended to rank lower on
twenty-two quality-of-care indicators. According to the researchers,
this might reflect practice patterns that favor intensive, costly care
rather than ``effective'' care. Simply stated, spending more, does not
necessarily translate into better quality care for beneficiaries. Of
the $300 billion Medicare dollars spent last year, I think it is safe
to say that in many cases we--beneficiaries and taxpayers--did not get
the absolute best value. Not even close.
Why is that the case? In part, it is because of the way we pay for
care. I am sure that everyone remembers ``To Err is Human'' in which
the Institute of Medicine reported the startling fact that studies
suggest that up to 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year from
medical errors. It was in headlines for months.
I would bet that not as many folks know about the IOM's follow-up
report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm.'' In my opinion, that report is
equally, if not more, important because it sets forth a wide-ranging
strategy to address the deficiencies in our health care system that
undermine the delivery of high quality care. Among the IOM's chief
recommendations was a call to both public and private purchasers to
examine their current payment methods to remove barriers that currently
impede quality improvement, and to build stronger incentives for
quality enhancement.
The IOM specifically recommended that payment methods should provide
``fair payment for good clinical management.'' Providers also need to
be able to share in the benefits of quality improvement. Consumers and
purchasers need opportunities to recognize quality differences and to
use quality information when making health care decisions. In simplest
terms, we need to better align financial incentives to help promote
quality and to achieve better value. The Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC) has issued similar recommendations.
Today, Medicare pays the same amount regardless of quality of care.
Some people would argue that in fact, the current Medicare payment
system rewards poor quality. For example, if a patient suffers a
complication from subpar hospital care and ends up back in the same
hospital to treat that complication, Medicare will pay the hospital for
the patient's rehospitalization. On the other hand, if a hospital
follows best practices of care and helps patients avoid complications
that could require a rehospitalization, well, that hospital doesn't get
anything. The hospital that provides lower quality care to the
beneficiary gets another payment. The hospital that provides higher
quality care to the beneficiary gets nothing.
Over time, this perverse situation could disadvantage the hospital
that delivers higher quality care to beneficiaries because it will get
less revenue, which could compromise its ability to compete against
other hospitals. This situation just does not make sense; neither to
me, nor should it to beneficiaries. Providing lower quality care can
lead to greater revenue, while providing higher quality care can
penalize providers financially. It is the exact opposite of what we
want and need for Medicare and beneficiaries. Of course, our Nation is
blessed with millions of dedicated and qualified health care providers
who care deeply about the quality of care they provide to their
patients. What we have is a systemic failure of Medicare payment
systems to reward quality and provide the incentives to invest more in
health care information technology and other efforts to improve health
care quality. This bill creates the financial incentives that reward
those providers who deliver that quality care today, and to those who
make improvements where they are needed.
The MVP Act seeks to remedy this situation and to implement the IOM's
and MedPAC's recommendations by creating quality payments under
Medicare for physicians and other providers, hospitals, health plans,
skilled nursing facilities, home health, and end stage renal disease
facilities. Senator Baucus and I know that it is a pretty ambitious
strategy. We also recognize that this substantial departure from
current payment practices cannot and should not happen overnight.
Careful consideration of which quality measures that the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use in making quality-based
payments will take some time. Providers will play a significant role in
determining which measures to use. This is important--we need to make
sure that the measures are valid and reliable. In addition, providers
will need some time to become more proficient in collecting and
reporting quality data for payment purposes.
The MVP Act builds on the small step made in the MMA which
established reporting incentives in its early years. Under the MMA,
hospitals that report ten quality measures receive a full payment
update, those that don't report, receive a smaller update. This
approach has been successful. In 2005, 99 percent of hospitals reported
the data and CMS has seen improvements in quality among the
participating hospitals. Under the MVP Act, using the data from these
reporting years, CMS will give providers an idea of where they stand on
quality before quality payments will begin. This will allow providers
the chance to fine tune their quality practices and data reporting
[[Page S7849]]
capabilities before payments will be determined based on a specific
provider's quality measures.
For each provider group and facility, as well as Medicare Advantage
plans under our legislation, CMS will then begin to make quality
payments from a pool that initially will equal one percent of their
Medicare payments. Over five years, quality payments will increase to
two percent of total payments. Payments will be awarded for meeting
performance thresholds and to those who demonstrate a level of
improvement specified by CMS. This approach recognizes that we need to
offer incentives to a broad base of providers--providers who perform
well today deserve recognition; those that might not be performing
well, but have improved, also should be recognized. Finally, CMS will
report publicly on how various providers, facilities, and plans do with
respect to quality. This information will help empower beneficiaries
when making their health care decisions and when making informed
choices.
Our bill recognizes that the private sector has made a lot of
progress in developing and adopting quality measures. There are several
value-based purchasing projects underway around the country. We don't
want to reinvent the wheel--we want to build on these initiatives.
These private projects, along with its own projects, can help inform
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as it works out
technical details to implement quality-based payments using the
framework established by the MVP Act.
This framework is consistent with the thinking of CMS on quality-
based payments as expressed by Administrator Mark McClellan. It also is
consistent with principles endorsed today by more than twenty of the
Nation's leading consumer, employer, and labor organizations. In
announcing the principles, Peter Lee, president and CEO of the Pacific
Business Group on Health and co-chair of the Consumer-Purchaser
Disclosure Project stated, ``We must move beyond a system that is
performance-blind to one that rewards better quality and gives
consumers tools to make informed choices.''
Now some folks may think that Medicare shouldn't take on this issue--
that it might better for the private sector to do it alone. I
respectfully disagree with that view. Medicare is the single largest
purchaser of health care in the Nation. The IOM in ``Leadership by
Example'' expressed its opinion that Federal Government health care
programs can significantly influence how care is provided by the
private sector. The Commonwealth Fund researchers share this view--that
adopting quality payments in Medicare can influence the level of
quality in all health care, not just care for the elderly.
And there's a lot of health care to be influenced. Our Nation spent
$1.8 trillion on health care last year. Health care spending is
expected to reach more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product.
But just like in Medicare, we are not always getting the best value for
those dollars. That $1.8 trillion in spending translated to a 37th
place ranking for the United States compared to other countries around
the world, in quality, according to the World Health Organization
(WHO). Spending more and more money without achieving commensurate
improvements in quality is simply wasteful and unsustainable.
Medicare is just one month shy of its fortieth anniversary--a
tremendous milestone. It has positively affected the lives of millions
of seniors and disabled citizens. We set a goal for ourselves forty
years ago--to improve access to care. Providers and policymakers came
together to make that goal a reality. It is time for a new goal, a new
challenge--to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans get
the best possible care and that as a nation, we get the highest value
for our health care dollars. The MVP Act of 2005 provides us with a
road map to live up to that challenge. I urge my colleagues to join me
and Senator Baucus in advancing this important legislation.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the ``Medicare
Value Purchasing Act of 2005.''
This bill will establish a new program to link a portion of
Medicare's reimbursement for health care services to the quality of
that care. This bill takes a crucial step towards improving the value
of our health care dollar as well as the safety and quality of our
Nation's health care system.
Last week, I gave a statement in this Chamber about America's place
in the world. I am proud of our Nation; I am proud of our enterprising
spirit, our energy, our diversity, and the hope for a better future
that is inherent to our roots. I am proud of this country, but I am
disappointed in the state of our health care system and in the impact
it is having on the lives of our fellow citizens, as well as on the
economy and ultimately on our place in the world. As I look to the
future, I see a stronger America, but I know we must work hard to make
sure that vision is realized.
We hear about the problem of increasing health care costs nearly
every day--in newspaper headlines and in casual conversations. Per
capita spending on health care in America is nearly 2\1/2\ times the
average in the industrialized world. We spend over $5,000 per person on
health care, and premiums for employer-sponsored coverage are rising
five times faster than inflation.
With all this money going into health care, one might assume we had
the best health care in the world. But that assumption is wrong.
Despite spending more per capita than any other developed nation, the
World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in health care
quality. As many as 98,000 patients die each year as a result of
medical errors, and research has shown that in some cases more care,
more specialists, and more treatments, actually result in worse
outcomes for the patient.
Costs are rising, we are not getting high-quality care for the
dollars spent, and due to the nature of our health care system much of
this burden is borne by employers. For the first time, the Big Three
automakers are beginning to charge premiums and scale back benefits for
their workers and retirees, because they can't afford the cost of
health care. All told, GM estimates that they will spend about $6
billion in 2005 on health care. This translates into $1,525 for every
vehicle they sell. That is more than the company spends on steel.
By comparison, Toyota's health care costs are about $1,000 less per
vehicle. It is not surprising, therefore, that a recent survey of
business leaders found that 65 percent of top Chief Financial Officers
in the United States feel that it is very important for Congress to
address the cost of health care. Their European and Asian counterparts
did not cite the costs of health care among their top concerns.
No other industry tolerates the level of disrepair that can be found
in the U.S. health care system today. Many of my colleagues in the
Senate agree that in order to improve the system, we need to do more to
control health costs through efficient purchasing and the use of health
information technology. In other words, we need to create a ``culture
of efficiency'' in health care.
How do we do that? First, we need to begin building a health
information infrastructure that can reach providers and patients
nationwide, from Manhattan, NY to Manhattan, MT. We must take
aggressive steps to establish standards and policies around this
infrastructure, and to make initial investments in hardware, software,
and training. I applaud my colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy
for introducing important legislation on this topic today, the ``Health
Information Technology and Quality Improvement Act of 2005''.
Building a Health Information Infrastructure will facilitate the
provision of high-quality care. But we also must begin rewarding
quality in the way we pay for health care. Today, Medicare payment
policies typically do not include mechanisms designed to encourage
quality of care. Medicare does not distinguish between paying for care
that is necessary and that which might be unnecessary or inappropriate.
As a result, I worked with Senator Grassley to design a program that
will tie a portion of Medicare reimbursement for hospitals, physicians,
health plans, renal dialysis facilities, and home health agencies to
the quality of care provided in these settings. Payment for these
providers, as well as for Skilled Nursing Facilities, would also be
linked to reporting data on
[[Page S7850]]
quality of care and, after the first year of the program, to making
this data available to the public.
The Medicare Value-Based Purchasing program would begin paying for
value in the health care system--good care, better patient outcomes,
evidence-based medicine, and increased transparency. We have learned a
lot from programs such as this that have begun on a smaller scale in
the private sector, and we hope that taking this step forward in
Medicare will drive the entire health care system toward a system of
high-quality, high-value health care.
But designing a program like this one is not easy, and I want to be
clear on this point: I don't believe Congress should determine how the
quality of health care is measured. That is why my bill sets up a
system of stakeholder involvement at every step in the development and
implementation of a Quality Measurement System for Medicare--in
determining what measures of health care quality are appropriate for
each provider group, in implementing a system of data collection and
analysis, and in updating the measurement system in accordance with
changing science. Providers, payers, patients, and many other groups
are the key experts who should be involved in the details of a health
care quality system--not Congress.
But it is our job to lay out some of the parameters for the system,
and to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the
authority to follow them and create this new program. It is also our
job to oversee such a program once it is enacted and implemented. Over
the last year or so, we have met with provider groups, consumer
organizations, researchers and policy experts, and many of the
individuals who have built and participated in private-sector programs
to drive quality improvement in health care.
As I mentioned, our bill sets up a process by which a quality
measurement system is developed in consultation with stakeholders and
is uniquely tailored for the different groups of providers who
participate in Medicare. This system should measure the quality of
health care in a variety of ways, looking at processes of care, health
information technology infrastructure, patient outcomes, patient
experience of care, efficiency of resource use, and equity. For some
groups of providers, only a very few measures of health care quality
will be available when the program begins. These providers should not
be penalized for that, but rather rewarded for reporting and improving
the quality of the care they provide according to those measures. We
may start small in some cases, but we can get the ball rolling.
The bill sets up a two-phase approach to quality improvement. In the
first phase, the annual update to a provider's reimbursement is tied to
reporting data on quality of care. This data would be on the measures
included in the Medicare Quality Measurement System which has been
developed by the Secretary with stakeholder involvement. Some
providers--such as hospitals, Medicare Advantage Plans, and renal
dialysis facilities, are already reporting data on quality of care to
Medicare and might move more quickly to the second phase of the
program.
In the second phase, those providers who report data on quality of
care to the Secretary will be able to participate in value-based
purchasing, where a portion of total payments to participants in each
provider group is taken to form a quality pool. The funds in this pool
are then reallocated to award providers who demonstrate high-quality
care, or who show that they are improving. In theory, this sets up a
system in which all providers could receive money back out of the
pool--in essence it is a system that will ``raise all boats.''
Following the recommendation of the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, the portion of payments tied to quality in this second
phase will be 1 percent in the first year of the program for each
provider group, and will increase to 2 percent over five years.
In addition to setting up this program, the ``Medicare Value
Purchasing Act of 2005'' includes additional measures to facilitate
quality improvement in the health care system, such as a provision to
reduce the legal barriers to health IT adoption that are present in the
Federal anti-kickback and Stark laws.
It also includes several studies to look more closely at the true
costs of health care, and the benefits--both human and financial--that
can be gained from improving quality. The information generated by
these studies will be critical in moving forward with value-based
purchasing, allowing us to more accurately predict the program-wide
savings from efforts to improve quality. Given that the Medicare Part A
Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2020--decades earlier than Social
Security--identifying these savings will be critical to preserving
access, to care for Medicare beneficiaries and adequate reimbursement
for providers.
Senator Grassley and I set out to write a bill that would address
value-based purchasing, set up a system of measuring quality of care in
Medicare, and encourage the adoption of health information technology.
We set out to write a bill that, in concert with the bill introduced by
Senators Enzi and Kennedy would create a roadmap to a ``culture of
efficiency'' in health care.
That means that our bill does not put new money on the table to
reward health care quality, and it does not fix the problems that
currently exist with the physician payment system or with reimbursement
updates to renal dialysis facilities. But nor does it mean that we are
blind to these issues. Indeed, I know that sustained cuts to the
physician fee schedule, which will take effect if current law is not
changed--are not sustainable.
I want to work with physicians and practitioners to find a
sustainable solution to the problems with the physician fee schedule,
and I want to work with the renal dialysis community to make sure that
reimbursement is adequate so that facilities--especially those in
underserved areas--can keep their doors open. But I also ask these
providers to work with me to move Medicare in the right direction--
ultimately, better quality and value means better health care, better
coverage, and a stronger system for all.
