[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1058-S1073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 371. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
clarify the house parent exemption to certain wage and hour 
requirements; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that is 
near and dear to my heart, because it involves children and youth in 
our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, 
coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling 
the private, non-profit organizations and institutions that make up a 
necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most 
vulnerable in our society, the children.
  More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any 
given time, because their own families are in crisis or unable to 
provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been 
subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most of these children are 
able to be placed with individual caring families. But for those 
children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed 
in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system.
  Many of these group homes are specially tailored to the specific 
needs of foster care children by offering unique programs and on-site 
education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced.
  These homes--often run by private, non-profit organizations--are 
dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the ``orphans 
of the living,'' and they have long been a vital part of the social 
service networks in America's communities.
  An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of 
caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional 
parenting, the houseparents of group foster homes seek to provide the 
same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five 
to eight children that reside with them.
  Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in 
order to create a family- like environment for those without a true 
sense of home--one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most 
vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of 
society.
  Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and 
life-long connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest 
role in helping foster children transition into society.
  However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing 
group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children 
and preventing them from providing the most appropriate and consistent 
care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family- like 
situation can provide. And this is what my amendment seeks to address.
  Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, houseparents 
have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of 
charge.
  In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role 
houseparents serve when it passed the Hershey Exemption. This amended 
the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of 
compensation for houseparents--and allowed the lodging and food 
provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary 
for married houseparents serving with their spouse at nonprofit 
educational institutions.
  Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital 
social services to continue to be provided by non-profit organizations 
in a way that is cost-effective, and at the same time appropriate and 
meaningful to both the children and the houseparents.
  However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of 
America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now 
shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they 
may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single 
houseparent of the same sex.
  Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the 
ever-changing needs of these children.
  Because the Hershey Exemption was only extended to married couples, 
group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what 
is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the 
situation

[[Page S1059]]

place these facilities in a compromising situation.
  You see, when a group home employs a single houseparent for a home, 
they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married 
houseparents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried 
employees.
  As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 
annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time, 
single houseparent using the traditional live-in model.
  In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of houseparents 
that work in 8 or 12 hour shifts--just to avoid the additional costs of 
overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough 
coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also 
destroys the family-like arrangement of the home.
  If the minimum wage bill--to which I am offering this bill as an 
amendment--passes, it will cost facilities across the U.S. in excess of 
$84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time houseparent in 
a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married 
couple serving in the same environment it would only require minimum 
wage guidelines being met.
  Can you see how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will 
continue to be, crippling for the private, non-profit facilities?
  In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and 
consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment 
will extend the Hershey Exemption to single houseparents, allowing them 
to be treated as salaried employees when free lodging and board are 
provided.
  Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, non-profit group 
homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities, 
with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children.
  Voting against this amendment will--that is, allowing it not to 
pass--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these 
facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have 
to scale back on the number of children they can help.
  To vote against this amendment is to turn children out on the street 
at a time when they need us most.
  As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my 
children and for my grandchildren--I want to make sure they have 
whatever they need to overcome the obstacles of life and succeed. This 
is also what we should seek for foster children and the hurting youth 
in our communities--to provide the loving homes and facilities for them 
that provide what they need most and in the most appropriate and 
consistent way possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
reprinted in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 371

       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 ``Appropriate and Consistent 
     Care for Youth Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Private, nonprofit organizations dedicated to providing 
     residential care and treatment for children have long been a 
     vital part of the social service networks America's 
     communities.
       (2) No longer just serving orphans, these institutions tend 
     to the needs of the ``orphans of the living'', children and 
     youth who are unable to remain in their natural homes due to 
     emotional conflicts, life adjustment problems, relationship 
     disturbances, and spiritual and psychological scaring 
     associated with sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.
       (3) The effectiveness of these institutions in caring for 
     these troubled and abused children has long been due to the 
     love, care, and supervision provided by residential 
     houseparents.
       (4) These houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at 
     the group home in which they work in order to create a family 
     environment for those without a true sense of home, one that 
     offers a structured atmosphere where these vulnerable youth 
     can heal, grow, and become productive members of society.
       (5) Traditionally, these houseparents have received food, 
     lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge, in 
     addition to a fixed salary.
       (6) Congress recognized the unique role houseparents serve, 
     and passed the Hershey Exemption (section 13(b)(24) of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212(b)(24))) in 
     1974 to assist with the provision of houseparents for 
     orphaned and disadvantaged youth by allowing for lodging and 
     food provided free of cost to be considered when determining 
     an appropriate salary for married houseparents serving with 
     their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions.
       (7) Since the addition of the Hershey Exemption, research 
     shows that due to the negative experiences some troubled 
     youth have faced, they find a better environment for growth 
     in having a single houseparent of the same sex.
       (8) Because the wage provision under the Hershey Exemption 
     was extended only to married houseparents serving with their 
     spouse, the Department of Labor has enforced a rule that 
     single houseparents need to be reimbursed on a 24-hour-a-day 
     basis, even for time they are sleeping or otherwise not 
     directly caring for residents of the home, and regardless of 
     the provision of free lodging, food, and other services.
       (9) This has placed an undue financial burden on these 
     nonprofit institutions who wish to provide the best possible 
     care for their residents, forcing some homes to close and 
     others to adopt an employment model where ``teams'' of 
     houseparents work 8-hour sifts to care for residents. This 
     ``team'' model drives up the cost and destroys the family-
     like arrangement of the home.
       (10) In order to provide for a more appropriate and 
     consistent care for these foster children and troubled youth, 
     this Act seeks to extend the Hershey Exemption to single 
     houseparents residing in educational institutions where they 
     receive lodging and board free of charge.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

       Section 13(b)(24) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 212(b)(24)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``and his spouse''; and
       (2) in the matter following subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``and his spouse reside'' and inserting 
     ``resides'';
       (B) by striking ``receive'' and inserting ``receives''; and
       (C) by striking ``are together'' and inserting ``is''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Craig, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 374. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
the same capital gains treatment for art and collectibles as for other 
investment property and to provide that a deduction equal to fair 
market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary, 
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again 
legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the 
Internal Revenue Code. I would like to thank my colleague, the senior 
Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, for again working with me on 
this important piece of legislation.
  The bill we are introducing today is designed to restore some 
internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art and artists. 
No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though it has 
always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar 
taxpayers similarly.
  Our bill would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers 
are not treated the same. These two areas are internal inconsistencies 
contained within the tax code. Internal inconsistency number one deals 
with the long-term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art 
and collectibles. The second internal inconsistency involves how 
charitable contributions of art by the artist are treated under the 
law.
  Long-term capital gains tax treatment of art is inherently unfair. If 
a person invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax 
treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 
15 percent. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles 
the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not 
incur a higher tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact 
on the pocketbook of the investor.
  Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an 
investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one 
investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may 
lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those 
who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.
  Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have 
a diverse colony of artists, collectors and