Finally, I believe that quality improvement efforts should extend
beyond Medicare, into the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, and into the
private sector. Currently, programs at the State level have found ways
to improve quality and find efficiencies through health information
technology use in Medicaid. Our bill includes State government health
program representatives in the process of developing the Quality
Measurement System because we believe they have important perspective
to share, and also because we believe that quality improvement policies
are equally important for their programs. I look forward to working
with Chairman Grassley on a bill to address quality of care in the
Medicaid and SCHIP programs later this year.
I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Grassley, Chairman Enzi, and
Senator Kennedy, as well as their able health care staff, for their
tireless work on this legislation. We feel passionately about this
issue because it matters to all of us. We all want to ensure that the
best care possible is provided. We know how hard health care providers
work for their patients, and we believe they should be rewarded for
that work. And we believe this issue should be advanced in the Congress
as soon as possible.
As I said, I have a vision of a stronger America. I envision a health
care system in which quality and value are rewarded, in which
innovative health information technology is accessible to all, in which
data systems that can exchange crucial patient information to save
lives and prevent mistakes, and in which American companies are not at
a competitive disadvantage in the world because of health care costs. I
call on my colleagues to support the important steps toward that vision
that will be taken under the pieces of this legislation introduced
today.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Schumer).
S. 1357. A bill to protect public health by clarifying the authority
of the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe performance standards for
the reduction of pathogens in meat, meat products, poultry, and poultry
products processed by establishments receiving inspection services and
to enforce the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
System requirements,
[[Page S7851]]
sanitation requirements, and the performance standards; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and
Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation, commonly
known as Kevin's Law, is dedicated to the memory of 2-year-old Kevin
Kowalcyk, who died in 2001 after eating a hamburger contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7 bacteria. Passage of this bill is vital because on
December 6, 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded
an earlier District Court decision that removes the Department of
Agriculture's authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard
for Salmonella. The 5th Circuit's decision in Supreme Beef v. USDA
seriously undermines the strong food safety improvements adopted by
USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point and Pathogen
Reduction (HACCP) rule.
In 2003, there was another court case that calls into question USDA's
authority to enforce basic sanitation standards. A company called
Nebraska Beef sued USDA after the Department tried to shut down the
plant for numerous sanitation violations. USDA settled the case because
it feared losing yet again in court and having another vital piece of
its authority struck down.
According to the 5th Circuit's opinion in the Supreme Beef case and
the settlement in the Nebraska Beef case, today, there is nothing USDA
could do to shut down a meat grinding plant that insists on using low-
quality, potentially contaminated trimmings. These decisions seriously
undermine the new meat and poultry inspection system.
The HACCP rule recognized that bacterial and viral pathogens were the
foremost food safety threat in America, responsible for 5,000 deaths,
325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million illnesses each year according
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To address the
threat of foodborne illness, USDA developed a modern inspection system
based on two fundamental principles.
The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to
determine how to produce the safest products achievable. Industry had
to examine their plants and determine how to control contamination at
every step of the food production process, from the moment a product
arrives at their door until the moment it leaves their plant.
The second, even more crucial, principle was that plants nationwide
must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products.
To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed
Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for
reducing pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities to meet
them. In theory, facilities failing to meet a standard are shut down
until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard.
So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for
Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to
meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. In addition, USDA
reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have
fallen substantially. Therefore the Salmonella standard has been
successful. The Supreme Beef and Nebraska Beef decisions threaten to
destroy this success because they restrict USDA's ability to penalize
meat and poultry plants that violate a pathogen standard.
The other major problem is we have an industry dead set on striking
down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen standards.
Ever since the original Supreme Beef decision, I have spent untold
hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we have
enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and poultry
products. I have introduced bills to address this issue and I have
worked with industry leaders trying to reach a reasonable compromise.
However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns,
industry has continually backtracked and moved the finish line. Many
times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their
``pressing'' concern of the moment only to have them come back and say
we hadn't gone far enough. We have to look out for the consumers of
meat and poultry so our children, our families are not put at increased
risk of getting ill or dying, because some in the industry want to
backtrack on food safety.
I plan to seek every opportunity to get this language enacted. I
think it is essential, both to ensuring the modernization of our food
safety system, and ensuring consumers that we are making progress in
reducing dangerous pathogens.
I hope that both houses of Congress will be able to act to pass this
legislation without delay. The effectiveness of our meat and poultry
inspection system and the public's confidence in it are at stake.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
cosponsoring the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement
Act, also referred to as Kevin's Law. Foodborne disease is a very
serious concern for American consumers. According to CDC estimates, 76
million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths occur
each year in the United States from foodborne diseases; sadly, the
majority of these fatal incidents involve children.
Barbara Kowalcyk, a constituent of mine, has been a true pioneer in
fighting to protect Americans from the harmful effects of food
pathogens. Mother to 2\1/2\-year-old Kevin Kowalcyk, Barbara's
dedication stems from personal tragedy. Barbara went through what no
mother should have to go through; she watched in agony as the life
faded out of her little boy. Kevin died from an E. Coli infection
before he even had the chance to step foot into a kindergarten
classroom.
Eager to ensure that no other parent suffers as she has, Barbara has
become a thoughtful advocate for tougher food-safety laws. She has
worked with me personally on the issue, and through her involvement
with STOP, Safe Tables Our Priority. Barbara has been instrumental in
educating policy makers about the threat of foodborne diseases such as
E. Coli and Salmonella. Barbara's testimony in front of the Committee
on Review of the Use of Scientific Criteria and Performance Standards
for Safe Food at the National Academy of Sciences helped the NAS write
its 2003 report Scientific Criteria to Ensure Safe Food. Barbara
realizes that these diseases are preventable, that we have technology
and understanding to improve the safety of America's meat and poultry,
and it is high time that we do it.
Kevin's Law grants the USDA enforcement authority to enhance the
regulatory structure for food safety. It includes key provisions that
will allow the USDA to conduct scientific surveys to identify the
foodborne pathogens that represent the largest threat to our public
health and to set and update pathogen reduction standards to reduce the
presence of these pathogens in meat and poultry. I applaud Senators
Specter and Harkin for their leadership on this issue, and I thank
Barbara Kowalcyk for her commitment to keeping American consumers safe
from dangerous food products.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1358. A bill to protect scientific integrity in Federal research
and policymaking; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Restore
Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policymaking Act. I thank
my House colleagues Henry Waxman and Bart Gordon, who introduced the
original legislation in the House of Representatives. I also thank my
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, who is an original co-sponsor of this
legislation.
This bill prohibits censoring or tampering with government science
and protects government scientists who blow the whistle on abuses.
Thousands of scientists--including 48 Nobel Laureates--have come
forward to express their concerns that science has been manipulated or
silenced by the Bush Administration.
We learned a few weeks ago, for example, that a White House lawyer
with no scientific credentials had been revising government scientific
reports on climate change to systematically weaken conclusions on
global warming.
In May, the New York Times reported that the southwestern regional
[[Page S7852]]
director of the Fish and Wildlife Service instructed scientists on his
staff to ignore the latest genetic data when determining protections
for endangered species.
In 2002, a professor invited to join an NIH advisory committee was
called and asked for his views on a number of political issues,
including whether he supported abortion rights and whether he had voted
for President Bush. The professor--who had not voted for President
Bush--was not appointed to the committee.
These are disturbing examples of the intrusion of politics into
science. We rely on science to give us objective facts, not political
spin. The Restore Scientific Integrity Act will help protect science
from political interference.
The Act prohibits Federal employees from obstructing or censoring
federally funded scientific research and from disseminating scientific
information known to be false or misleading.
The legislation prohibits the use of political litmus tests when
appointing experts to serve on scientific advisory committees and
strengthens protections against conflicts of interest.
The bill extends whistleblower protections to federal employees who
report allegations of political interference with science.
The bill establishes that peer review processes should be established
by science-based agencies, not by the Office of Management and Budget.
And, the legislation directs the White House Science Advisor to
prepare annual reports on scientific integrity in the federal agencies.
These are common sense provisions that help protect government
science from political interference. I ask my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr.
Isakson):
S. 1362. A bill to provide for enhanced Federal enforcement of, and
State and local assistance in the enforcement of, the immigration laws
of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland
Security Enhancement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Craig and Senator Inhofe, who cosponsored an earlier version of the
bill in the 108th Congress, and who are original sponsors of this
year's legislation. Our bill takes the lead in encouraging a culture of
cooperation among all levels of immigration law enforcement--Federal,
State, and local--it seeks to build an immigration law enforcement
system that is inclusive of all law enforcement officers, has adequate
detention bedspace, uses unified databases for information sharing from
one level of law enforcement to another, and has adequate detention
bedspace.
These elements are a necessary foundation for any future
comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased that the need for
this foundation was recently recognized by Senators Kyl and Cornyn in
the release of the enforcement principles of the immigration bill they
are currently drafting. Changes in substantive immigration law are
surely needed, but unless an effective enforcement mechanism is
included, the new rules will also collapse under a rising tide of
illegality.
More than 15 years of service as a U.S. Attorney in Alabama and then
as Alabama's Attorney General--as well as my current role on the
Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship Subcommittee--have taught
me that the involvement of State and local law enforcement will be a
critical part of any new and successful immigration enforcement scheme.
Establishing an effective partnership between the 700,000 State and
local law enforcement officers who patrol our streets every day and the
small number of Federal immigration officers will be a test of our
Nation's will to establish an effective and enforceable legal scheme
for immigration.
I care very deeply about the ability of State and local law
enforcement to voluntarily aid the federal government in the
enforcement of immigration law. As a result, I also care very deeply
about tearing down barriers to that voluntary assistance. The need for
this voluntary assistance has only grown stronger over the last year
and a half, since I first introduced this legislation in the Senate.
Over the course of that time we have heard about the need to reform our
immigration laws to create a system that is as enforceable as it is
generous and workable. Creation of an enforceable immigration system
will undoubtedly require increased manpower, streamlined information
sharing, and bedspace to hold those we apprehend.
This legislation targets all three of these essential enforcement
components, and will go a long way toward fixing our broken immigration
enforcement system--the system that is currently allowing people to
remain in the U.S. for indefinite time periods, regardless of how they
came here.
Let me be clear, this bill is not about the commandeering of State
and local police forces or about forcing them to dedicate resources
toward immigration law enforcement when they have other priorities, it
is simply about welcoming their assistance in the realm of immigration
law enforcement if they choose to give it.
We know that Americans strongly value our heritage as a Nation of
immigrants. Americans openly welcome legal immigrants and new citizens
with character, ability, decency, and a strong work ethic. However, it
is also clear that Americans do not feel the same way about illegal
immigration. The fact is that a large majority of Americans feel that
State and local governments should be aiding the Federal Government in
stopping illegal immigration.
A RoperASW poll published in March of 2003 titled ``Americans Talk
About Illegal Immigration'' found that 88 percent of Americans agree,
and 68 percent ``strongly'' agree, that Congress should require state
and local government agencies to notify the INS, now ICE, and their
local law enforcement when they determine that a person is here
illegally or has presented fraudulent documentation. Additionally, 85
percent of Americans agree, and 62 percent ``strongly'' agree that
Congress should pass a law requiring State and local governments and
law enforcement agencies, to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal
immigrants with whom they come in contact.
Those numbers speak volumes about the desires of the American
population. It is important to note that these responses were collected
in response to questions about requiring State and local immigration
enforcement action. It is very likely that a poll on this bill, a bill
that is about voluntary State and local action, would yield even
stronger support.
America's strength is based on its commitment to the rule of law.
Inscribed on the front of the Supreme Court Building just down the
street are the words, ``Equal Justice Under Law.''
In the world of immigration laws, the current facade of enforcement
that holds no real consequences for law breakers is both dangerous and
irresponsible. If the only real consequence of coming to this country
illegally is a social label, then our immigration laws are but a
brightly painted sepulcher full of dead bones, for it is impossible to
be a nation governed by the rule of law, if our laws have no real
effect on the lives of the people they govern.
Our illegal alien population was at a record high two years ago and
the numbers continue to climb. The lack of immigration enforcement in
our country's interior has resulted in 8-12 million illegal aliens
living in the U.S. with another estimated 800,000 illegal aliens
joining them every year--that is on top of the more than 1 million that
legally immigrate each year. These numbers make it easy for criminal
aliens and absconders to disappear inside our borders.
Of the 8-10 million illegal aliens present today, the Department of
Homeland Security has estimated that 450,000 are ``alien absconders''--
people that have been issued final deportation orders but have not
shown up for their hearings. An estimated 40,000 absconders join that
number every year.
An estimated 86,000 of them are criminal illegal aliens--people
convicted of crimes they committed in the U.S. who should have been
deported, but have slipped through the cracks and are still here.
The next number is perhaps the most concerning--3,000 of the ``alien
absconders'' within our borders are from one of the countries that the
State Department has designated to be a ``state sponsor of terrorism.''
[[Page S7853]]
The number of illegal aliens outweighs the number of federal agents
whose job it is to find them within our borders by 5,000 to 1. The
enforcement arm of the old INS, now called The Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, ICE, has just over 2,000 interior agents
inside the borders. Leaving the job of interior immigration enforcement
solely to them will guarantee failure. If each interior agent
investigated, arrested, prosecuted and deported an illegal alien every
day, it would take almost 14 years to deport the current illegal alien
population.
State and local police, a force 700,000 strong, are the eyes and ears
of our communities. They are sworn to uphold the law. They police our
streets and neighborhoods every day. Their role is absolutely critical
to the success of our immigration system.
For that critical role to be effective, a few very important things
need to happen: 1. State and local law enforcement officers need clear
authority to voluntarily act; 2. the NCIC Immigration Violators File
needs to contain all critical immigration information so that officers
have quick roadside access to critical immigration information; 3.
Federal immigration officials have to take custody of illegal aliens
apprehended by State officers, they can not continue to ignore State
and local requests for assistance; 4. the Institutional Removal Program
has to be expanded so that all criminal aliens are detained after their
State sentences until deportation, instead of being released back into
the community just to be searched for by Federal officials at a later
date; and 5. critically needed Federal bed space has to be given to DHS
so that the practice of ``catch and release'' can be ended and
effective removal can begin.
The Homeland Security Enhancement Act that Senator Craig, Senator
Inhofe, and I are introducing today will do all of those things.
Let me tell you about a few of the problems in immigration
enforcement that started my interest in this area and prompted me to
author this bill, to push for the hearing on April 22 of 2004 in the
Senate Judiciary Committee titled ``State and Local Authority to
Enforce Immigration Law: Evaluating a Unified Approach for Stopping
Terrorists'', and to author a law review article in the April 2005
issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review titled ``The Growing Role
for State and Local Law Enforcement in the Real of Immigration Law.''
A few years ago, police chiefs and sheriffs in Alabama began to tell
me that they had been shut out of the immigration enforcement system
and that they felt powerless to do anything about Alabama's growing
illegal immigrant population.
As I went to town hall meetings and conferences with police, I heard
the same story-- ``When we come across illegal aliens in our normal
course of duty, we have given up calling because the INS tells us we
have to have 15 or more illegal aliens in custody or they will not even
come pick them up.''
Even worse, Alabama police were routinely told that the aliens could
not be detained until the INS could manage to send someone. They were
told they had to just let them go! They were being told this, even
though I believed that the legal authority of State and local officers
to voluntarily act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear.
If there is any doubt that State and local officers have this
authority, Congress needs to remove that doubt which is exactly what
this bill will do.
Only two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have expressly ruled on State
and local law enforcement authority to make an arrest on an immigration
law violation. In 1983, the Ninth Circuit, while not mentioning a
preexisting general authority, held that nothing in Federal law
precludes the police form enforcing the criminal provisions of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722
F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions,
concluding squarely that a ``state trooper has general investigatory
authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.'' United
States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984).
As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a ``preexisting general
authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make
arrests for violations of Federal law, including immigration laws.''
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999).
Again, in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that ``state and local
police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective
jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of
Federal law, including immigration laws.''' United States v. Santana-
Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez,
176 F.3d 1294, 1295).
None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between
criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions of the INA that
render an alien deportable. It appears that the Ninth Circuit started
the confusion regarding the distinction between civil and criminal
violations in Gonzales v. City of Peoria by asserting in dicta that the
civil provisions of the INA are a persuasive regulatory scheme, and
therefore only the Federal Government has the power to enforce civil
violations. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir.
1983).
This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996
opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel, OLC of the Department of
Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC.
Why was the Federal agency responsible for interior immigration
enforcement telling my police chiefs in Alabama to let illegal aliens
go free?
To be fair, ICE still does not have the manpower or detention space
to take custody and detain all illegal aliens. With less than 20,000
appropriated detention beds, ICE tells us over and over again that they
do not have the bed space to detain all the illegal aliens that they
apprehend; instead, they are forced to give first priority to detaining
the worst of the worst individuals such as convicted felon aliens.
It is shocking to me that even though we know that detention is a key
element of effective removal, we do not even detain all illegal aliens
that have been convicted of crimes for removal. Last February, in a
report titled ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service's Removal of
Aliens Issued Final Orders'' the Department of Justice Inspector
General found that 87 percent of those not detained before removal
never get deported. Even in high risk categories, the IG found that
only fractions of non-detained violators are ever removed-- 35 percent
of those with criminal records and 6 percent of those from ``state
sponsors of terrorism.'' These percentages have not changed since 1996,
when the last IG report issued on the ability to remove aliens found
that 89 percent of aliens with final deportation orders that are not
detained are never removed.
Just this month, during a joint hearing of the Judiciary Committee
Immigration and Terrorism Subcommittees titled ``The Southern Border in
Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve National Security'' we
learned that in some jurisdictions such--as Harlingen Texas--`` no
show'' rates for immigration hearings are as high as 98 percent. Those
numbers speak for themselves about our efficiency in the realm of
immigration enforcement. The American people deserve better,
they deserve to know that our laws will be enforced instead of ignored
without consequence.
But we can not lay all the blame on DHS--they can only detain illegal
aliens that they have space to detain. We know that DHS is using all of
the bed space that they have and that it is not enough they
consistently tell us that they are releasing people that should be
detained because there is no more room. The Homeland Security
Enhancement Act would add critical bed space DHS needs to fulfill its
mission of interior enforcement.
The third problem that was brought to my attention and motivated my
desire to introduce this bill, is the inadequate way we share
immigration information with State and local police. We have databases
full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final
deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to
State and local police. They have to make a special second inquiry to
the immigration center in Vermont just to see if an illegal alien is a
wanted by DHS.
The Hart Rhudman Report, ``America Still Unprepared--America Still In
Danger,'' found that one problem America still confronts is ``700,000
local and State police officials continue to operate in a virtual
intelligence vacuum, without access to terrorist
[[Page S7854]]
watchlists.'' The first recommendation of the report was to ``tap the
eyes and ears of local and State law enforcement officers in preventing
attacks.'' On page 19, the report specifically cited the burden of
finding hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens living among the
population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with 700,000
local, county, and State law enforcement officers if they could be
brought out of the information void.
Without easy access to immigration database information, and with ICE
unwilling to come and identify every suspected illegal alien, State and
local police can not quickly and accurately identify who they have
detained and who they will be releasing back into the community if they
follow ICE's instruction to ``just let them go.''
State and local police are accustomed to checking for criminal
information in the NCIC, National Crime Information Center, database,
which is maintained by the FBI. They can, and routinely do, access the
NCIC on the roadside when they pull over a car or stop a suspect. An
NCIC check, which takes just minutes, includes information about
individuals with outstanding warrants. Even fugitives that use false
identification can be identified on the roadside through use of the
NCIC when, as is often the case, a police officer has access to an
instant fingerprint scanner in his car.
Separate from the NCIC, ICE operates the Law Enforcement Support
Center, which makes immigration information available to State and
local police, but requires a second additional check after NCIC that
most State and local police either don't know about or don't have the
time to perform.
The ability of the NCIC to convey immigration information to State
and local police is not being fully utilized. To date, the Immigration
Violators File of the NCIC contains just over 150,000 entries and only
39,000 of those are alien absconders. This file should be greatly and
rapidly expanded. At the very least, the NCIC should contain
information on all illegal aliens who have received final orders of
departure, all illegal aliens who have signed voluntary departure
agreements, and all aliens who have had their visas revoked. In truth,
the NCIC should contain information on all violations of immigration
law.
If State and local police are not accessing the immigration
information we have worked hard to make available, we must find a way
to get the information to them, through systems they are used to using.
Our bill will get information to them through the system they are
already using--the NCIC.
Our bill will ensure that when an NCIC roadside check is done on an
individual pulled over for speeding, police will know immediately if
the individual has already been ordered to leave the country, has
signed a legal document promising to leave, has overstayed their visa,
or has had their visa revoked.
Understanding the value of getting immigration information to State
and local police comes from understanding that they are the ones who
will come into contact with the dangerous illegal aliens on a day-to-
day basis.
Three 9/11 hijackers were stopped by State and local police in the
weeks proceeding 9/11. Hijacker Mohammad Atta, believed to have piloted
American Airlines Flight 77 into the World Trade Center's north tower,
was stopped twice by police in Florida. Hijacker Ziad S. Jarrah was
stopped for speeding by Maryland State Police two days before 9/11.
And, Hani Hanjour, who was on the flight that crashed into the
Pentagon, was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia.
Local police can be our most powerful tool in the war against
terrorism.
The D.C. Snipers were caught because of the fingerprint collected by
local police. John Lee Malvo was identified when the fingerprint
collected from a magazine at the scene of the liquor store murder and
robbery in Montgomery, Alabama matched with the fingerprints collected
by INS agents in Washington State. Had both law enforcement entities
not done their job by taking prints, it is possible that the identity
of John Lee Malvo could have been a mystery for weeks longer.
In New York a 42-year-old woman sitting on a park bench with her
boyfriend was dragged away and gang-raped by five deportable illegal
immigrants. Although 4 of the 5 had State criminal convictions and 2
had served jail time, the INS claims they were never told about them--
thus, they were not deported as the law requires.
56 illegal aliens were caught by State and local police, and
convicted of molestation and child abuse, long before ICE's ``Operation
Predator'' found them living in New York and Northern New Jersey long
after they should have been deported. Of the 56 arrested, one had raped
his 10-year-old niece; another had sexually assaulted a 6-year-old boy;
one had raped his 7-year-old niece; and another had sexually assaulted
a 2-year-old.
The 9/11 hijacker cases, the D.C. sniper cases, and a multitude of
criminal alien cases clearly illustrate that our State and local police
are the front lines of combating alien crime. To leave them out of the
enforcement system, as we do now, eliminates our most effective weapon
against criminal and terrorist aliens.
Many advocacy groups have vocally opposed the idea of State and local
immigration law enforcement over the course of the last year. They
would prefer that Congress not clarify this enforcement authority and
that we leave State and local officers in the dark.
Such groups contend that if immigration enforcement functions
are performed by anyone other than Federal law enforcement officials,
at least three negative consequences will ensue. First, they argue that
State and local law enforcement entities will be handed an unfunded
mandate and will be forced to enforce immigration law violations
against their will and at their expense. Second, they argue that
immigrant communities, and the victims and witnesses that live within
them, will abandon their trust of, and cooperative partnership with,
State and local law enforcement. And third, they argue that State and
local law enforcement officers will abuse their inherent enforcement
authority to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and
discrimination.
By making these claims, advocacy groups seek to maintain the
ineffective status quo for enforcement by local officers and thwart the
possibility of an effective enforcement partnership between the Federal
Government and the States.
The assertions of these advocacy groups are more myth than reality.
The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden
State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and
sheriff's department across the country must make choices every day
regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly, their
legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut
out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say
that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to
voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be
forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their
communities.
The second myth that anti-local enforcement advocates would have
policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership
exists between local police and immigrant communities, and that
immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of
crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group,
the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, argues: ``These
combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact
with law enforcement, putting entire communities at risk. For instance,
immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the
police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact
with the officials.'' Again, the argument fails because State and local
police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They
are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to
Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to
investigate. To make sure that this is understood, the authors of this
bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill
requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses
to Federal immigration authorities.
[[Page S7855]]
Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective
enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement
officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to
engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination.
Specifically, the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State
and local law enforcement participation because it claims such
involvement is ``likely to result in increased racial profiling, police
misconduct, and civil rights violations.'' This argument is curious
because it would effectively grant more protection to non-citizens here
illegally than to citizens, who are subject to arrest by State and
Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is
curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against
citizens but not against non-citizens here illegally. State and local
police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects
and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama,
State troopers receive annual training on racial profiling. In New
York, the NYC Police Department Operations Order #11 strictly prohibits
racial profiling in law enforcement actions. If Alabama and New York
are consistent in how they instruct and train their State and local
police with regards to racial profiling, it is safe to assume that the
rest of the Nation is as well.
Under this bill, State and local police will have to respect the
civil rights of illegal aliens the same way they respect the civil
rights of all people against whom they enforce the law. State and local
police will continue to be held responsible for violations of civil
rights; this bill does not change that fact.
The opposition will say that this bill is expensive; that it costs
too much. It is always expensive to enforce the law. I do not think
this bill is overly expensive. We have made it as cost affordable as we
can by electing to use resources already available to us--facilities
closed down under the Defense Base Closure Realignment Act of 1990 and
law enforcement officers across America already out on our streets
doing their jobs. Law enforcement is not an area where it pays to pinch
pennies. In immigration enforcement, it costs us too much not to
enforce the law. It is time that Congress take responsibility for
providing DHS with the resources they need to do the job we have given
them.
When it comes to immigration enforcement in America, the rule of law
is not prevailing. If we are serious about securing the homeland, we
simply must get serious about immigration enforcement.
It is time to talk about the big picture--time to be honest about
what it will really take to fix our broken immigration system. In most
cases, we don't need tougher immigration laws, we just need to utilize
our existing resources and use some new resources to enforce the laws
we already have.
If State and local police are confused about their authority to
enforce immigration laws, that authority needs to be clarified. This
bill will do that. If State and local police cannot access immigration
background information on individuals quickly enough, we should change
that. This bill makes that information more accessible through
expanding use of the NCIC. If DHS is not taking custody of illegal
aliens being apprehended by State and local police, we need to make it
possible for them to do so. This bill will address the practice of
``catching and releasing'' illegal aliens. If we do not have enough
detention space to hold people that break the law, then we need more
detention space. This bill gives DHS 50 percent more bedspace for
immigration enforcement. If illegal aliens are being released back into
the community after their prison sentences instead of being deported,
we need to fix the system that releases them. This bill will extend the
Institutional Removal Program to ensure that custody is transferred
from the State prison to Federal officials at the end of the alien's
prison sentence.
Once again I would like to thank Senator Craig and Senator Inhofe for
joining with me to introduce this legislation, and I would like to
thank Congressman Norwood for introducing companion legislation in the
House.
It is imperative that we take critical steps toward regaining control
of our borders and that we lay the enforcement foundation for necessary
immigration reforms. This bill is a critical step in the right
direction. I encourage my colleagues to study this bill and join us in
working to pass the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1362
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Security
Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. STATE DEFINED.
In this Act, the term ``State'' has the meaning given that
term in section 101(a)(36) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(36)).
SEC. 3. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT BY
STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF STATES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and reaffirming
the existing inherent authority of States, law enforcement
personnel of a State or a political subdivision of a State
have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to
investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer
to Federal custody aliens in the United States (including the
transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention
centers), for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of
the immigration laws of the United States in the normal
course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such
personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or
preempted by a Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVISION OF
INFORMATION REGARDING ALIENS.
(a) Violations of Federal Law.--A statute, policy, or
practice that prohibits a law enforcement officer of a State,
or of a political subdivision of a State, from enforcing
Federal immigration laws or from assisting or cooperating
with Federal immigration law enforcement in the course of
carrying out the law enforcement duties of the officer or
from providing information to an official of the United
States Government regarding the immigration status of an
individual who is believed to be illegally present in the
United States is in violation of section 642(a) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)) and section 434 of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1644).
(b) Provision of Information Regarding Apprehended Illegal
Aliens.--
(1) In general.--In compliance with section 642(a) of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)) and section 434 of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1644), States and localities should provide to
the Secretary of Homeland Security the information listed in
subsection (c) on each alien apprehended or arrested in the
jurisdiction of the State or locality who is believed to be
in violation of an immigration law of the United States. Such
information should be provided regardless of the reason for
the apprehension or arrest of the alien.
(2) Time limitation.--Not later than 10 days after an alien
described in paragraph (1) is apprehended, information
requested to be provided under paragraph (1) should be
provided in such form and in such manner as the Secretary of
Homeland Security may, by regulation or guideline, require.
(c) Information Required.--The information listed in this
subsection is as follows:
(1) The name of the alien.
(2) The address or place of residence of the alien.
(3) A physical description of the alien.