[[Page S1060]]

gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters 
and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. 
L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all 
chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John 
Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, 
Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, 
and Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating 
art in New Mexico.
  Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual 
industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and 
collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.
  Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. 
Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but 
little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, 
Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of 
painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it 
difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.
  When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta 
ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has 
challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the 
definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic 
calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized 
by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from 
every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; 
and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of 
public good.
  Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, 
they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be 
sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a 
source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, 
Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates 
of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending 
September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in 
terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates 
of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, 
collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long-
term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia 
Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that 
painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.
  I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no 
guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.
  In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there 
an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered 
``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so 
interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial 
markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.
  Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles 
are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't 
appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond 
prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may 
be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are 
investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the 
same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.
  Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will 
benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what 
winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes 
from collectors.
  Collecting isn't just for the hoyty toity. It seems that everyone 
collects something. Some collections are better investments than 
others. Some collections are just bizarre. The internet makes 
collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. 
In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia 
pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, 
teddy bears, and guns are a few such ``collectibles''.
  For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, 
but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has 
created a tax predicament--to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles 
are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on 
any appreciation over your purchase price.
  The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top 
capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.
  As I stated earlier, the second internal inconsistency deals with the 
charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or 
other charitable cause. When someone is asked to make a charitable 
contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't 
matter whether that person is an artist or not. Under current law, 
however, it makes a big difference. As the law stands now, an artist/
creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art 
supplies. Our bill will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.
  It's important to note that our bill includes certain safeguards to 
keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill 
applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if 
the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, 
has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the 
charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other 
charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross 
income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of 
AGI limit. Mr. President, I believe these safeguards bring fairness 
back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential 
abuse.
  I hope my colleagues will help us put this internal consistency into 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 374

       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 ``Art and Collectibles Capital 
     Gains Tax Treatment Parity Act''.

     SEC. 2. CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT FOR ART AND COLLECTIBLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to maximum capital gains rate) is amended 
     by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) 28-percent rate gain.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `28-percent rate gain' means the excess 
     (if any) of--
       ``(A) section 1202 gain, over
       ``(B) the sum of--
       ``(i) the net short-term capital loss, and
       ``(ii) the amount of long-term capital loss carried under 
     section 1212(b)(1)(B) to the taxable year.
       ``(5) Reserved.--.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 3. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN ITEMS CREATED BY 
                   THE TAXPAYER.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 170 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain 
     contributions of ordinary income and capital gain property) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Special rule for certain contributions of literary, 
     musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution--
       ``(i) the amount of such contribution taken into account 
     under this section shall be the fair market value of the 
     property contributed (determined at the time of such 
     contribution), and
       ``(ii) no reduction in the amount of such contribution 
     shall be made under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Qualified artistic charitable contribution.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution' means a charitable contribution of 
     any literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly composition, or 
     similar property, or the copyright thereon (or both), but 
     only if--
       ``(i) such property was created by the personal efforts of 
     the taxpayer making such contribution no less than 18 months 
     prior to such contribution,
       ``(ii) the taxpayer--

       ``(I) has received a qualified appraisal of the fair market 
     value of such property in accordance with the regulations 
     under this section, and
       ``(II) attaches to the taxpayer's income tax return for the 
     taxable year in which such contribution was made a copy of 
     such appraisal,

[[Page S1061]]

       ``(iii) the donee is an organization described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A),
       ``(iv) the use of such property by the donee is related to 
     the purpose or function constituting the basis for the 
     donee's exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a 
     governmental unit, to any purpose or function described under 
     section 501(c)),
       ``(v) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written 
     statement representing that the donee's use of the property 
     will be in accordance with the provisions of clause (iv), and
       ``(vi) the written appraisal referred to in clause (ii) 
     includes evidence of the extent (if any) to which property 
     created by the personal efforts of the taxpayer and of the 
     same type as the donated property is or has been--

       ``(I) owned, maintained, and displayed by organizations 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(A), and
       ``(II) sold to or exchanged by persons other than the 
     taxpayer, donee, or any related person (as defined in section 
     465(b)(3)(C)).

       ``(C) Maximum dollar limitation; no carryover of increased 
     deduction.--The increase in the deduction under this section 
     by reason of this paragraph for any taxable year--
       ``(i) shall not exceed the artistic adjusted gross income 
     of the taxpayer for such taxable year, and
       ``(ii) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount which may be carried from such taxable year under 
     subsection (d).
       ``(D) Artistic adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `artistic adjusted gross income' means 
     that portion of the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for 
     the taxable year attributable to--
       ``(i) income from the sale or use of property created by 
     the personal efforts of the taxpayer which is of the same 
     type as the donated property, and
       ``(ii) income from teaching, lecturing, performing, or 
     similar activity with respect to property described in clause 
     (i).
       ``(E) Paragraph not to apply to certain contributions.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any charitable 
     contribution of any letter, memorandum, or similar property 
     which was written, prepared, or produced by or for an 
     individual while the individual is an officer or employee of 
     any person (including any government agency or 
     instrumentality) unless such letter, memorandum, or similar 
     property is entirely personal.
       ``(F) Copyright treated as separate property for partial 
     interest rule.--In the case of a qualified artistic 
     charitable contribution, the tangible literary, musical, 
     artistic, or scholarly composition, or similar property and 
     the copyright on such work shall be treated as separate 
     properties for purposes of this paragraph and subsection 
     (f)(3).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 376. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the 
provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law 
enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Campbell and I, joined by 
68 other Senators, introduced a bill that allowed a qualified retired 
or current law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm across 
State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, which was 
signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Safety 
Officers Act was a resounding vote of confidence in the men and women 
who serve their communities as protectors of the peace, and their 
Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency.
  But since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, it 
has become clear that qualified retired officers have been subject to 
varying and complex certification procedures from State to State. In 
many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the 
implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced 
significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a 
firearm.
  With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes 
modest amendments to streamline the current law, which will give 
retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification, and 
provides room for the variability in certification standards among the 
several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty 
standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the 
standards set by any law enforcement agency in the State.
  In addition to these adjustments, the bill also makes clear that 
Amtrak officers, along with officers of the Executive branch of the 
Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces from 
15 to 10 the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify 
under the law. Though these changes broaden the reach of the law, the 
requirements for eligibility still involve a significant term of 
service for a retired officer to qualify, and a demonstrated commitment 
to law enforcement.
  This bill makes sensible improvements to existing law by providing 
the flexibility needed to permit qualified retired law enforcement 
officers to carry concealed firearms in a legal and responsible manner.
  With the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 
Congress and the President also recognized that law enforcement 
officers are never ``off-duty.'' The dedicated public servants who are 
trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not 
just in their professional lives, but also when they go off-duty or 
into retirement. Convicted criminals often have long and exacting 
memories, and to the extent we can, we must aid these public servants 
with the tools they need to keep themselves and their families safe. 
Because one thing we know for sure is that a law enforcement officer is 
a target, whether in uniform or out, and whether active or retired. We 
also act in our own interest when we help law enforcement officers with 
the ability to answer the call of duty wherever they may be. Society's 
trust in the men and women who serve should include the faith that the 
responsibilities we entrust to them do not disappear once State lines 
are crossed.
  In 2004, Congress listened carefully to the concerns of the law 
enforcement community and responded appropriately. Let us do so again 
with these sensible improvements.
  I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 376

       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers 
     Safety Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY 
                   PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

       (a) In General.--Section 926B of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement 
     officer of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement 
     or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal 
     Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency 
     who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or 
     the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, 
     and has statutory powers of arrest.''.
       (b) Retired Law Enforcement Officers.--Section 926C of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``was regularly 
     employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 
     years or more'' and inserting ``served as a law enforcement 
     officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at 
     the expense of the individual, the standards for 
     qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement 
     officers as set by the officer's former agency, the State in 
     which the officer resides or a law enforcement agency within 
     the State in which the officer resides;''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to meet the standards 
     established by the agency for training and qualification for 
     active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the 
     same type as the concealed firearm; or'' and inserting ``to 
     meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms 
     training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of 
     the same type as the concealed firearm or''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``otherwise found by 
     the State to meet the standards established by the State for 
     training and qualification for active law enforcement 
     officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed 
     firearm.'' and inserting ``otherwise found by the State or a 
     certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a 
     firearms qualification test for active duty officers within 
     that State to have met--
       ``(i) the active duty standards for qualification in 
     firearms training as established by the State to carry a 
     firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
       ``(ii) if the State has not established such standards, 
     standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State 
     to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed 
     firearm.''; and