(4) The date, time, and location of the encounter with the
alien and reason for stopping, detaining, apprehending, or
arresting the alien.
(5) If applicable, the driver's license number issued to
the alien and the State of issuance of such license.
(6) If applicable, the type of any other identification
document issued to the alien, any designation number
contained on the identification document, and the issuing
entity for the identification document.
(7) If applicable, the license plate number, make, and
model of any automobile registered to, or driven by, the
alien.
(8) A photo of the alien, if available or readily
obtainable.
(9) The fingerprints of the alien, if available or readily
obtainable, including a full set of 10 rolled fingerprints if
available or readily obtainable.
(d) Reimbursement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall reimburse States and localities for all reasonable
costs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
incurred by that State or locality as a result of providing
information required by this section.
(e) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility
act of 1996.--
[[Page S7856]]
(A) Technical amendment.--Section 642 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373) is amended--
(i) in subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c) by striking
``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' and inserting
``Department of Homeland Security''; and
(ii) in the heading by striking ``IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE'' and inserting ``DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1(d) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546) is
amended by striking the item related to section 642 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 642. Communication between government agencies and the
Department of Homeland Security.''.
(2) Personal responsibility and work opportunity
reconciliation act of 1996.--
(A) In general.--Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1644) is amended--
(i) by striking ``Immigration and Naturalization Service''
and inserting ``Department of Homeland Security''; and
(ii) in the heading by striking ``IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE'' and inserting ``DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2 of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105) is amended by
striking the item related to section 434 and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 434. Communication between State and local government agencies
and the Department of Homeland Security.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide the
reimbursements required by subsection (d).
SEC. 5. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND FORFEITURE FOR
ALIENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Aliens Unlawfully Present.--Title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is amended by
adding after section 275 the following:
``criminal penalties for unlawful presence in the united states
``Sec. 275A. (a) In General.--In addition to any other
violation, an alien present in the United States in violation
of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both. The assets of any alien present in the
United States in violation of this Act shall be subject to
forfeiture under title 19, United States Code.
``(b) Affirmative Defense.--It shall be an affirmative
defense to a violation of subsection (a) that the alien
overstayed the time allotted under the alien's visa due to an
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or physical
illness that prevented the alien from leaving the United
States by the required date.''.
(b) Increase in Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry.--
Section 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1325(a)) is amended by striking ``6 months,'' and
inserting ``1 year,''.
SEC. 6. LISTING OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATORS IN THE NATIONAL
CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE.
(a) Provision of Information to the NCIC.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland
Security shall provide the National Crime Information Center
of the Department of Justice with such information as the
Director may have related to--
(A) any alien against whom a final order of removal has
been issued;
(B) any alien who is subject to a voluntary departure
agreement;
(C) any alien who has remained in the United States beyond
the alien's authorized period of stay; and
(D) any alien whose visa has been revoked.
(2) Requirement to provide and use information.--The
information described in paragraph (1) shall be provided to
the National Crime Information Center, and the Center shall
enter the information into the Immigration Violators File of
the National Crime Information Center database, regardless of
whether--
(A) the alien received notice of a final order of removal;
(B) the alien has already been removed; or
(C) sufficient identifying information is available for the
alien, such as a physical description of the alien.
(b) Inclusion of Information in the NCIC Database.--Section
534(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve records of
violations of the immigration laws of the United States,
regardless of whether the alien has received notice of the
violation, sufficient identifying information is available
for the alien, or the alien has already been removed; and''.
(c) Permission To Depart Voluntarily.--Section 240B of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``120'' and
inserting ``30''.
SEC. 7. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE
UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR
CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE
CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990.
(a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
construct or acquire, in addition to existing facilities for
the detention of aliens, 20 detention facilities in the
United States that have the capacity to detain a total of not
less than 10,000 individuals at any time for aliens detained
pending removal or a decision on removal of such alien from
the United States.
(2) Determination of location.--The location of any
detention facility built or acquired in accordance with this
subsection shall be determined by the Deputy Assistant
Director of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations
within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
(3) Use of installations under base closure laws.--In
acquiring detention facilities under this subsection, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent
practical, request the transfer of appropriate portions of
military installations approved for closure or realignment
under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note) for use in accordance with paragraph (1).
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 241(g)(1)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(g)(1))
is amended by striking ``may expend'' and inserting ``shall
expend''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this
section.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL CUSTODY OF ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENDED BY
STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.) is amended by adding
after section 240C the following:
``TRANSFER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM STATE TO FEDERAL CUSTODY
``Sec. 240D. (a) In General.--If the head of a law
enforcement entity of a State (or, if appropriate, a
political subdivision of the State) exercising authority with
respect to the apprehension or arrest of an illegal alien
submits a request to the Secretary of Homeland Security that
the alien be taken into Federal custody, the Secretary of
Homeland Security--
``(1) shall--
``(A) not later than 72 hours after the conclusion of the
State charging process or dismissal process, or if no State
charging or dismissal process is required, not later than 72
hours after the illegal alien is apprehended, take the
illegal alien into the custody of the Federal Government and
incarcerate the alien; or
``(B) request that the relevant State or local law
enforcement agency temporarily detain or transport the
illegal alien to a location for transfer to Federal custody;
and
``(2) shall designate at least one Federal, State, or local
prison or jail or a private contracted prison or detention
facility within each State as the central facility for that
State to transfer custody of criminal or illegal aliens to
the Department of Homeland Security.''.
``(b) Reimbursement.--
``(1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security
shall reimburse a State or a political subdivision of a State
for all reasonable expenses, as determined by the Secretary
of Homeland Security, incurred by the State or political
subdivision in the detention and transportation of a criminal
or illegal alien as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Cost computation.--Compensation provided for costs
incurred under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(1)
shall be--
``(A) the product of--
``(i) the average cost of incarceration of a prisoner in
the relevant State, as determined by the chief executive
officer of a State (or, as appropriate, a political
subdivision of the State); multiplied by
``(ii) the number of days that the alien was in the custody
of the State or political subdivision; added to
``(B) the cost of transporting the criminal or illegal
alien from the point of apprehension or arrest to the
location of detention, and if the location of detention and
of custody transfer are different, to the custody transfer
point.
``(c) Requirement for Appropriate Security.--The Secretary
of Homeland Security shall ensure that illegal aliens
incarcerated in Federal facilities pursuant to this
subsection are held in facilities which provide an
appropriate level of security.
``(d) Requirement for Schedule.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a regular
circuit and schedule for the prompt transfer of apprehended
illegal aliens from the custody of States and political
subdivisions of States to Federal custody.
[[Page S7857]]
``(2) Authority for contracts.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security may enter into contracts with appropriate State and
local law enforcement and detention officials to implement
this subsection.
``(e) Illegal Alien Defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term `illegal alien' means an alien who--
``(1) entered the United States without inspection or at
any time or place other than that designated by the Secretary
of Homeland Security;
``(2) was admitted as a nonimmigrant and who, at the time
the alien was taken into custody by the State or a political
subdivision of the State, had failed to--
``(A) maintain the nonimmigrant status in which the alien
was admitted or to which it was changed under section 248; or
``(B) comply with the conditions of any such status;
``(3) was admitted as an immigrant and has subsequently
failed to comply with the requirements of that status; or
``(4) failed to depart the United States under a voluntary
departure agreement or under a final order of removal.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Detention and
Transportation to Federal Custody of Aliens Not Lawfully
Present.--There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000
for the detention and removal of aliens not lawfully present
in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) for fiscal year 2006 and each
subsequent fiscal year.
SEC. 9. IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING OF STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
(a) Training Manual and Pocket Guide.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish--
(A) a training manual for law enforcement personnel of a
State or political subdivision of a State to train such
personnel in the investigation, identification, apprehension,
arrest, detention, and transfer to Federal custody of aliens
in the United States (including the transportation of such
aliens across State lines to detention centers and the
identification of fraudulent documents); and
(B) an immigration enforcement pocket guide for law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State to provide a quick reference for such personnel in
the course of duty.
(2) Availability.--The training manual and pocket guide
established in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be made
available to all State and local law enforcement personnel.
(3) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to require State or local law enforcement personnel
to carry the training manual or pocket guide established in
accordance with paragraph (1) with them while on duty.
(4) Costs.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be
responsible for any and all costs incurred in establishing
the training manual and pocket guide under this subsection.
(b) Training Flexibility.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
make training of State and local law enforcement officers
available through as many means as possible, including
residential training at the Center for Domestic Preparedness
of the Department of Homeland Security, onsite training held
at State or local police agencies or facilities, on-line
training courses by computer, teleconferencing, and
videotape, or the digital video display (DVD) of a training
course or courses.
(2) On-line training.--The head of the Distributed Learning
Program of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center shall
make training available for State and local law enforcement
personnel via the Internet through a secure, encrypted
distributed learning system that has all its servers based in
the United States, is sealable, survivable, and is capable of
having a portal in place within 30 days.
(3) Federal personnel training.--The training of State and
local law enforcement personnel under this section shall not
displace the training of Federal personnel.
(c) Clarification.--Nothing in this Act or any other
provision of law shall be construed as making any
immigration-related training a requirement for, or
prerequisite to, any State or local law enforcement officer
exercising the inherent authority of the officer to
investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer
to Federal custody illegal aliens during the normal course of
carrying out the law enforcement duties of the officer.
(d) Training Limitation.--Section 287(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``Such training shall not exceed 14 days or 80 hours,
whichever is longer.''.
SEC. 10. IMMUNITY.
(a) Personal Immunity.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a law enforcement officer of a State, or of a
political subdivision of a State, shall be immune, to the
same extent as a Federal law enforcement officer, from
personal liability arising out of the enforcement of any
immigration law. The immunity provided in this subsection
shall only apply to an officer of a State, or of a political
subdivision of a State, who is acting within the scope of
such officer's official duties.
(b) Agency Immunity.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a law enforcement agency of a State, or of a
political subdivision of a State, shall be immune from any
claim for money damages based on Federal, State, or local
civil rights law for an incident arising out of the
enforcement of any immigration law, except to the extent that
the law enforcement officer of that agency, whose action the
claim involves, committed a violation of Federal, State, or
local criminal law in the course of enforcing such
immigration law.
SEC. 11. PLACES OF DETENTION FOR ALIENS DETAINED PENDING
EXAMINATION OR DECISION ON REMOVAL.
(a) In General.--Section 241(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(g)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Policy on detention in state and local detention
facilities.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall ensure that an alien arrested under
section 287(a) is detained, pending the alien being taken for
the examination described in that section, in a State or
local prison, jail, detention center, or other comparable
facility, if--
``(A) such a facility is the most suitably located Federal,
State, or local facility available for such purpose under the
circumstances;
``(B) an appropriate arrangement for such use of the
facility can be made; and
``(C) such facility satisfies the standards for the
housing, care, and security of persons held in custody of a
United States marshal.''.
(b) Detention Facility Suitability.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a facility described in section
241(g)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added
by subsection (a), is adequate for detention of persons being
held for immigration related violations.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 241 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231) is amended by
striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
SEC. 12. INSTITUTIONAL REMOVAL PROGRAM.
(a) Continuation.--
(1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security shall
continue to operate and implement the program known on the
date of the enactment of this Act as the Institutional
Removal Program which--
(A) identifies removable criminal aliens in Federal and
State correctional facilities;
(B) ensures such aliens are not released into the
community; and
(C) removes such aliens from the United States after the
completion of their sentences.
(2) Expansion.--The Institutional Removal Program shall be
extended to all States. Any State that receives Federal funds
for the incarceration of criminal aliens shall--
(A) cooperate with Federal officials who carry out the
Institutional Removal Program;
(B) expeditiously and systematically identify criminal
aliens in its prison and jail populations; and
(C) promptly convey such information to the Federal
officials who carry out the Institutional Removal Program as
a condition for receiving such funds.
(b) Authorization for Detention After Completion of State
or Local Prison Sentence.--Law enforcement officers of a
State or political subdivision of a State have the authority
to--
(1) hold an illegal alien for a period of up to 14 days
after the alien has completed the alien's State prison
sentence in order to effectuate the transfer of the alien to
Federal custody when the alien is removable or not lawfully
present in the United States; or
(2) issue a detainer that would allow aliens who have
served a State prison sentence to be detained by the State
prison until personnel from the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement can take the alien into custody.
(c) Technology Usage.--Technology such as videoconferencing
shall be used to the maximum extent possible in order to make
the Institutional Removal Program available in remote
locations. Mobile access to Federal databases of aliens, such
as the IDENT database maintained by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, and live scan technology shall be used to the
maximum extent practicable in order to make these resources
available to State and local law enforcement agencies in
remote locations.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the Institutional Removal
Program--
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(2) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(4) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(5) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(6) $80,000,000 for each fiscal year after fiscal year
2011.
SEC. 13. CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to require law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State to--
(1) report the identity of a victim of, or a witness to, a
criminal offense to the Secretary of Homeland Security for
immigration enforcement purposes;
[[Page S7858]]
(2) arrest such victim or witness for a violation of the
immigration laws of the United States; or
(3) enforce the immigration laws of the United States.
SEC. 14. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, including any amendment made
by this Act, or the application of such provision to any
person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of
this Act, and the application of such provision to other
persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances,
shall not be affected by such invalidation.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1363. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent
dividends received from corporations in tax havens from receiving a
reduced tax rate; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my two
friends and Finance Committee colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator
Kerry, in filing legislation to close a loophole in the 2003 tax cut
bill. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003
provided for lower rates of taxation on dividend income. Formerly,
taxpayers paid ordinary income rates on dividend income. Now,
individuals who receive dividends are taxed at either a 15 percent for
upper-income taxpayers, or a 5-percent rate for lower-income taxpayers.
Further, in 2008, this lower rate becomes zero before the whole
provision expires in 2009.
The demand for lower rates was premised on the claim that dividend
income was subject to double taxation; that is, taxed once by the
corporate entity and then again by the shareholder. Assuming that is
the case, then if we are sure the corporate entity is not subject to
tax, the dividend should not be afforded the special rate. In fact, we
heard testimony today in the Taxation Subcommittee that corporations
with little or no taxes at the entity level really receive an
additional benefit from the dividend tax break.
Current law, however, allows dividends from ``qualified'' foreign
corporations to benefit from these lower rates if the company is based
in a U.S. possession, or based in a country with which the U.S. has a
tax treaty, or has stock which is traded on a U.S. stock exchange.
Senator Jeffords, Senator Kerry, and I have become concerned that the
definition of qualifying foreign corporations is overly broad and may
encompass companies in tax haven countries with little or no tax
system. Providing this special benefit for such companies simply
because its stock is traded on a U.S. exchange does not meet with the
original intent of the legislative change. Our bill would shut down
this loophole by modifying the ``stock exchange'' test to only allow
this special rate for companies based in countries with a comprehensive
income tax system. By doing this, we will address a current inequity
between dividend-paying stocks and make sure that only stock of
companies subject to tax at the corporate level enjoys this
preferential rate.
With every tax bill we enact, it is important to review the
provisions from time to time to make sure the law works as intended.
Here, I believe we have found a significant and unintended loophole.
Certainly, as we debate whether to extend, expand, or eliminate these
preferential rates, we should also be open to improvements in the
current law. I encourage my colleagues to join with us in working for
such an improvement.
______
By Mr. REED:
S. 1364. A bill to amend part A of title II of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 to enhance teacher training and teacher preparation
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Preparing,
Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals, PRREP, Act to
improve education and student achievement through high-quality
preparation, induction, and professional development for teachers,
early childhood education providers, principals, and administrators.
As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act,
we must ensure that educators receive the training and support
necessary to thrive in our Nation's early childhood programs,
elementary schools, and secondary schools. Improving teacher quality is
the single most effective measure we can take to increase student
achievement.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act we took an important
step toward demanding that all of the Nation's children are taught by
highly qualified teachers. To meet the law's definition, teachers are
generally required to hold a bachelor's degree, be fully certified by a
State, and to demonstrate content knowledge of the subjects they teach.
The deadline is looming, and the States are struggling to get all of
their teachers deemed highly qualified by the coming school year.
This struggle will not end at the initial deadline. Teacher turnover
regularly drains schools of their most important resource, qualified
educators. Higher standards for teacher credentials are essential, but
at the same time make it even more challenging for schools to staff
their classrooms. This is a critical moment for us to tackle persistent
teacher attrition and to foment teacher retention. At the same time, we
have an opportunity to support the development of educators so they not
only have the credentials, but also the skills and training to be truly
effective in the classroom. By strengthening the State, partnership,
and recruitment grants in Title II of the Higher Education Act, my
legislation will accomplish both of these important goals.
Teacher attrition undermines teacher quality and creates teacher
shortages. According to the National Commission on Teaching and
America's Future, one-third of beginning teachers leave the profession
within 3 years, and nearly one-half leave within 5 years. In high
poverty schools turnover rates are even worse--approximately one-third
higher than the rate for all teachers. A recent study in New York found
that teachers who leave are likely to have greater skills than those
who stay.
The Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals Act
focuses recruitment activities where high teacher turnover and
shortages exist, where students are having trouble meeting academic
standards, or where there is great difficulty demonstrating that
teachers are highly qualified. The grants also allow funds for outreach
to encourage recruitment in inner city and rural areas.
Teachers consistently cite lack of administrative support as a
primary reason for leaving a school and teaching altogether. My
legislation would create a year-long clinical learning experience for
prospective teachers, and establish a three-year residency program for
new teachers that provides comprehensive induction. The legislation
also includes provisions to develop managerial skills among principals
so they can provide the most effective instructional leadership and
classroom support for teachers during induction and beyond. Research
consistently shows that induction programs reduce the number of
teachers who leave their schools or the profession. Comprehensive
induction programs can cut that number by half or more.
Furthermore, my legislation promotes professional development
throughout a teacher's career and strengthens teacher preparation
programs so that teachers will reach their maximum potential to
positively affect student achievement. A focus on scientific knowledge
of teaching skills and methods of student learning will equip teachers
to understand and respond effectively to diverse student populations,
including students with disabilities, limited-English proficient
students, and students with different learning styles or other special
learning needs. The legislation also stresses the ability to integrate
technology into the classroom, strategies to effectively use
assessments to improve instructional practices and curriculum, and an
understanding of how to communicate with and involve parents in their
children's education.
My legislation further focuses on teaching skills and learning
strategies by including in the partnership grants academic departments
such as psychology, human development, or one with comparable expertise
in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent
development. It also ensures that States hold institutions of higher
education and entities that provide alternative routes to State
certification equally accountable for preparing highly qualified
teachers and
[[Page S7859]]
highly competent early childhood education providers.
The State, partnership, and recruitment grants are currently funded
at only $68 million a year--far too small of an investment for this
critical enterprise. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of
meeting the highly qualified requirements of No Child Left Behind, but
for real students in real classrooms. My bill significantly boosts this
funding, authorizing $500 million for these vital programs.
The PRREP Act is supported by a diverse array of education
organizations, including the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education, American Psychological Association, Council for
Exceptional Children, National Association of Elementary School
Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals,
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National
Association for the Education of Young Children, National Council of
Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and
National PTA.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1364
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preparing, Recruiting, and
Retaining Education Professionals Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.
Section 201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1021) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 201. PURPOSES; DEFINITIONS.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are to--
``(1) improve student achievement;
``(2) improve the quality of the current and future
teaching force by improving the preparation of prospective
teachers and enhancing ongoing professional development
activities;
``(3) encourage partnerships among institutions of higher
education, early childhood education programs, elementary
schools or secondary schools, local educational agencies,
State educational agencies, teacher organizations, and
nonprofit educational organizations;
``(4) hold institutions of higher education and all other
teacher preparation programs (including programs that provide
alternative routes to teacher preparation) accountable in an
equivalent manner for preparing--
``(A) teachers who have strong teaching skills, are highly
qualified, and are trained in the effective uses of
technology in the classroom; and
``(B) early childhood education providers who are highly
competent;
``(5) recruit and retain qualified individuals, including
individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force
for early childhood education programs or in elementary
schools or secondary schools;
``(6) improve the recruitment, retention, and capacities of
principals to provide instructional leadership and to support
teachers in maintaining safe and effective learning
environments;
``(7) expand the use of research to improve teaching and
learning by teachers, early childhood education providers,
principals, and faculty; and
``(8) enhance the ability of teachers, early childhood
education providers, principals, administrators, and faculty
to communicate with, work with, and involve parents in ways
that improve student achievement.
``(b) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Arts and sciences.--The term `arts and sciences'
means--
``(A) when referring to an organizational unit of an
institution of higher education, any academic unit that
offers 1 or more academic majors in disciplines or content
areas corresponding to the academic subject matter areas in
which teachers provide instruction; and
``(B) when referring to a specific academic subject matter
area, the disciplines or content areas in which academic
majors are offered by the arts and science organizational
unit.
``(2) Early childhood education program.--The term `early
childhood education program' means a family child care
program, center-based child care program, prekindergarten
program, school program, or other out-of-home child care
program that is licensed or regulated by the State serving 2
or more unrelated children from birth until school entry, or
a Head Start program carried out under the Head Start Act or
an Early Head Start program carried out under section 645A of
that Act.
``(3) Exemplary teacher.--The term `exemplary teacher' has
the meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(4) Faculty.--
``(A) In general.--The term `faculty' means individuals in
institutions of higher education who are responsible for
preparing teachers.
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `faculty' includes professors
of education and professors in academic disciplines such as
the arts and sciences, psychology, and human development.
``(5) High-need local educational agency.--The term `high-
need local educational agency' means a local educational
agency that serves an early childhood education program,
elementary school, or secondary school located in an area in
which--
``(A)(i) 15 percent or more of the students served by the
agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line;
``(ii) there are more than 5,000 students served by the
agency from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
``(iii) there are less than 600 students in average daily
attendance in all the schools that are served by the agency
and all of whose schools are designated with a school locale
code of 7 or 8, as determined by the Secretary; and
``(B)(i) there is a high percentage of teachers who are not
highly qualified; or
``(ii) there is a chronic shortage, or annual turnover rate
of 20 percent or more, of highly qualified teachers.
``(6) High-need school.--The term `high-need school' means
an early childhood education program, public elementary
school, or public secondary school--
``(A)(i) in which there is a high concentration of students
from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
``(ii) that, in the case of a public elementary school or
public secondary school, is identified as in need of school
improvement or corrective action pursuant to section 1116 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
``(B) in which there exists--
``(i) in the case of a public elementary school or public
secondary school, a persistent and chronic shortage, or
annual turnover rate of 20 percent or more, of highly
qualified teachers; and
``(ii) in the case of an early childhood education program,
a persistent and chronic shortage of early childhood
education providers who are highly competent.
``(7) Highly competent.--The term `highly competent' when
used with respect to an early childhood education provider
means a provider--
``(A) with specialized education and training in
development and education of young children from birth until
entry into kindergarten;
``(B) with--
``(i) a baccalaureate degree in an academic major in the
arts and sciences; or
``(ii) an associate's degree in a related educational area;
and
``(C) who has demonstrated a high level of knowledge and
use of content and pedagogy in the relevant areas associated
with quality early childhood education.
``(8) Highly qualified.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `highly qualified' has the meaning given the term in
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
``(B) Special education teachers.--When used with respect
to a special education teacher, the term `highly qualified'
has the meaning given the term in section 602 of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
``(9) Induction.--The term `induction' means a formalized
program designed to provide support for, improve the
professional performance of, and promote the retention in the
teaching field of, beginning teachers, and that--
``(A) shall include--
``(i) mentoring;
``(ii) structured collaboration time with teachers in the
same department or field;
``(iii) structured meeting time with administrators; and
``(iv) professional development activities; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) reduced teaching loads;
``(ii) support of a teaching aide;
``(iii) orientation seminars; and
``(iv) regular evaluation of the teacher inductee, the
mentors, and the overall formalized program.
``(10) Mentoring.--The term `mentoring' means a process by
which a teacher mentor who is an exemplary teacher, either
alone or in a team with faculty, provides active support for
prospective teachers and new teachers through a system for
integrating evidence-based practice, including rigorous,
supervised training in high-quality teaching settings. Such
support includes activities specifically designed to
promote--
``(A) knowledge of the scientific research on, and
assessment of, teaching and learning;
``(B) development of teaching skills and skills in
evidence-based educational interventions;
``(C) development of classroom management skills;
``(D) a positive role model relationship where academic
assistance and exposure to new experiences is provided; and
``(E) ongoing supervision and communication regarding the
prospective teacher's development of teaching skills and
continued support for the new teacher by the mentor, other
teachers, principals, and administrators.
[[Page S7860]]
``(11) Parent.--The term `parent' has the meaning given the
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
``(12) Parental involvement.--The term `parental
involvement' has the meaning given the term in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(13) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved.
``(14) Professional development.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `professional development' has the meaning given the
term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
``(B) Early childhood education providers.--The term
`professional development' when used with respect to an early
childhood education provider means knowledge and skills in
all domains of child development (including cognitive,
social, emotional, physical, and approaches to learning) and
pedagogy of children from birth until entry into
kindergarten.
``(15) Teaching skills.--The term `teaching skills' means
skills--
``(A) grounded in the disciplines of teaching and learning
that teachers use to create effective instruction in subject
matter content and that lead to student achievement and the
ability to apply knowledge; and
``(B) that require an understanding of the learning process
itself, including an understanding of--
``(i) the use of teaching strategies specific to the
subject matter;
``(ii) the application of ongoing assessment of student
learning, particularly for evaluating instructional practices
and curriculum;
``(iii) ensuring successful learning for students with
individual differences in ability and instructional needs;
``(iv) effective classroom management; and
``(v) effective ways to communicate with, work with, and
involve parents in their children's education.''.
SEC. 3. STATE GRANTS.
Section 202 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1022) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 202. STATE GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--From amounts made available under
section 211(1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized
to award grants under this section, on a competitive basis,
to eligible States to enable the eligible States to carry out
the activities described in subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible State.--
``(1) Definition.--In this part, the term `eligible State'
means--
``(A) a State educational agency; or
``(B) an entity or agency in the State responsible for
teacher certification and preparation activities.
``(2) Consultation.--The eligible State shall consult with
the Governor, State board of education, State educational
agency, State agency for higher education, State agency with
responsibility for child care, prekindergarten, or other
early childhood education programs, and other State entities
that provide professional development and teacher preparation
for teachers, as appropriate, with respect to the activities
assisted under this section.
``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to negate or supersede the legal authority under
State law of any State agency, State entity, or State public
official over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the
agency, entity, or official.
``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an eligible State shall, at the time of the
initial grant application, submit an application to the
Secretary that--
``(1) meets the requirements of this section and other
relevant requirements for States under this title;
``(2) describes how the eligible State intends to use funds
provided under this section in accordance with State-
identified needs;
``(3) describes the eligible State's plan for continuing
the activities carried out with the grant once Federal
funding ceases;
``(4) describes how the eligible State will coordinate
activities authorized under this section with other Federal,
State, and local personnel preparation and professional
development programs; and
``(5) contains such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may require.
``(d) Uses of Funds.--An eligible State that receives a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds to reform
teacher preparation requirements, and to ensure that current
and future teachers are highly qualified and possess strong
teaching skills and knowledge to assess student academic
achievement, by carrying out 1 or more of the following
activities:
``(1) Reforms.--Implementing reforms that hold institutions
of higher education with teacher preparation programs
accountable for, and assist such programs in, preparing
teachers who have strong teaching skills and are highly
qualified or early childhood education providers who are
highly competent. Such reforms shall include--
``(A) State program approval requirements regarding
curriculum changes by teacher preparation programs that
improve teaching skills based on scientific knowledge--
``(i) about the disciplines of teaching and learning,
including effective ways to communicate with, work with, and
involve parents in their children's education; and
``(ii) about understanding and responding effectively to
students with special needs, including students with
disabilities, limited-English proficient students, students
with low literacy levels, and students with different
learning styles or other special learning needs;
``(B) State program approval requirements for teacher
preparation programs to have in place mechanisms to measure
and assess the effectiveness and impact of teacher
preparation programs, including on student achievement;
``(C) assurances from institutions that such institutions
have a program in place that provides a year-long clinical
experience for prospective teachers;
``(D) collecting and using data, in collaboration with
institutions of higher education, schools, and local
educational agencies, on teacher retention rates, by school,
to evaluate and strengthen the effectiveness of the State's
teacher support system; and
``(E) developing methods and building capacity for teacher
preparation programs to assess the retention rates of the
programs' graduates and to use such information for
continuous program improvement.
``(2) Certification or licensure requirements.--Ensuring
the State's teacher certification or licensure requirements
are rigorous so that teachers have strong teaching skills and
are highly qualified.