[[Page S1062]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) In this section, the term `service with a public 
     agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a 
     law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as 
     a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch 
     of the Federal Government.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 377. A bill to establish a United States-Poland parliamentary 
youth exchange program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation urging 
the Administration to develop a United States-Poland Parliamentary 
Youth Exchange Program. I am pleased that my colleague from Indiana, 
Congressman Pete Visclosky, has agreed to again introduce this 
important legislation in the House of Representatives. I appreciate his 
strong leadership in our continued joint efforts in this and many other 
areas.
  The purpose of this exchange program is to demonstrate to the youth 
of the United States and Poland the benefits of friendly cooperation 
between the U.S. and Poland based on common political and cultural 
values. I have long been an active supporter of the Congress-Bundestag 
Exchange program and am hopeful that this new endeavor will make 
similarly important lasting contributions to the U.S.-Polish 
relationship.
  As a Rhodes Scholar, I had the opportunity to discover international 
education at Pembroke College--my first trip outside of the United 
States. The parameters of my imagination expanded enormously during 
this time, as I gained a sense of how large the world was, how many 
talented people there were, and how many opportunities one could 
embrace. Student exchange programs do more than benefit individual 
scholars and advance human knowledge. Such programs expand ties between 
nations, improve international commerce, encourage cooperative 
solutions to global problems, prevent war, and give participants a 
chance to develop a sense of global service and responsibility.
  Funding a great foreign exchange program is a sign of both national 
pride and national humility. Implicit in such a program is the view 
that people from other nations view one's country and educational 
system as a beacon of knowledge--as a place where international 
scholars would want to study and live. But it is also an admission that 
a nation does not have all the answers--that our national understanding 
of the world is incomplete. It is an admission that we are just a part 
of a much larger world that has intellectual, scientific, and moral 
wisdom that we need to learn.
  The United States and Poland have enjoyed close bilateral relations 
since the end of the Cold War. Most recently, Poland has been a strong 
supporter of efforts led by the United States to combat global 
terrorism, and has contributed troops to and led coalitions in both 
Afghanistan and Iraq. Poland also cooperates closely with the United 
States on such issues as democratization, human rights, regional 
cooperation in Eastern Europe, and reform of the United Nations. As a 
member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the 
European Union (EU), Poland has demonstrated its commitment to 
democratic values and is a role model in its region.
  I believe that it is important to invest in the youth of the United 
States and Poland in order to strengthen long-lasting ties between both 
societies. After receiving for many years international and U.S. 
financial assistance, Poland is now determined to invest its own 
resources toward funding a U.S.-Poland exchange program. To this end 
the Polish Foreign Minister unambiguously stated that Poland welcomed 
the opportunity to be an equal partner in funding important efforts.
  Last year the Senate approved a similar version of this legislation 
by unanimous consent. I ask my colleagues to again support this 
resolution.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 378. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect 
judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims, and their family members, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was disappointed at the end of last 
Congress that, like so much other urgent business of the American 
people left unattended, we did not pass a measure to improve court 
security. We made some progress on this important issue when the Senate 
passed a consensus bipartisan court security bill. Unfortunately we 
were unable to cross the finish line because the House Republican 
leadership did not take up this bill. And so that still eaves our 
Nation's judges and their families without the vital protections that 
bill would have provided.
  Today, I join with other Senators on both sides of the aisle to try 
again. Along with the Majority Leader Senator Reid; the Judiciary 
Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Specter; the Majority Whip, Senator 
Durbin; and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Cornyn, Hatch and Collins, I 
introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, a consensus 
measure with bipartisan support nearly identical to the bill we passed 
in the Senate last December. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers is 
introducing an identical measure in the House with bipartisan support. 
This bi-cameral, bi-partisan introduction sends a strong message that 
we intend finally to finish this difficult struggle and enact this bill 
that should have been enacted months ago to increase protections for 
the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country.
  This is an important issue, and one I plan to make a priority this 
Congress. I hope that we can have quick action on this bill to bring to 
fruition our efforts to provide increased security, an effort that 
gained new urgency after the tragedy that befell Judge Joan Lefkow of 
Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were 
murdered in their home. As we heard in her courageous testimony in May 
2005 before the Judiciary Committee, this tragedy provided a terrible 
reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their 
families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges both 
where they work and where they and their families live. The shooting 
last summer of a State judge in Nevada provided another terrible 
reminder of the vulnerable position of our Nation's State and Federal 
judges. We cannot tolerate or excuse or justify violence or the threat 
of violence against judges.
  In a speech last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the 
uncivil tone of attacks on the courts, noting that they pose a danger 
to the very independence of the Federal judiciary. It is most 
unfortunate that some in this country have chosen to use dangerous and 
irresponsible rhetoric when talking about judges, comparing judges to 
terrorists and threatening judges with punishment for decisions they do 
not like. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against 
judges and it must stop, for the sake of our judges and the 
independence of the judiciary. Judicial fairness and independence are 
essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. Our independent judiciary 
is the envy of the rest of the world and a great source of our national 
strength and resilience. Let no one say things that might bring about 
further threats against our judges. We ought to be protecting them 
physically and institutionally.
  When I last chaired the Judiciary Committee, one of my first efforts 
was pushing for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened 
criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. In 
order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping the Federal 
judiciary safe, in the last Congress Chairman Specter and I introduced 
S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005.
  The bill we are introducing today in the Senate and House is a 
consensus bipartisan bill. I hope that quick action and passage of this 
bill can serve as a model for what we can achieve with bipartisan 
cooperation in the 110th Congress. Its core provisions, which 
previously passed the Senate not only last December, but also in June 
as part of the managers' package of the ``John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' S. 2766, come the Court 
Security Improvement Act of 2005.
  The bill responds to the needs expressed by the Federal judiciary for 
a

[[Page S1063]]

greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to 
determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for 
the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to 
harm Federal judges, their families or other individuals performing 
official duties. It enacts criminal penalties for threatening Federal 
judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of 
false liens, and provides increased protections for witnesses. The bill 
also contains provisions making available to States new resources to 
improve security for State and local court systems as well as providing 
additional protections for law enforcement officers. I am pleased that 
the bill includes an extension of life insurance benefits to 
bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges.
  Finally, the bill contains provisions that have passed the Senate 
several times extending and expanding to family members the authority 
of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a Federal 
judge's mandatory financial disclosure. This expired redaction 
authority was used in circumstances in which the release of the 
information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. I hope that 
we can reinstate and expand this much needed redaction authority.
  These protections are crucial to the preservation of the independence 
of our Federal judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark 
protecting individual rights and liberty. Our Nation's Founders knew 
that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from 
the political branches of government, those rights and privileges would 
amount to nothing. It is the ultimate check and balance in our system 
of government in times of heated political rhetoric.
  We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families 
from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary 
to do their vital and difficult jobs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 378

       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 ``Court Security Improvement 
     Act of 2007''.