``(3) Alternative routes to state certification.--Carrying
out programs that provide prospective teachers with high-
quality alternative routes to traditional preparation for
teaching and to State certification for well-prepared and
qualified prospective teachers, including--
``(A) programs at schools or departments of arts and
sciences, schools or departments of education within
institutions of higher education, or at nonprofit educational
organizations with expertise in producing highly qualified
teachers that include instruction in teaching skills;
``(B) a selective means for admitting individuals into such
programs;
``(C) providing intensive support, including induction,
during the initial teaching experience;
``(D) establishing, expanding, or improving alternative
routes to State certification of teachers for qualified
individuals, including mid-career professionals from other
occupations, paraprofessionals, former military personnel and
recent college graduates with records of academic
distinction, that have a proven record of effectiveness and
that ensure that current and future teachers possess strong
teaching skills and are highly qualified; and
``(E) providing support in the disciplines of teaching and
learning to ensure that prospective teachers--
``(i) have an understanding of evidence-based effective
teaching practices;
``(ii) have knowledge of student learning methods; and
``(iii) possess strong teaching skills, including effective
ways to communicate with, work with, and involve parents in
their children's education.
``(4) State certification reciprocity.--Establishing and
promoting reciprocity of certification or licensing between
or among States for general and special education teachers
and principals, except that no reciprocity agreement
developed pursuant to this paragraph or developed using
funds provided under this part may lead to the weakening
of any State certification or licensing requirement that
is shown through evidence-based research to ensure teacher
and principal quality and student achievement.
``(5) Recruitment and retention.--Developing and
implementing effective mechanisms to ensure that local
educational agencies, schools, and early childhood program
providers are able to effectively recruit and retain highly
qualified teachers, highly competent early childhood
education providers, and principals, and provide access to
ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers,
early childhood education providers, and principals,
including activities described in subsections (d) and (e) of
section 204.
``(6) Social promotion.--Development and implementation of
efforts to address the problem of social promotion and to
prepare teachers, principals, administrators, and parents to
effectively address the issues raised by ending the practice
of social promotion.''.
SEC. 4. PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.
Section 203 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1023) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 203. PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.
``(a) Grants.--From amounts made available under section
211(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized to
award grants under this section, on a competitive basis, to
eligible partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to
carry out the activities described in subsections (d) and
(e).
``(b) Definitions.--
``(1) Eligible partnership.--In this part, the term
`eligible partnership' means an entity that--
``(A) shall include--
``(i) a partner institution;
``(ii) a school or department of arts and sciences within
the partner institution under clause (i);
[[Page S7861]]
``(iii) a school or department of education within the
partner institution under clause (i);
``(iv)(I) a department of psychology within the partner
institution under clause (i);
``(II) a department of human development within the partner
institution under clause (i); or
``(III) a department with comparable expertise in the
disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent
development within the partner institution under clause (i);
``(v) a high-need local educational agency; and
``(vi)(I) a high-need school served by the high-need local
educational agency under clause (v); or
``(II) a consortium of schools of the high-need local
educational agency under clause (v); and
``(B) may include a Governor, State educational agency, the
State board of education, the State agency for higher
education, an institution of higher education not described
in subparagraph (A) (including a community college), a public
charter school, other public elementary school or secondary
school, a combination or network of urban, suburban, or rural
schools, a public or private nonprofit educational
organization, a business, a teacher organization, or an early
childhood education program.
``(2) Partner institution.--In this section, the term
`partner institution' means a private independent or State-
supported public institution of higher education, or a
consortium of such institutions, that has not been designated
under section 208(a) and the teacher preparation program of
which demonstrates that--
``(A) graduates from the teacher preparation program who
intend to enter the field of teaching exhibit strong
performance on State-determined qualifying assessments and
are highly qualified; or
``(B) the teacher preparation program requires all the
students of the program to participate in intensive clinical
experience, to meet high academic standards, to possess
strong teaching skills, and--
``(i) in the case of prospective elementary school and
secondary school teachers, to become highly qualified; and
``(ii) in the case of prospective early childhood education
providers, to become highly competent.
``(c) Application.--Each eligible partnership desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require. Each such
application shall--
``(1) contain a needs assessment of all the partners with
respect to the preparation, ongoing training, and
professional development of early childhood education
providers, general and special education teachers, and
principals, the extent to which the program prepares new
teachers with strong teaching skills, a description of how
the partnership will coordinate strategies and activities
with other teacher preparation or professional development
programs, and how the activities of the partnership will be
consistent with State, local, and other education reform
activities that promote student achievement and parental
involvement;
``(2) contain a resource assessment that describes the
resources available to the partnership, including the
integration of funds from other related sources, the intended
use of the grant funds, including a description of how the
grant funds will be fairly distributed in accordance with
subsection (f), and the commitment of the resources of the
partnership to the activities assisted under this part,
including financial support, faculty participation, time
commitments, and continuation of the activities when the
grant ends;
``(3) contain a description of--
``(A) how the partnership will meet the purposes of this
part, in accordance with the needs assessment required under
paragraph (1);
``(B) how the partnership will carry out the activities
required under subsection (d) and any permissible activities
under subsection (e) based on the needs identified in
paragraph (1) with the goal of improving student achievement;
``(C) the partnership's evaluation plan pursuant to section
206(b);
``(D) how faculty at the partner institution will work
with, over the term of the grant, principals and teachers in
the classrooms of the high-need local educational agency
included in the partnership;
``(E) how the partnership will enhance the instructional
leadership and management skills of principals and provide
effective support for principals, including new principals;
``(F) how the partnership will design, implement, or
enhance a year-long, rigorous, and enriching preservice
clinical program component;
``(G) the in-service professional development strategies
and activities to be supported; and
``(H) how the partnership will collect, analyze, and use
data on the retention of all teachers, early childhood
education providers, or principals in schools located in the
geographic areas served by the partnership to evaluate the
effectiveness of its educator support system;
``(4) contain a certification from the partnership that it
has reviewed the application and determined that the grant
proposed will comply with subsection (f);
``(5) include, for the residency program described in
subsection (d)(3)--
``(A) a demonstration that the schools and departments
within the institution of higher education that are part of
the residency program have relevant and essential roles in
the effective preparation of teachers, including content
expertise and expertise in the science of teaching and
learning;
``(B) a demonstration of capability and commitment to
evidence-based teaching and accessibility to, and involvement
of, faculty documented by professional development offered to
staff and documented experience with university
collaborations;
``(C) a description of how the residency program will
design and implement an induction period to support all new
teachers through the first 3 years of teaching in the further
development of their teaching skills, including use of
mentors who are trained and compensated by such program for
their work with new teachers; and
``(D) a description of how faculty involved in the
residency program will be able to substantially participate
in an early childhood education program or an elementary or
secondary classroom setting, including release time and
receiving workload credit for their participation; and
``(6) include an assurance that the partnership has
mechanisms in place to measure and assess the effectiveness
and impact of the activities to be undertaken, including on
student achievement.
``(d) Required Uses of Funds.--An eligible partnership that
receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds
to carry out the following activities, as applicable to
teachers, early childhood education providers, or principals,
in accordance with the needs assessment required under
subsection (c)(1):
``(1) Reforms.--Implementing reforms within teacher
preparation programs, where needed, to hold the programs
accountable for preparing teachers who are highly qualified
or early childhood education providers who are highly
competent and for promoting strong teaching skills, including
integrating reliable evidence-based teaching methods into the
curriculum, which curriculum shall include parental
involvement training and programs designed to successfully
integrate technology into teaching and learning. Such reforms
shall include--
``(A) teacher preparation program curriculum changes that
improve, and assess how well all new teachers develop,
teaching skills;
``(B) use of scientific knowledge about the disciplines of
teaching and learning so that all prospective teachers--
``(i) understand evidence-based teaching practices;
``(ii) have knowledge of student learning methods; and
``(iii) possess teaching skills that enable them to meet
the learning needs of all students;
``(C) assurances that all teachers have a sufficient base
of scientific knowledge to understand and respond effectively
to students with special needs, such as providing instruction
to diverse student populations, including students with
disabilities, limited-English proficient students, students
with low literacy levels, and students with different
learning styles or other special learning needs;
``(D) assurances that the most recent scientifically based
research, including research relevant to particular fields of
teaching, is incorporated into professional development
activities used by faculty; and
``(E) working with and involving parents in their
children's education to improve the academic achievement of
their children and in the teacher preparation program reform
process.
``(2) Clinical experience and interaction.--Developing and
providing sustained and high-quality preservice clinical
education programs to further develop the teaching skills of
all general education teachers and special education
teachers, at schools within the partnership, at the school or
department of education within the partner institution, or
at evidence-based practice school settings. Such programs
shall--
``(A) incorporate a year-long, rigorous, and enriching
activity or combination of activities, including--
``(i) clinical learning opportunities;
``(ii) field experiences; and
``(iii) supervised practice; and
``(B) be offered over the course of a program of
preparation and coursework (that may be developed as a 5th
year of a teacher preparation program) for prospective
general and special education teachers, including mentoring
in instructional skills, classroom management skills,
collaboration skills, and strategies to effectively assess
student progress and achievement, and substantially
increasing closely supervised interaction between faculty and
new and experienced teachers, principals, and other
administrators at early childhood education programs,
elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing
support, including preparation time and release time, for
such interaction.
``(3) Residency programs for new teachers.--Creating a
residency program that provides an induction period for all
new general education and special education teachers for such
teachers' first 3 years. Such program shall promote the
integration of the science of teaching and learning in the
classroom, provide high-quality induction opportunities
(including mentoring), provide opportunities for the
dissemination of evidence-based research on educational
practices, and provide for opportunities to engage in
professional
[[Page S7862]]
development activities offered through professional
associations of educators. Such program shall draw directly
upon the expertise of teacher mentors, faculty, and
researchers that involves their active support in providing a
setting for integrating evidence-based practice for
prospective teachers, including rigorous, supervised training
in high-quality teaching settings that promotes the
following:
``(A) Knowledge of the scientific research on teaching and
learning.
``(B) Development of skills in evidence-based educational
interventions.
``(C) Faculty who model the integration of research and
practice in the classroom, and the effective use and
integration of technology.
``(D) Interdisciplinary collaboration among exemplary
teachers, faculty, researchers, and other staff who prepare
new teachers on the learning process and the assessment of
learning.
``(E) A forum for information sharing among prospective
teachers, teachers, principals, administrators, and
participating faculty in the partner institution.
``(F) Application of scientifically based research on
teaching and learning generated by entities such as the
Institute of Education Sciences and by the National Research
Council.
``(4) Professional development.--Creating opportunities for
enhanced and ongoing professional development for experienced
general education and special education teachers, early
childhood education providers, principals, administrators,
and faculty that--
``(A) improves the academic content knowledge, as well as
knowledge to assess student academic achievement and how to
use the results of such assessments to improve instruction,
of teachers in the subject matter or academic content areas
in which the teachers are certified to teach or in which the
teachers are working toward certification to teach;
``(B) promotes strong teaching skills and an understanding
of how to apply scientific knowledge about teaching and
learning to their teaching practice and to their ongoing
classroom assessment of students;
``(C) provides mentoring, team teaching, reduced class
schedules, and intensive professional development;
``(D) encourages and supports training of teachers,
principals, and administrators to effectively use and
integrate technology--
``(i) into curricula and instruction, including training to
improve the ability to collect, manage, and analyze data to
improve teaching, decisionmaking, school improvement efforts,
and accountability; and
``(ii) to enhance learning by children, including students
with disabilities, limited-English proficient students,
students with low literacy levels, and students with
different learning styles or other special learning needs;
``(E) offers teachers, principals, and administrators
training on how to effectively communicate with, work with,
and involve parents in their children's education;
``(F) creates an ongoing retraining loop for experienced
teachers, principals, and administrators, whereby the
residency program activities and practices--
``(i) inform the research of faculty and other researchers;
and
``(ii) translate evidence-based research findings into
improved practice techniques and improved teacher preparation
programs; and
``(G) includes the rotation, for varying periods of time,
of experienced teachers--
``(i) who are associated with the partnership to early
childhood education programs, elementary schools, or
secondary schools not associated with the partnership in
order to enable such experienced teachers to act as a
resource for all teachers in the local educational agency or
State; and
``(ii) who are not associated with the partnership to early
childhood education programs, elementary schools, or
secondary schools associated with the partnership in order to
enable such experienced teachers to observe how teaching
and professional development occurs in the partnership.
``(5) Support and training for participants.--Providing
support and training for those individuals participating in
the required activities under paragraphs (1) through (4) who
serve as role models or mentors for prospective, new, and
experienced teachers, based on such individuals' experience.
Such support--
``(A) also may be provided to the preservice clinical
experience participants, as appropriate; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) release time for such individual's participation;
``(ii) receiving course workload credit and compensation
for time teaching in the partnership activities; and
``(iii) stipends.
``(6) Leadership and managerial skills.--
``(A) In general.--Developing and implementing proven
mechanisms to provide principals, superintendents, early
childhood education program directors, and administrators
(and mentor teachers, as practicable) with--
``(i) an understanding of the skills and behaviors that
contribute to effective instructional leadership and the
maintenance of a safe and effective learning environment;
``(ii) teaching and assessment skills needed to support
successful classroom teaching;
``(iii) an understanding of how students learn and develop
in order to increase achievement for all students; and
``(iv) the skills to effectively involve parents.
``(B) Mechanisms.--The mechanisms developed and implemented
pursuant to subparagraph (A) may include any of the
following:
``(i) Mentoring of new principals.
``(ii) Field-based experiences, supervised practica, or
internship opportunities.
``(iii) Other activities to expand the knowledge base and
practical skills of principals, superintendents, early
childhood education program directors, and administrators
(and mentor teachers, as practicable).
``(e) Allowable Uses of Funds.--An eligible partnership
that receives a grant under this section may use such funds
to carry out the following activities:
``(1) Dissemination and coordination.--Broadly
disseminating information on effective practices used by the
partnership, including teaching strategies and interactive
materials for developing skills in classroom management and
assessment and how to respond to individual student needs,
abilities, and backgrounds, to early childhood education
providers and teachers in elementary schools or secondary
schools that are not associated with the partnership.
Coordinating with the activities of the Governor, State board
of education, State higher education agency, and State
educational agency, as appropriate.
``(2) Curriculum preparation.--Supporting preparation time
for early childhood education providers, teachers in
elementary schools or secondary schools, and faculty to
jointly design and implement teacher preparation curricula,
classroom experiences, and ongoing professional development
opportunities that promote the acquisition and continued
growth of teaching skills.