          TITLE I--JUDICIAL SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING

     SEC. 101. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Ensuring Consultation With the Judiciary.--Section 566 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) The Director of the United States Marshals Service 
     shall consult with the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States on a continuing basis regarding the security 
     requirements for the judicial branch of the United States 
     Government, to ensure that the views of the Judicial 
     Conference regarding the security requirements for the 
     judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken into 
     account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities 
     for programs regarding judicial security, and allocating 
     judicial security resources. In this paragraph, the term 
     `judicial security' includes the security of buildings 
     housing the judiciary, the personal security of judicial 
     officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial 
     officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. 
     The United States Marshals Service retains final authority 
     regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of 
     the Federal Government.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 331 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``The Judicial Conference shall consult with the Director 
     of United States Marshals Service on a continuing basis 
     regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch 
     of the United States Government, to ensure that the views of 
     the Judicial Conference regarding the security requirements 
     for the judicial branch of the Federal Government are taken 
     into account when determining staffing levels, setting 
     priorities for programs regarding judicial security, and 
     allocating judicial security resources. In this paragraph, 
     the term `judicial security' includes the security of 
     buildings housing the judiciary, the personal security of 
     judicial officers, the assessment of threats made to judicial 
     officers, and the protection of all other judicial personnel. 
     The United States Marshals Service retains final authority 
     regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of 
     the Federal Government.''.

     SEC. 102. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

       Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
     (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member 
     of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family 
     member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

     SEC. 103. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 105(b)(3) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended by 
     striking ``2005'' each place that term appears and inserting 
     ``2009''.
       (b) Report Contents.--Section 105(b)(3)(C) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) the nature or type of information redacted;
       ``(v) what steps or procedures are in place to ensure that 
     sufficient information is available to litigants to determine 
     if there is a conflict of interest;
       ``(vi) principles used to guide implementation of redaction 
     authority; and
       ``(vii) any public complaints received in regards to 
     redaction.''.

     SEC. 104. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES TAX COURT.

       (a) In General.--Section 566(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``and the Court of International 
     Trade'' and inserting ``, the Court of International Trade, 
     and any other court, as provided by law''.
       (b) Internal Revenue Code.--Section 7456(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incidental powers of the 
     Tax Court) is amended in the matter following paragraph (3), 
     by striking the period at the end, and inserting ``and may 
     otherwise provide for the security of the Tax Court, 
     including the personal protection of Tax Court judges, court 
     officers, witnesses, and other threatened person in the 
     interests of justice, where criminal intimidation impedes on 
     the functioning of the judicial process or any other official 
     proceeding.''.

     SEC. 105. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR UNITED STATES MARSHALS 
                   SERVICE TO PROTECT THE JUDICIARY.

       In addition to any other amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated for the United States Marshals Service, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated for the United States 
     Marshals Service to protect the judiciary, $20,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for--
       (1) hiring entry-level deputy marshals for providing 
     judicial security;
       (2) hiring senior-level deputy marshals for investigating 
     threats to the judiciary and providing protective details to 
     members of the judiciary and assistant United States 
     attorneys; and
       (3) for the Office of Protective Intelligence, for hiring 
     senior-level deputy marshals, hiring program analysts, and 
     providing secure computer systems.

TITLE II--CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS TO PROTECT JUDGES, FAMILY MEMBERS, 
                             AND WITNESSES

     SEC. 201. PROTECTIONS AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF 
                   FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES AND 
                   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1521. RETALIATING AGAINST A FEDERAL JUDGE OR FEDERAL 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BY FALSE CLAIM OR 
                   SLANDER OF TITLE.

       ``Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in 
     any public record or in any private record which is generally 
     available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance 
     against the real or personal property of an individual 
     described in section 1114, on account of the performance of 
     official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason 
     to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains 
     any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
     representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
     for not more than 10 years, or both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement 
              officer by false claim or slander of title.''.

     SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN 
                   OFFICIAL DUTIES.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 118. Protection of individuals performing certain 
       official duties

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted 
     personal information about a covered official, or a member of 
     the immediate family of that covered official, publicly 
     available--
       ``(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite 
     the commission of a crime of violence against that covered 
     official, or a member of the immediate family of that covered 
     official; or
       ``(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted 
     personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or 
     facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that 
     covered official, or a member of

[[Page S1064]]

     the immediate family of that covered official,

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `restricted personal information' means, 
     with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, 
     the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, 
     personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, 
     that individual;
       ``(2) the term `covered official' means--
       ``(A) an individual designated in section 1114; or
       ``(B) a grand or petit juror, witness, or other officer in 
     or of, any court of the United States, or an officer who may 
     be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any 
     United States magistrate judge or other committing 
     magistrate;
       ``(3) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 16; and
       ``(4) the term `immediate family' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 115(c)(2).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``118. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties.''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS IN 
                   FEDERAL COURT FACILITIES.

       Section 930(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or other dangerous weapon'' after 
     ``firearm''.

     SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF VENUE FOR RETALIATION AGAINST A 
                   WITNESS.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) A prosecution under this section may be brought in 
     the district in which the official proceeding (whether 
     pending, about to be instituted, or completed) was intended 
     to be affected, or in which the conduct constituting the 
     alleged offense occurred.''.

     SEC. 205. MODIFICATION OF TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM, 
                   OR AN INFORMANT OFFENSE.

       (a) Changes in Penalties.--Section 1512 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) so that subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3) reads as 
     follows:
       ``(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in 
     sections 1111 and 1112;'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) 
     by striking ``20 years'' and inserting ``30 years''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``10 years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years'';
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``ten years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''.

     SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF RETALIATION OFFENSE.

       Section 1513 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B)--
       (A) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
       (B) by striking the comma which immediately follows another 
     comma;
       (2) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``20 years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting a comma after ``probation''; and
       (ii) by striking the comma which immediately follows 
     another comma; and
       (B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and
       (4) by redesignating the second subsection (e) as 
     subsection (f).

     SEC. 207. GENERAL MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL MURDER CRIME AND 
                   RELATED CRIMES.

       Section 1112(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``20 years''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``six years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

TITLE III--PROTECTING STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND RELATED GRANT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. GRANTS TO STATES TO PROTECT WITNESSES AND VICTIMS 
                   OF CRIMES.

       (a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) by a State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe 
     to create and expand witness and victim protection programs 
     to prevent threats, intimidation, and retaliation against 
     victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this 
     subtitle.''.

     SEC. 302. ELIGIBILITY OF STATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                   GRANTS.

       (a) Correctional Options Grants.--Section 515 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3762a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) grants to State courts to improve security for State 
     and local court systems.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period the 
     following:

     ``Priority shall be given to State court applicants under 
     subsection (a)(4) that have the greatest demonstrated need to 
     provide security in order to administer justice.''.
       (b) Allocations.--Section 516(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3762b) is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``80'' and inserting ``70'';
       (2) striking ``and 10'' and inserting ``10''; and
       (3) inserting before the period the following: ``, and 10 
     percent for section 515(a)(4)''.
       (c) State and Local Governments to Consider Courts.--The 
     Attorney General may require, as appropriate, that whenever a 
     State or unit of local government or Indian tribe applies for 
     a grant from the Department of Justice, the State, unit, or 
     tribe demonstrate that, in developing the application and 
     distributing funds, the State, unit, or tribe--
       (1) considered the needs of the judicial branch of the 
     State, unit, or tribe, as the case may be;
       (2) consulted with the chief judicial officer of the 
     highest court of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case may 
     be; and
       (3) consulted with the chief law enforcement officer of the 
     law enforcement agency responsible for the security needs of 
     the judicial branch of the State, unit, or tribe, as the case 
     may be.
       (d) Armor Vests.--Section 2501 of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and State and local 
     court officers'' after ``tribal law enforcement officers''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``State or local 
     court,'' after ``government,''.

                   TITLE IV--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

     SEC. 401. REPORT ON SECURITY OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the security of assistant United States attorneys 
     and other Federal attorneys arising from the prosecution of 
     terrorists, violent criminal gangs, drug traffickers, gun 
     traffickers, white supremacists, those who commit fraud and 
     other white-collar offenses, and other criminal cases.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall describe each of the following:
       (1) The number and nature of threats and assaults against 
     attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) 
     and the reporting requirements and methods.
       (2) The security measures that are in place to protect the 
     attorneys who are handling prosecutions described in 
     subsection (a), including threat assessments, response 
     procedures, availability of security systems and other 
     devices, firearms licensing (deputations), and other measures 
     designed to protect the attorneys and their families.
       (3) The firearms deputation policies of the Department of 
     Justice, including the number of attorneys deputized and the 
     time between receipt of threat and completion of the 
     deputation and training process.
       (4) For each requirement, measure, or policy described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), when the requirement, measure, or 
     policy was developed and who was responsible for developing 
     and implementing the requirement, measure, or policy .
       (5) The programs that are made available to the attorneys 
     for personal security training, including training relating 
     to limitations on public information disclosure, basic home 
     security, firearms handling and safety, family safety, mail 
     handling, counter-surveillance, and self-defense tactics.
       (6) The measures that are taken to provide attorneys 
     handling prosecutions described in subsection (a) with secure 
     parking facilities, and how priorities for such facilities 
     are established--
       (A) among Federal employees within the facility;
       (B) among Department of Justice employees within the 
     facility; and
       (C) among attorneys within the facility.
       (7) The frequency attorneys handling prosecutions described 
     in subsection (a) are called upon to work beyond standard 
     work hours and the security measures provided to protect 
     attorneys at such times during travel between office and 
     available parking facilities.
       (8) With respect to attorneys who are licensed under State 
     laws to carry firearms, the policy of the Department of 
     Justice as to--
       (A) carrying the firearm between available parking and 
     office buildings;
       (B) securing the weapon at the office buildings; and
       (C) equipment and training provided to facilitate safe 
     storage at Department of Justice facilities.

[[Page S1065]]

       (9) The offices in the Department of Justice that are 
     responsible for ensuring the security of attorneys handling 
     prosecutions described in subsection (a), the organization 
     and staffing of the offices, and the manner in which the 
     offices coordinate with offices in specific districts.
       (10) The role, if any, that the United States Marshals 
     Service or any other Department of Justice component plays in 
     protecting, or providing security services or training for, 
     attorneys handling prosecutions described in subsection (a).

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. EXPANDED PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED 
                   STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 995 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) The Commission may--
       ``(1) use available funds to enter into contracts for the 
     acquisition of severable services for a period that begins in 
     1 fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year, to the same 
     extent as executive agencies may enter into such contracts 
     under the authority of section 303L of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253l);
       ``(2) enter into multi-year contracts for the acquisition 
     of property or services to the same extent as executive 
     agencies may enter into such contracts under the authority of 
     section 304B of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254c); and
       ``(3) make advance, partial, progress, or other payments 
     under contracts for property or services to the same extent 
     as executive agencies may make such payments under the 
     authority of section 305 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 255).''.
       (b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     cease to have force and effect on September 30, 2010.

     SEC. 502. BANKRUPTCY, MAGISTRATE, AND TERRITORIAL JUDGES LIFE 
                   INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 604(a)(5) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``hold office 
     during good behavior,'' the following: ``bankruptcy judges 
     appointed under section 152 of this title, magistrate judges 
     appointed under section 631 of this title, and territorial 
     district court judges appointed under section 24 of the 
     Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 1424b), section 1(b) of the 
     Act of November 8, 1877 (48 U.S.C. 1821), or section 24(a) of 
     the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 
     1614(a)),''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any payment made on or after the 
     first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 503. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES.

       Section 296 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end of the second undesignated paragraph the 
     following new sentence: ``However, a judge who has retired 
     from regular active service under section 371(b) of this 
     title, when designated and assigned to the court to which 
     such judge was appointed, shall have all the powers of a 
     judge of that court, including participation in appointment 
     of court officers and magistrates, rulemaking, governance, 
     and administrative matters.''.

     SEC. 504. SENIOR JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTION OF 
                   MAGISTRATES.

       Section 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Northern Mariana Islands'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``Northern Mariana Islands (including 
     any judge in regular active service and any judge who has 
     retired from regular active service under section 371(b) of 
     this title, when designated and assigned to the court to 
     which such judge was appointed)''.

     SEC. 505. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT.

       Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. An independent judiciary is essential to the proper 
administration of justice. In order to maintain an independent 
judiciary, it is imperative that judges be protected from the threat of 
reprisal, so that fear does not influence their decisionmaking. This 
bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, is an opportunity to protect our 
judges and help guarantee their independence, and also protect the many 
other dedicated men and women who serve our judiciary and their 
families.
  In recent years, the need for increased judicial security has been 
highlighted by a number of attacks. After an unfavorable trademark 
ruling in Chicago, a disgruntled litigant murdered a Federal judge's 
husband and mother in the judge's home. Two weeks later a State judge, 
a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy were killed in an Atlanta 
courthouse. A year after that, death threats were made against U.S. 
Supreme Court Justices.
  These attacks are not isolated incidents. On average, Federal judges 
receive 700 threats a year; threats that are becoming increasingly 
serious. As these threats and attacks indicate, judges are not 
currently safe within the walls of our courts, nor are they safe in 
their homes. We cannot tolerate violence or the threat of violence 
against judges, court personnel, or their families. Violence against 
our judiciary represents an assault on our system of government.
  By statute, the U.S. Marshals Service in the Department of Justice 
has the primary responsibility for the security of the Federal 
judiciary. Currently, the Marshals Service is underfunded and 
understaffed. There is a lack of coordination and communication between 
the Service and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Federal 
Protective Service in the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, 
the Marshals Service struggles to keep up with the security needs of 
the judiciary in this new high-risk age. There is no reason the system 
should continue to be so vulnerable.
  The legislation we are introducing will enhance judicial security in 
several respects. First, it would require the Marshals Service to 
cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Conference on judicial 
security on a continuing basis. This provision will give the judiciary 
a needed voice in assessing their security needs. The Marshals Service 
will receive additional funds to meet its responsibilities. It will 
have the ability to accurately assess threats in a timely manner, 
collect and share intelligence on threats among districts and 
representatives of the FBI, and achieve appropriate staffing levels.
  In addition, the legislation punishes those who intrude into the 
personal lives of the judiciary and their families. It punishes those 
attempting to humiliate the judiciary or their families by recording a 
false lien or encumbrance against real or personal property and those 
who post personal information about public officials or their families 
with the intent to harm.
  Equally important, the bill authorizes Federal grants to improve 
security for State and local court systems. The problem of judicial 
security is shared by all courts, State and Federal alike, and all 
courts deserve the best possible security protections.
  To maintain our freedoms as a democratic society, judicial fairness 
and independence are essential. Threats and acts of violence against 
the judiciary are unacceptable. Its members must be fully protected. 
This bipartisan and bicameral bill aids in that protection, and I am 
honored to join my colleagues in urging that it be passed quickly by 
Congress and signed by the President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, 
        Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 381. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the 
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and 
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation 
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
Japanese Descent Act.
  The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast 
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That 
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill 
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially 
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from 
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to 
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
  This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm 
across international borders, into a community that did not pose an 
immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of 
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with 
Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the