``(3) Communication skills.--Developing strategies and
curriculum-based professional development activities to
enhance prospective teachers' communication skills with
students, parents, colleagues, and other education
professionals.
``(4) Coordination with other institutions of higher
education.--Coordinating with other institutions of higher
education, including community colleges, to implement teacher
preparation programs that support prospective teachers in
obtaining baccalaureate degrees and State certification or
licensure.
``(5) Teacher recruitment.--Activities described in
subsections (d) and (e) of section 204.
``(6) Program improvement.--Developing, for teacher
preparation program improvement purposes, methods and
infrastructure to assess retention rates in the teaching
field of teacher preparation program graduates and the
achievement outcomes of such graduates' students.
``(f) Special Rule.--No individual member of an eligible
partnership shall retain more than 50 percent of the funds
made available to the partnership under this section.
``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit an eligible partnership from using
grant funds to coordinate with the activities of more than 1
Governor, State board of education, State educational agency,
local educational agency, or State agency for higher
education.''.
SEC. 5. RECRUITMENT GRANTS.
Section 204 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1024) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 204. RECRUITMENT GRANTS.
``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts made available
under section 211(3) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is
authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to
eligible applicants to enable the eligible applicants to
carry out activities described in subsections (d) and (e).
``(b) Eligible Applicant Defined.--In this part, the term
`eligible applicant' means--
``(1) an eligible State described in section 202(b) that
has--
``(A) high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates; or
``(B) high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates of 20
percent or more in high-need local educational agencies; or
``(2) an eligible partnership described in section 203(b)
that--
``(A) serves not less than 1 high-need local educational
agency with high teacher shortages or annual turnover rates
of 20 percent or more;
``(B) serves schools that demonstrate great difficulty
meeting State challenging academic content standards; or
``(C) demonstrates great difficulty meeting the requirement
that teachers be highly qualified.
``(c) Application.--Any eligible applicant desiring to
receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including--
``(1) a description of the assessment that the eligible
applicant, and the other entities with whom the eligible
applicant will carry out the grant activities, have
undertaken to determine the most critical needs of the
participating high-need local educational agencies;
``(2) a description of how the eligible applicant will
recruit and retain highly qualified teachers or other
qualified individuals, including principals and early
childhood education providers, or both, who are enrolled in,
accepted to, or plan to participate in
[[Page S7863]]
teacher preparation programs or professional development
activities, as described under section 203, in geographic
areas of greatest need, including data on the retention rate,
by school, of all teachers in schools located within the
geographic areas served by the eligible applicant;
``(3) a description of the activities the eligible
applicant will carry out with the grant; and
``(4) a description of the eligible applicant's plan for
continuing the activities carried out with the grant once
Federal funding ceases.
``(d) Required Uses of Funds.--An eligible applicant
receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant
funds--
``(1)(A) to award scholarships to help students pay the
costs of tuition, room, board, and other expenses of
completing a teacher preparation program;
``(B) to provide support services, if needed, to enable
scholarship recipients to complete postsecondary education
programs;
``(C) for followup services (including induction
opportunities, mentoring, and professional development
activities) provided to former scholarship recipients during
the recipients first 3 years of teaching; and
``(D) in the case where the eligible applicant also
receives a grant under section 203, for support and training
for mentor teachers who participate in the residency program;
or
``(2) to develop and implement effective mechanisms,
including a professional development system and career
ladders, to ensure that high-need local educational agencies,
high-need schools, and early childhood education programs are
able to effectively recruit and retain highly competent early
childhood education providers, highly qualified teachers, and
principals.
``(e) Allowable Use of Funds.--An eligible applicant
receiving a grant under this section may use the grant funds
to carry out the following:
``(1) Outreach.--Conducting outreach and coordinating with
urban and rural secondary schools to encourage students to
pursue teaching as a career.
``(2) Early childhood education compensation.--For eligible
applicants focusing on early childhood education,
implementing initiatives that increase compensation of early
childhood education providers who attain degrees in early
childhood education.
``(3) Program improvement.--Developing, for teacher
preparation program improvement purposes, methods and
infrastructure to assess retention rates in the teaching
field of teacher preparation program graduates and the
achievement outcomes of such graduates' students.
``(f) Service Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish
such requirements as the Secretary finds necessary to ensure
that recipients of scholarships under this section who
complete teacher education programs subsequently teach in a
high-need local educational agency, for a period of time
equivalent to the period for which the recipients receive
scholarship assistance, or repay the amount of the
scholarship. The Secretary shall use any such repayments to
carry out additional activities under this section.''.
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
Section 205 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1025) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``One-Time Awards;'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Composition of panel.--The peer review panel shall be
composed of experts who are competent, by virtue of their
training, expertise, or experience, to evaluate applications
for grants under this part. A majority of the panel shall be
composed of individuals who are not employees of the Federal
Government.'';
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Evaluation and priority.--The peer review panel shall
evaluate the applicants' proposals to improve the current and
future teaching force through program and certification
reforms, teacher preparation program activities (including
implementation and assessment strategies), and professional
development activities described in sections 202, 203, and
204, as appropriate. In recommending applications to the
Secretary for funding under this part, the peer review panel
shall--
``(A) with respect to grants under section 202, give
priority to eligible States that--
``(i) have initiatives to reform State program approval
requirements for teacher preparation programs that are
designed to ensure that current and future teachers are
highly qualified and possess strong teaching skills,
knowledge to assess student academic achievement, and the
ability to use this information in such teachers' classroom
instruction;
``(ii) include innovative reforms to hold institutions of
higher education with teacher preparation programs
accountable for preparing teachers who are highly
qualified and have strong teaching skills; or
``(iii) involve the development of innovative efforts aimed
at reducing the shortage of--
``(I) highly qualified teachers in high-poverty urban and
rural areas; and
``(II) highly qualified teachers in fields with
persistently high teacher shortages, including special
education;
``(B) with respect to grants under section 203--
``(i) give priority to applications from eligible
partnerships that involve broad participation within the
community, including businesses; and
``(ii) take into consideration--
``(I) providing an equitable geographic distribution of the
grants throughout the United States; and
``(II) the potential of the proposed activities for
creating improvement and positive change; and
``(C) with respect to grants under section 204, give
priority to eligible applicants that have in place, or in
progress, articulation agreements between 2- and 4-year
public and private institutions of higher education and
nonprofit providers of professional development with
demonstrated experience in professional development
activities.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The
Secretary may use available funds appropriated to carry out
this part to pay the expenses and fees of peer review panel
members who are not employees of the Federal Government.'';
and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Technical Assistance.--For each fiscal year, the
Secretary may expend not more than $500,000 or 0.75 percent
of the funds appropriated to carry out this title for such
fiscal year, whichever amount is greater, to provide
technical assistance to States and partnerships receiving
grants under this part.''.
SEC. 7. ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION.
Section 206 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1026) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Committee on Labor and Human Resources'' and inserting
``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, including,'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``as a highly
qualified teacher.'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``highly''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``that
meet the same standards and criteria of State certification
or licensure programs.'';
(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Teacher and provider qualifications.--
``(A) Elementary and secondary school classes.--Increasing
the percentage of elementary school and secondary school
classes taught by teachers--
``(i) who have strong teaching skills and are highly
qualified;
``(ii) who have completed preparation programs that provide
such teachers with the scientific knowledge about the
disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent
development so the teachers understand and use evidence-based
teaching skills to meet the learning needs of all students;
or
``(iii) who have completed a residency program throughout
their first 3 years of teaching that includes mentoring by
faculty who are trained and compensated for their work with
new teachers.
``(B) Early childhood education programs.--Increasing the
percentage of classrooms in early childhood education
programs taught by providers who are highly competent.'';
(E) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Decreasing shortages.--Decreasing shortages of--
``(A) qualified teachers and principals in poor urban and
rural areas; and
``(B) qualified teachers in fields with persistently high
teacher shortages, including special education.''; and
(F) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
``(6) Increasing opportunities for professional
development.--Increasing opportunities for enhanced and
ongoing professional development that--
``(A) improves--
``(i) the knowledge and skills of early childhood education
providers;
``(ii) the knowledge of teachers in special education;
``(iii) the knowledge of general education teachers,
principals, and administrators about special education
content and instructional practices;
``(iv) the knowledge and skills to assess student academic
achievement and use the results of such assessments to
improve instruction;
``(v) the knowledge of subject matter or academic content
areas--
``(I) in which the teachers are certified or licensed to
teach; or
``(II) in which the teachers are working toward
certification or licensure to teach; or
``(vi) the knowledge and skills to effectively communicate
with, work with, and involve parents in their children's
education;
``(B) promotes strong teaching skills and an understanding
of how to apply scientific knowledge about teaching and
learning to teachers' teaching practice and to teachers'
ongoing classroom assessment of students; and
[[Page S7864]]
``(C) provides enhanced instructional leadership and
management skills for principals.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``for'' and inserting ``for teachers, early childhood
education providers, or principals, as appropriate, according
to the needs analysis required under section 203(c)(1),
for''; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (1) through (6) and inserting
the following:
``(1) increased demonstration by program graduates of
teaching skills grounded in scientific knowledge about the
disciplines of teaching and learning;
``(2) increased student achievement for all students as
measured by the partnership, including mechanisms to measure
student achievement due to the specific activities conducted
by the partnership;
``(3) increased teacher retention in the first 3 years of a
teacher's career based, in part, on teacher retention data
collected as described in section 203(c)(3)(H);
``(4) increased success in the pass rate for initial State
certification or licensure of teachers;
``(5) increased percentage of elementary school and
secondary school classes taught by teachers who are highly
qualified;
``(6) increased percentage of early childhood education
program classes taught by providers who are highly competent;
``(7) increased percentage of early childhood education
programs and elementary school and secondary school classes
taught by providers and teachers who demonstrate clinical
judgment, communication, and problem-solving skills resulting
from participation in a residency program;
``(8) increased percentage of highly qualified special
education teachers;
``(9) increased number of general education teachers
trained in working with students with disabilities, limited-
English proficient students, and students with different
learning styles or other special learning needs;
``(10) increased number of teachers trained in technology;
and
``(11) increased number of teachers, early childhood
education providers, or principals prepared to work
effectively with parents.''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``, with particular attention to the
reports and evaluations provided by the eligible States and
eligible partnerships pursuant to this section,'' after
``funded under this part''; and
(B) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources''
and inserting ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions''.
SEC. 8. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROGRAMS THAT PREPARE TEACHERS.
Section 207 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1027) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as
subsections (a) through (e), respectively;
(3) in subsection (a), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``,
within 2 years'' and all that follows through ``the
following'' and inserting ``, on an annual basis and in a
uniform and comprehensible manner that conforms with the
definitions and reporting methods previously developed for
teacher preparation programs by the Commissioner of the
National Center for Education Statistics, a State report card
on the quality of teacher preparation in the State, which
shall include not less than the following'';
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``teaching candidates'' and inserting
``prospective teachers''; and
(ii) by striking ``candidate'' and inserting ``prospective
teacher'';
(C) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking ``teaching candidates'' and inserting
``prospective teachers'';
(ii) by striking ``teacher candidate'' and inserting
``prospective teacher''; and
(iii) by striking ``candidate's'' and inserting
``teacher's'';
(D) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``how the State has
ensured that the alternative certification routes meet the
same State standards and criteria for teacher certification
or licensure,'' after ``if any,'';
(E) in paragraph (8)--
(i) by striking ``teacher candidate'' and inserting
``prospective teacher''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(including the ability to provide
instruction to diverse student populations (including
students with disabilities, limited-English proficient
students, and students with different learning styles or
other special learning needs) and the ability to effectively
communicate with, work with, and involve parents in their
children's education)'' after ``skills'';
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Information on the extent to which teachers or
prospective teachers in each State are prepared to work in
partnership with parents and involve parents in their
children's education.'';
(4) in subsection (b)(1), as redesignated by paragraph
(2)--
(A) by striking ``not later than 6 months of the date of
enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and'';
(B) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)'';
(C) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources''
and inserting ``Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions''; and
(D) by striking ``not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998'';
(5) in subsection (c)(1), as redesignated by paragraph
(2)--
(A) by striking ``(9) of subsection (b)'' and inserting
``(10) of subsection (a)''; and
(B) by striking ``and made available not later than 2 years
6 months after the date of enactment of the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 and annually thereafter'' and inserting
``, and made available annually''; and
(6) in subsection (e)(1), as redesignated by paragraph
(2)--
(A) by striking ``not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 and
annually thereafter, shall report'' and inserting ``shall
report annually''; and
(B) by striking ``methods established under subsection
(a)'' and inserting ``reporting methods developed for teacher
preparation programs''.
SEC. 9. STATE FUNCTIONS.
Section 208 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1028) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``, not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998,'';
(B) by inserting ``and within entities providing
alternative routes to teacher preparation'' after
``institutions of higher education'';
(C) by inserting ``and entities'' after ``low-performing
institutions'';
(D) by inserting ``and entities'' after ``those
institutions''; and
(E) by striking ``207(b)'' and inserting ``207(a)'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Teacher Quality Plan.--In order to receive funds
under this Act, a State shall submit a State teacher quality
plan that--
``(1) details how such funds will ensure that all teachers
are highly qualified; and
``(2) indicates whether each teacher preparation program in
the State that has not been designated as low-performing
under subsection (a) is of sufficient quality to meet all
State standards and produce highly qualified teachers with
the teaching skills needed to teach effectively in the
schools of the State.'';
(4) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``of Education''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``of this Act''; and
(5) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection
(c)(2)''.
SEC. 10. ACADEMIES FOR FACULTY EXCELLENCE.
Part A of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 210 as section 211; and
(2) by inserting after section 209 the following:
``SEC. 210. ACADEMIES FOR FACULTY EXCELLENCE.
``(a) Program Authorized.--From amounts made available
under subsection (e), the Secretary is authorized to award
grants to eligible entities to enable such entities to create
Academies for Faculty Excellence.
``(b) Eligible Entity.--In this section:
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible entity' means a
consortium composed of institutions of higher education
that--
``(A) award doctoral degrees in education; and
``(B) are partner institutions (as such term is defined in
section 203).
``(2) Inclusions.--The term `eligible entity' may include
the following:
``(A) Institutions of higher education that--
``(i) do not award doctoral degrees in education; and
``(ii) are partner institutions (as such term is defined in
section 203).
``(B) Nonprofit entities with expertise in preparing highly
qualified teachers.