[[Page S1066]]

help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of 
Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 
2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., 
where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for 
prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a 
foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' 
immigration to Latin America.
  Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of 
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin 
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner 
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and 
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. 
Others remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of 
origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a 
passport.
  When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin 
Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a 
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories 
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps 
in our country.
  The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. 
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled 
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, 
intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. 
Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was 
unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to 
include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
  I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would 
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts 
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin 
Americans subject to a program of relocation, interment, and 
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would 
give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain 
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 381

       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 ``Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     Descent Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in 
     December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
     Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
       (1) During World War II, the United States--
       (A) expanded its internment program and national security 
     investigations to conduct the program and investigations in 
     Latin America; and
       (B) financed relocation to the United States, and 
     internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin 
     Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held 
     by Axis countries.
       (2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held 
     in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps 
     operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 
     1941 through 1948.
       (3) Those men, women, and children either--
       (A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment 
     by local police, and sent to the United States for 
     internment; or
       (B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily 
     entered internment camps to remain with their arrested 
     husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
       (4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans 
     of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the 
     individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department 
     of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American 
     countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior 
     to departure.
       (5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American 
     internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and 
     treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal 
     aliens in United States custody who were subject to 
     deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United 
     States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese 
     descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United 
     States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin 
     America, detained in internment camps in the United States, 
     and in some cases, deported to Axis countries to enable the 
     United States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to 
     Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the Secretary 
     of War to prescribe military areas). Although the United 
     States program of interning Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive Order 9066, 
     an examination of that extraordinary program is necessary to 
     establish a complete account of Federal actions to detain and 
     intern civilians of enemy or foreign nationality, 
     particularly of Japanese descent. Although historical 
     documents relating to the program exist in distant archives, 
     the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians did not research those documents.
       (8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a 
     group not covered by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.), which formally apologized and 
     provided compensation payments to former Japanese Americans 
     interned pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a 
     fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission 
     on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to 
     investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries 
     of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
     through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
     United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any, 
     based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and 
     new discoveries.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Commission on 
     Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, who shall be appointed not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, of whom--
       (1) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the House of Representatives and the 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
       (3) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the 
     majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
       (d) Meetings.--
       (1) First meeting.--The President shall call the first 
     meeting of the Commission not later than the later of--
       (A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation 
     making appropriations to carry out this Act.
       (2) Subsequent meetings.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (1), the Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (e) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall 
     elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve for 
     the life of the Commission.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the 
     Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 
     Act--
       (A) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances 
     surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and 
     deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the 
     impact of those actions by the United States; and
       (B) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to 
     review directives of the United States armed forces and the 
     Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in 
     internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin 
     Americans of Japanese descent; and

[[Page S1067]]

       (2) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on 
     preliminary findings by the original Commission and new 
     discoveries.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission pursuant to section 3(d)(1), 
     the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress, 
     which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation 
     conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations 
     described in subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any 
     subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act--
       (1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries, 
     sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, 
     receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the 
     Commission or such subcommittee or member considers 
     advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or 
     member considers advisable.
       (b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall 
     bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and 
     shall be served by any person or class of persons designated 
     by the Chairperson for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may 
     issue an order requiring such person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court 
     may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
       (c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--Section 1821 of title 28, 
     United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or 
     subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission. The 
     per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid 
     from funds available to pay the expenses of the Commission.
       (d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to perform 
     its duties. Upon request of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

     SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may 
     be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
       (1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services to procure necessary financial and administrative 
     services;
       (2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and 
     property; and
       (3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the 
     conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, 
     and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report to Congress under 
     section 4(b).

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this section shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Coleman, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 382. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
State family support grant program to end the practice of parents 
giving legal custody of their seriously emotionally disturbed children 
to State agencies for the purpose of obtaining mental health services 
for those children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Coleman, Pryor, Cantwell, Durbin, Mikulski, 
Bingaman, Lautenberg and Kerry, in introducing the ``Keeping Families 
Together Act.'' This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to 
care for children with serious mental illness so that their parents are 
no longer forced to give up custody solely for the purpose of securing 
mental health treatment.
  Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and 
adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American 
children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or 
behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact 
that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment 
are not getting it.
  Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do 
the best it can to help a son or daughter with serious mental health 
needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do 
well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family 
members. These children are almost always involved with more than one 
social service agency, including the mental health, special education, 
child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at 
either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or 
accountable for helping these children and their families.
  My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of 
stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed 
the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting 
desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many 
families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching 
decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care 
that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and 
place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.
  When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a 
heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family 
includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to 
go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.
  Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental 
illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who 
have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to 
rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. 
While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a 
serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else 
for the family to turn.
  In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against 
their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in 
order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, 
``Beat `em up, lock `em up, or give `em up,'' characterizes the choices 
that some families face in their efforts to get help for their 
children's mental illness.

[[Page S1068]]

  In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report 
that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy 
that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into 
the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children 
could receive mental health services. This likely is just the tip of 
the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest 
populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.
  Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 
1999 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that 23 
percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by 
public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their 
children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done 
so.
  Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody 
relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, 
since it can leave children with mental illness and their families 
without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom 
of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable 
and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these 
children and their families.
  In 2003 and 2004, I chaired a series of hearings in the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue 
further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that 
they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and 
services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place 
them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a 
wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent 
should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the 
services that the child needs.
  The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care 
for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public 
and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of 
coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs 
that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate 
for help for her twin boys, searched for two years until she finally 
located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in 
Illinois''--that was able to help.
  Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on 
every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone 
who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents 
to get services and treatment for their children.
  We also need to question what happens to these children when they are 
turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I 
released a report in 2004 with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that 
all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention 
centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait 
for scarce mental health services.
  Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile 
detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities 
to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national 
problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young 
people--roughly seven percent of all of the children in the centers 
surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental 
health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held 
without any charges pending against them, and the young people 
incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as 
seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention 
facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' 
money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they 
are waiting for mental health services.

  The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, 
will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states 
in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their 
children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.
  The legislation authorizes $100 million over six years for 
competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and 
sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody 
or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of 
receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant 
dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants 
would help states to serve children more effectively and efficiently, 
while keeping them at home with their families.
  In addition, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal 
interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child 
welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in 
promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health 
services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the 
Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to 
improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation 
and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of 
custody relinquishment.
  The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to 
meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional 
disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of 
mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance on 
Mental Illness, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Mental Health 
America, the American Psychological Association, and the American 
Psychiatric Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from 
these organizations endorsing the bill be printed in the Record.
  The Keeping Families Together Act will help to reduce the barriers to 
care for children with serious mental illness, and I urge our 
colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Bazelon Center,

                                 Washington, DC, January 17, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for 
     Mental Health Law--the leading national legal-advocacy 
     organization representing children and adults with mental 
     disabilities who primarily rely on the public mental health 
     system for treatment--is pleased to support the Keeping 
     Families Together Act and commends your leadership on this 
     important legislation.
       A lack of access to appropriate mental health services and 
     supports for children in both the private and public sectors 
     is a significant barrier families across the country face 
     when they are confronted with the horrific problem of custody 
     relinquishment of a child solely to access necessary menta1 
     health treatment. Custody relinquishment for these purposes 
     should not and does not need to happen. It is a symptom of a 
     flawed children's mental health system that is in crisis.
       The Keeping Families Together Act serves to address this 
     fragmented system by assisting states in developing and 
     expanding capacity to serve children with severe mental and 
     emotional disorders so families have options when their child 
     is in need of mental health care. With studies showing 
     approximately two-thirds of children and adolescents are not 
     receiving the mental health services they need, we welcome 
     this vital legislation. Promoting early intervention, 
     ensuring access to wide range of services and supports and 
     helping to maintain family integrity are achievable goals 
     supported by your legislation--goals we are confident will 
     help reduce these appalling statistics.
       The Bazelon Center looks forward to working closely with 
     you and your staff throughout the legislative process to 
     enact the Keeping Families Together Act. Thank you for your 
     commitment to the health and mental health needs of our most 
     vulnerable chi1dren.
           Sincerely,
                                          Robert Bernstein, Ph.D.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           American Psychological Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 19, 2007.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the 145,000 members and 
     affiliates of the American Psychological Association (APA), I 
     am writing in support of the Keeping Families Together Act. 
     This vital legislation would establish a state family support 
     grant program to end the practice of parents needing to 
     relinquish legal custody of their children to state agencies 
     for the sole purpose of obtaining mental health services for 
     their children.
       As you know, the custody relinquishment problem stems from 
     a paradox that exists in many states. Private healthcare 
     plans frequently do not cover many services needed by 
     children with physical, mental, or developmental 
     disabilities. As a result, many parents turn to the child 
     welfare or juvenile justice system for assistance. Neither of 
     these

[[Page S1069]]

     systems is intended nor equipped to care for a child with a 
     serious mental health problem. Yet, as the law currently 
     exists in many states, parents must relinquish custody to 
     receive otherwise unaffordable specialized care for their 
     children. Ironically, these children are frequently placed 
     with foster families that receive full funding for the 
     children's care, while competent parents lose contact with, 
     influence over and decision making authority for their 
     children. Custody relinquishment of a child solely so he or 
     she may access necessary mental health services is a national 
     tragedy.
       The Keeping Families Together Act lays a strong foundation 
     for needed reforms by promoting access to needed services and 
     reducing fragmentation in service delivery. Some of the 
     legislation's main provisions include providing grants to 
     states to establish interagency systems of care for children 
     and adolescents with serious mental health and emotional 
     problems. Additionally, this legislation will establish a 
     federal interagency task force to examine mental health 
     issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
       APA members are actively engaged in research and practice 
     initiatives related to helping children and their families 
     receive the mental health services they need. Please view APA 
     as a resource to you for empirically-based research on child 
     mental health matters when considering the enactment of the 
     Keeping Families Together Act.
       In closing, we would like to thank you once again for your 
     efforts in developing the Keeping Families Together Act and 
     to offer our association's assistance in furthering passage 
     of this vital legislation. Please contact Annie Toro of our 
     Public Policy Office if you would like any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,

                                      Gwendolyn Puryear Keita,

                                               Executive Director,
     Public Interest Directorate.
                                  ____



                                        Mental Health America,

                                Alexandria, VA., January 22, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete Stark,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Ramstad,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Harkin and Representatives 
     Ramstad and Stark: On behalf of Mental Health America 
     (formerly the National Mental Health Association), I am 
     writing to commend you for reintroducing the Keeping Families 
     Together Act in the 110th Congress.
       As you know, thousands of families every year are forced to 
     give up custody of their children to the state in order to 
     secure vitally necessary mental health services. This custody 
     relinquishment tears families apart, is devastating for 
     parents and caregivers, and leaves children feeling abandoned 
     in their hour of greatest need. Parents are often forced to 
     take this tragic step because their private health care 
     coverage imposes discriminatory and restrictive caps on 
     mental health care or their insurers simply refuse to cover 
     the required treatment. The majority of these families are 
     not eligible for Medicaid coverage because of their income. 
     Furthermore, there is a widespread lack of appropriate mental 
     health services for children and adolescents in most states 
     and communities which forces families to make desperate 
     choices.
       Your legislation promises to improve access to the services 
     these families need to stay together by providing grants to 
     states to establish interagency systems of care for children 
     and adolescents with serious mental disorders. These grants 
     will allow states to build more efficient and effective 
     mental health systems for children and families. Your bill 
     also calls for the creation of a federal interagency task 
     force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare 
     and juvenile justice systems. This analysis is greatly needed 
     because, as you know, children who become wards of the state 
     in order to receive mental health services are generally 
     placed in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems even 
     though neither system is designed or intended to serve as a 
     mental health provider.
       No family in our nation should ever be asked to make the 
     heart-wrenching decision to give up parental rights of their 
     seriously ill child in exchange for mental health treatment. 
     We welcome this legislation as a critical step toward ending 
     custody relinquishment and toward delivering more cost 
     effective and appropriate services for children and families.
       Once again, we thank you for your leadership and commitment 
     to ending this practice and for continuing to stand up for 
     children and families.
           Sincerely,
                                            David L. Shern, Ph.D.,
     President and CEO, Mental Health America.
                                  ____

                                              National Alliance on


                                               Mental Illness,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 18, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Harkin: On behalf of the 210,000 
     members and 1,200 affiliates of the National Alliance on 
     Mental Illness, NAMI, I am writing to offer our strong 
     support for the Keeping Families Together Act, KFTA. As the 
     nation's largest organization representing families of 
     children and adolescents living with mental illness, NAMI is 
     proud to offer our support for this important legislation.
       The KFTA represents a major step forward in helping to end 
     a national scandal that has lingered too long in states 
     throughout our nation. As you know, thousands of families 
     every year are forced to give up custody of a child to the 
     state in order to secure vitally necessary mental illness 
     treatment and support services. This unthinkable practice 
     tears families apart, devastates parents and caregivers and 
     leaves children feeling abandoned in their hour of greatest 
     need.
       This practice occurs because most families have 
     discriminatory and restrictive caps on their private mental 
     health coverage or insurers fail to cover the required 
     treatment. The majority of these families are not eligible 
     for Medicaid coverage because of their income and assets. 
     This truly unfortunate practice also exists because of the 
     lack of appropriate mental health services in many states and 
     communities for children and adolescents with mental 
     disorders. This was well documented in President Bush's 2003 
     New Freedom Initiative Mental Health Commission report.
       Your legislation would help end this growing crisis by 
     providing grants to states to establish interagency systems 
     of care for children and adolescents with serious mental 
     disorders. These grants would allow states to build more 
     efficient and effective mental health systems for children 
     and families. It would also. eliminate barriers to home and 
     community-based care for children by enabling a greater 
     number of children to receive mental health services under 
     the Section 1915(c) Medicaid home- and community-based 
     waiver. The waiver promises to make appropriate services 
     available to children in their homes and communities and 
     close to their loved ones at a considerable cost savings over 
     providing those services in an institutional setting.
       The KFTA also creates a federal interagency task force to 
     examine how the child welfare and juvenile justice systems 
     serve children and adolescents with mental illness. A GAO 
     report released in April 2003 showed that when parents give 
     up custody of their child to secure mental health services, 
     those children are placed in one of these two systems--
     neither of which is designed to be a mental health service 
     agency.
       NAMI feels strongly that no family should ever be asked to 
     make the heart-wrenching decision to give up parental rights 
     of their seriously ill child in exchange for mental health 
     treatment and services. Thank you for your leadership and 
     commitment to ending this practice and for continuing to 
     stand up for children, families and common sense.
           Sincerely,
                                   Michael J. Fitzpatrick, M.S.W.,
                                               Executive Director.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am honored to join with the 
distinguished junior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, in introducing 
the Keeping Families Together Act. As a long-time advocate for people 
with disabilities, I believe that this legislation represents an 
important step forward in ensuring the health and wellbeing of our 
children, in particular those with mental illness.
  One in five children has a diagnosable mental disorder, and one in 
ten children has a mental disorder serious enough to hinder their 
functioning at school, at the home, and in their communities. 
Regrettably, two-thirds of children in this latter group do not receive 
the treatment they need. Without treatment, mental illness negatively 
affects all areas of children's lives, and it can have dire 
consequences for their future, including their ability to become 
productive members of society. Children with mental health problems are 
at higher risk of chronic illness, academic difficulties and school 
discipline problems, delinquency, incarceration, and suicide.
  The good news is that 90 percent of all mental health disorders are 
treatable by therapy and medication. Yet parents face a multitude of 
obstacles and challenges in finding appropriate services for a child 
with serious mental illness. Often, they find that their private 
insurance will not pay for necessary mental health services, or that 
they do not qualify for Medicaid. In their efforts to secure effective 
treatment, many parents exhaust their own financial resources and find 
that they have nowhere else to turn. Tragically, many dedicated, loving 
parents reach the point where they believe that they have no other 
option but to relinquish custody of their child to the State in order 
to access appropriate services. These out-of-home placements can be 
traumatic for children, and profoundly disruptive and heart-breaking 
for families that are already in crisis.
  Making matters worse, state systems are often poorly equipped to 
serve the needs of these children. Many children end up being placed in 
expensive residential institutions, rather than less