``(c) Application.--An eligible entity desiring to receive
a grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including--
``(1) a description of how the eligible entity will provide
professional development that is grounded in scientifically
based research to faculty;
``(2) evidence that the eligible entity is well versed in
current scientifically based research related to teaching and
learning across content areas and fields;
``(3) a description of the assessment that the eligible
entity will undertake to determine the most critical needs of
the faculty who will be served by the Academies for Faculty
Excellence; and
``(4) a description of the activities the eligible entity
will carry out with grant funds received under this section,
how the entity will include faculty in the activities, and
how the entity will conduct these activities in collaboration
with programs and projects that receive Federal funds from
the Institute of Education Sciences.
``(d) Required Use of Funds.--Each eligible entity that
receives a grant under this
[[Page S7865]]
section shall use the grant funds to enhance the caliber of
teaching undertaken in preparation programs for teachers,
early childhood education providers, and principals and other
administrators through the establishment and maintenance of a
postdoctoral system of professional development by carrying
out the following:
``(1) Recruitment.--Recruit a faculty of experts who are
knowledgeable about scientifically based research related to
teaching and learning, who have direct experience working
with teachers and students in school settings, who are
capable of implementing scientifically based research to
improve teaching practice and student achievement in school
settings, and who are capable of providing professional
development to faculty and others responsible for preparing
teachers, early childhood education providers, principals,
and administrators.
``(2) Professional development curricula.--Develop a series
of professional development curricula to be used by the
Academies for Faculty Excellence and disseminated broadly to
teacher preparation programs nationwide.
``(3) Professional development experiences.--Support the
development of a range of ongoing professional development
experiences (including the use of the Internet) for faculty
to ensure that such faculty are knowledgeable about effective
evidence-based practice in teaching and learning. Such
experiences shall promote joint faculty activities that link
content and pedagogy.
``(4) Development programs.--Provide fellowships,
scholarships, and stipends for teacher educators to
participate in various faculty development programs offered
by the Academies for Faculty Excellence.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.''.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 211 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
redesignated by section 10, is amended--
(1) by striking ``part $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999''
and inserting ``part, other than section 210, $500,000,000
for fiscal year 2006'';
(2) by striking ``4 succeeding'' and inserting ``5
succeeding'';
(3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``45'' and inserting
``20'';
(4) in paragraph (2), by striking ``45'' and inserting
``60''; and
(5) in paragraph (3), by striking ``10'' and inserting
``20''.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith, and
Mr. Schumer):
S. 1366. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by Senators
Snowe, Kerry, Smith, and Schumer in re-introducing legislation we call
the Public Good IRA Rollover Act to allow taxpayers to make tax-free
distributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for
gifts to charity. I think that the charitable IRA rollover approach in
this legislation, which has received strong support from the charitable
community, will encourage significant new giving.
As a Nation, we often look to a strong network of charities, large
and small, to offer financial and other support to families and
individuals who need help when government assistance is unavailable.
That is why I think it's critically important for Congress to do
everything we can to help encourage the work of worthy charities.
Unfortunately, Congress has tried but failed in the past several
years to pass major legislation that would be helpful to the Nation's
charities. This legislation has stalled, in part, because of the
efforts of some in Congress to add controversial measures that
undermine the bipartisan support needed to enact this kind of
legislation into law.
One of the non-controversial tax incentives included in the Senate's
version of that legislation is our measure that would permit
individuals to make gifts to charities from their IRAs without adverse
tax consequences. I have previously described on the Senate floor that
charities are frequently asked by people about using their IRAs to make
charitable donations. However, I'm told that many donors decide not to
make a gift from their IRAs after they are told about the potential tax
consequences under current law.
The Public Good IRA Rollover Act would eliminate this obstacle.
Specifically, the bill we are introducing today would allow individuals
to make tax-free distributions to charities from their IRAs at the age
of 70\1/2\ for direct gifts and age 59\1/2\ for life-income gifts.
These changes to the Tax Code could put billions of additional dollars
from a new source to work for the public good.
Tax-favored charitable IRA rollovers have previously garnered broad
bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the U.S.
Senate. In fact, the Senate-passed CARE Act in the last Congress
included the provisions of our bill.
The Bush administration also supports charitable IRA rollovers. In
his FY 2006 budget submission, President Bush has proposed, once again,
to allow individuals to make certain tax-free charitable IRA
distributions after age 65. While the President's charitable IRA
proposal has merit, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act is superior in one
important respect: By allowing tax-free life-income gifts from an IRA.
Life-income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where
the giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined
period. Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise
funds, and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from
IRAs. But life-income gifts are not part of the administration's
proposal. Again, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act permits individuals
to make tax-free life-income gifts at the age of 59\1/2\.
When the Senate Finance Committee crafts charitable giving tax
incentive legislation in the 109th Congress, I hope they will adopt,
once again, the IRA charitable rollover approach used in the Public
Good IRA Rollover Act. The benefits of this approach are two-fold.
First, the life-income gift provision in our bill would stimulate
additional charitable giving. The evidence also suggests that people
who make life-income gifts often become more involved with charities.
They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues to make
charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions for
charity in their life-time giving plans and at death. Second, this
approach comes at little or no extra cost to the government when
compared to other major charitable IRA rollover proposals.
In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to review and consider
cosponsoring this bill. With your help, we can help enact into law tax-
free IRA rollover provisions that a senior official from a major
charity once said would be ``the single most important piece of
legislation in the history of public charitable support in this
country.''
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 1367. A bill to provide for recruiting, selecting, training, and
supporting national teacher corps in underserved communities; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Reid,
Senator DeWine, and Senator Clinton to introduce a bill to authorize
funding for the Teach for America program. Teach for America, TFA,
calls upon our Nation's most promising future leaders, recent college
graduates of all backgrounds and academic majors, to spend two years
teaching in schools in lower income areas, usually inner cities or
rural communities. Our legislation authorizes up to $25 million so that
the highly successful program, which began as a privately funded, non-
profit effort, can rapidly expand.
TFA was founded in 1990 by Wendy Kopp, a young woman who had just
graduated from Princeton. It served just six communities in that first
year. Today it serves 22, and hopes to keep growing. TFA raises more
than 75 percent of its operating budget through non-Federal sources,
primarily through philanthropic gifts in the communities it serves.
The results of this program have been notable, as reported in a study
last year by Mathematica Policy Research, an independent research firm:
``Even though Teach for America teachers generally lack any formal
teacher training beyond that provided by Teach for America, they
produce higher student test scores than the other teachers in their
schools--not just other novice teachers or uncertified teachers, but
also veterans and certified teachers.''
Probably more exciting than the success of the program in teaching
students is the impact it has had on its ``corps members.'' Teach for
America
[[Page S7866]]
isn't just for education majors, it's primarily there to attract highly
successful college graduates who wouldn't otherwise go into education.
Of its 9,000 alumni, 60 percent are still involved in education today.
The 2005 National Teacher of the Year, Jason Kamras, a teacher here in
Washington, DC, who was honored in a Rose Garden ceremony by President
Bush, is an alumnus of Teach for America. And my own education policy
advisor is also an alumna of the program.
So, in addition to providing better education for students in poorer
school systems, this program is creating a new cadre of highly talented
and highly motivated individuals who now understand what it's like to
teach in a classroom and who are dedicated to improving our education
system. That's probably the greatest benefit of the program.
And that's why I'm glad to join the Senator from Nevada in
introducing this legislation to provide Federal funding to help TFA
expand to new communities and recruit even more corps members.
Teach for America is aiming to grow from 3,000 to 8,000 corps
members, from 22 to 35 regional sites, and from 250,000 to 700,000
students by 2010. To reach these growth goals, the program must recruit
more than 4,000 new teachers each year by 2010, and it must grow its
total annual budget from $40 million today to $100 million by 2010.
The legislation that Senator Reid and I offer today will not turn
Teach for America into a Federal program, but it will supplement their
privately raised funds to help TFA attain their worthy goals. The bill
provides up to $25 million to that end. Interest by college graduates
in TFA is very high--17,000 applied for the 2,100 teaching slots last
year. Additional funding will allow more of those 17,000 to serve
poorer children in classrooms across the country.
In the upcoming issue of U.S. News and World Report, there is an
excellent article about Teach for America by David Gergen. I ask
unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
I hope other Senators will join with the Senator from Nevada and I in
supporting this important legislation. Teach for America has helped
more than 1 million students and is creating a highly talented pool of
individuals to advance our education system into the next century.
Providing Federal support to this non-profit program will help it
expand not only to help more students, but also to create an even wider
and stronger pool of talented individuals to advocate the best for our
schools for decades to come.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the U.S. News & World Report, July 4, 2005]
A Teacher Success Story
(By David Gergen)
With tribal warfare spreading in politics, corporate
chieftains heading to jail, the news media sinking, and
casualties rising in Iraq, it's easy these days to be
discouraged. No wonder over 60 percent of Americans think the
country has swerved off track. But hold on. To lift your
spirits, just spend a little time with leaders of the younger
generation.
This spring on many college campuses, something absolutely
remarkable happened: Talented young people lined up by the
scores to teach lower-income kids in urban and rural public
schools. In years past, investment banks like Goldman Sachs
were the recruiting powerhouses at top campuses; this year,
they were joined by Teach for America, a program that
expresses the fresh idealism and social values of this new
generation.
At Yale, no fewer than 12 percent of the graduating
seniors--nearly 1 out of every 8--applied. At Dartmouth and
Amherst, some 11 percent did; at Harvard and Princeton, 8
percent. Hundreds more signed up at Northwestern, Boston
College, the University of Texas, and the University of
California-Los Angeles. Altogether, over 17,000 seniors
applied for 2,100 openings.
A few words of background: Sixteen years ago, Teach for
America was merely an idea in a thesis by a Princeton senior,
Wendy Kopp. She thought the country needed an organization
modeled after the Peace Corps that would attract top college
graduates into classrooms with poor kids. With thesis in
hand, she bravely ventured out to raise money, find recruits,
and find school superintendents who would hire them. Kopp
experienced the bumps and detours of every new start-up, but
a year later, she had 500 recruits.
This summer, the newest class of teachers will enroll in a
five-week training institute to prepare them for the
classroom. In the fall, they will report for work at some of
the toughest public schools in America, classified by the
federal government as ``high need.'' Some 95 percent of their
students will be minorities. Each member of the program is
committed to two years of teaching, paid by the local school
systems at the same rate as other starting teachers; at the
end of their service, they may qualify for a $9,500
scholarship for graduate study.
As you can imagine, skeptics have popped up all along the
way: professors at schools of education scoffing that college
graduates who haven't enrolled in formal teacher education
will never succeed in the classroom; cynics who say that
these are just a bunch of elitist kids punching their tickets
to make it into law or business school who will then turn
their backs on social reform. Well, the doubters just don't
get this young generation.
A year ago, Mathematica Policy Research found that students
of Teach for America recruits got better results in math and
the same gains in reading as did those of other teachers,
including veteran instructors. In math, the TFA students made
a month more progress than other students. The results partly
reflect the fact that 70 percent of Teach for America
volunteers come from among the nation's most highly rated
colleges, compared with fewer than 3 percent of other
teachers; the results also reflect the passion that these
volunteers bring to their work.
Dedicated to the cause. The 10,000 alumni of TFA have not
turned their backs after their service, either. The
organization says that nearly two thirds still work full time
in education, most in low-income communities. TFA alum Jason
Kamras, a math teacher in a Washington, D.C., public school,
was just named national teacher of the year. Two other
alumni, Mike Feinberg and David Levin, founded and now run
what is probably the most successful set of charter schools
in the country: the KIPP academies (Knowledge Is Power
Program). Started in Houston and New York, the academies have
become a network of 38 schools in low-income communities that
demand extra studies by students, balance that with
extracurricular activities like martial arts, music, chess,
and sports, and--guess what?--have achieved the largest and
quickest improvement in learning around the country. No fewer
than 25 principals in KIPP schools are alumni of Teach for
America.
What does all this mean? First, the nation owes a debt of
gratitude to Wendy Kopp. She represents the emergence of a
new breed of social entrepreneur, talented doers who are
unleashing their generation's innovation and idealism to
address long-standing social problems. Even as they struggle
for the resources to turn their visions into reality, the
success of Kopp and others shows that this has the makings of
a social movement.
But it also shows that the rest of us need to wake up and
see what we can do to help. It's time for the country to
embrace the national service movement with serious money--not
the cheap change we are putting today into AmeriCorps. It's
time to scale up nonprofits so that when 17,000 kids
volunteer, there are 17,000 openings. It's time, in short, to
recognize the greatness that lies in the next generation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Alexander in
introducing this legislation authorizing Teach for America to recruit,
select, train, and support its national teacher corps in underserved
communities.
This bill comes at a crucial time. Federal law now requires more from
our teachers, yet we have dwindling resources to draw from.
Many local education agencies are finding themselves having to
supplement their teacher corps.
Clark County, NV, is the fifth largest school district in the
Nation--in the fastest growing State. As one can only imagine, the
influx of new residents has an incredible impact on our public works,
especially our schools.
Clark County's outgoing superintendent told me that the district
spends close to $1 million annually for teacher recruitment efforts
across the country.
Clark County School District has made great strides in its commitment
to reversing the trend of sagging high school graduation rates and
college attendance by hiring nearly 2,000 new teachers a year to fill
its classrooms.
But, last year, the school district did something that several other
urban and rural districts around the country did: they partnered with
Teach for America in order to augment their qualified teaching staffs.
Founded by Wendy Kopp, who conceived the idea for the program in her
senior thesis at Princeton, Teach for America recruits some of the
Nation's best college graduates to become teachers in low-performing
urban or rural school districts for 2 years.
From the 500 college graduates who began teaching in its inaugural
year,
[[Page S7867]]
Teach for America has grown to more than 3,100 corps members teaching
in 21 regions across the country.
Indeed, this highly selective program--in which only 2,000 out of
16,000 applicants were accepted in 2003--has a powerful impact on the
communities in which it serves.
This legislation authorizes Teach for America to receive $25 million
to execute several activities related to teacher readiness,
recruitment, and placement. Reports are also required, citing the
progress of the Teach for America corps members.
I would not be Senator if it had not been for a couple of dedicated
teachers. One teacher was Ms. Dorothy Robinson. Ms. Robinson pulled me
out of class one day and said, ``Harry, I've watched your progress and
I really think you should go to college and become a lawyer.''
I said, ``OK,'' and went back to class.
That is why I have dedicated myself at the Federal level to ensure
that Teach for America and Clark County have the resources they need to
continue this partnership.
____________________