[[Page S1070]]

costly home- and community-based services. Our juvenile justice system 
is overwhelmed by young people in need of mental health services. A 
congressional report authored by Senator Collins and Representative 
Henry Waxman of California suggests that, every night, nearly 2,000 
youths are placed in juvenile detention facilities not because they are 
criminals but because they do not have access to necessary mental 
health services. This results in a $100 million bill to the taxpayers. 
Not only is this a serious misuse of public funds, it is a tragic 
injustice to the children and families involved. We simply cannot allow 
children to languish in detention facilities when they are really in 
need of mental health treatment.
  The Keeping Families Together Act lays a foundation for securing 
better access to mental health services for children. Consistent with 
recommendations by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental 
Health, this legislation encourages interagency coordination in the 
provision of mental health services for children. The bill gives States 
incentives to remedy the fragmentation that now exists among child 
welfare, education, juvenile justice, and mental health agencies 
responsible for helping children. It ensures that States will improve 
access to mental health services and eliminate the practice of parents' 
relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of 
securing mental health treatment. Our bill also promotes sustainable 
financing by requiring States to provide graduated matching funds.
  In sum, by providing a sustainable, coordinated system of mental 
health care, children will be able to receive needed services within a 
stable, loving home environment. Families will be able to stay 
together.
  In a decent, humane society, every family should have access to 
appropriate mental health services for their children. Parents should 
not have to surrender a child to the State as the price for obtaining 
access to mental health treatment. The Keeping Families Together Act 
offers a better way. It allows children with mental disorders to stay 
where they belong--in the custody and care of their loving family. I 
join with Senator Collins in urging our colleagues to support this 
urgent and important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 383. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the 
period of eligibility for health care for combat service in the Persian 
Gulf War or future hostilities from 2 years to 5 years after discharge 
or release; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I today introduce legislation that, if 
enacted, will help ensure that returning servicemembers receive the 
care they need from VA in the 5 years immediately following detachment 
or deactivation, without having to meet strict eligibility rules. The 
changes this legislation would make will contribute to the ``seamless'' 
transition of military personnel from active duty to veteran status. 
This legislation is identical to the bill I introduced last Congress.
  Today, any active duty servicemember who is discharged or separated 
from active duty following deployment to a theater of combat--including 
Reservists or Guard who stand down but remain on reserve duty--is 
eligible for VA health care for a 2-year period. In my view, it is 
vital that this period be extended to 5 years to provide a more 
appropriate window of time for servicemembers to access VA care. Since 
the start of OEF and OIF, an average of 157,800 servicemembers have 
been discharged or deactivated per year. This legislation will help the 
existing 315,600 veterans who have been inactive for more than 2 years 
but fewer than 5, and thousands more in the future.
  Following the first Persian Gulf War, and partially in response to 
the unexplained illnesses among those who served, Congress enacted the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. This law gave 2 years of 
priority eligibility for health care to any veteran who served in a 
theater of combat following discharge or deactivation from active duty. 
The original intent was to ensure health care for servicemembers after 
their active duty health care benefits ended. It is now clear this the 
2 year window of eligibility is insufficient.
  There are two primary reasons to amend the law to allow a greater 
period of eligibility: protection from budget cuts and access to care 
for conditions, including mental health conditions, that may not be 
readily apparent when a servicemember first leaves active duty. In 
recent years, funding for VA health care has been delayed or cut by the 
legislative and appropriations processes, leading to delayed or denied 
care to those veterans with lower priority for VA care. Those veterans 
who have served in a theater of combat operations deserve to have their 
health care guaranteed for at least the first 5 years immediately 
following their discharge or detachment.
  With regard to mental health, 2 years is often insufficient time for 
symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illnesses to manifest. In 
many cases, it takes years for such symptoms to present themselves, and 
many servicemembers do not immediately seek care. Experts predict that 
up to 30 percent of OEF/OIF servicemembers will need some type of 
readjustment services. Five years would provide a bigger window to 
address these risks. We face a growing group of recently discharged 
veterans, and this legislation will help smooth their transition to 
civilian life.
  One final reason, that I believe this legislation is necessary, is 
that extending the window of eligibility for VA health care services 
may also serve to prevent homelessness among veterans. We all know that 
veterans represent a disproportionate segment of the homeless 
population, and that is a national tragedy. While we continue to battle 
homelessness among older veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts, we 
must do all we can to ensure that none of the new veterans returning 
from Iraq and Afghanistan fall through the cracks. Providing more time 
for them to access VA's services is a key part of that effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, as I believe it is 
truly a way to honor the service of our men and women in uniform.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 384. A bill to provide pay protection for members of the Reserve 
and the National Guard, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today there are 91,555 members of the 
National Guard and our Reserve armed forces serving bravely in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and any other part of the world our country calls them to 
serve. The President is sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq in 
one final push to bring stability to that country. Regardless of what 
we think about this plan, Americans stand by our troops. They have the 
best equipment and training for their mission and we would never deny 
them the support they need. But back at home, there is still a great 
deal that we can do to support our guard and reserves families.
  When guardsmen and reservists are deployed they leave their families, 
their jobs, and their communities behind, causing tremendous stress on 
the home front and in the workplace. Families often lose the main bread 
winner when a citizen soldier gets deployed. They may have trouble 
paying bills, the rent, the mortgage, or buying medicine for their 
children.
  The reason these families cannot make ends meet is because for 
Guardsmen and Reservists military pay is often less than civilian pay. 
We call that the ``pay gap.'' According to the most recent Status 
Forces Survey of Reserve Components, 51 percent of our citizen soldiers 
take a pay cut when they get deployed and 11 percent of them lose more 
than $2,500 per month.
  To help provide relief from the pay gap for our Guard and Reserve, I 
am pleased to introduce, along with Senators Durbin, Graham and Kerry, 
the Helping Our Patriotic Employers at Helping our Military Employees 
Act of 2007. I call the bill by its nickname: HOPE at HOME. Our guard 
and reserve families have enough to worry about when a loved one gets 
called away, the least we can do is relieve some of their financial 
worry by encouraging employers to make up the pay gap. Let me describe 
for my colleagues how this legislation works.

[[Page S1071]]

  HOPE at HOME will give a 50 percent tax credit to the thousands of 
employers around the country who have taken the patriotic step of 
continuing to pay the salary of their guard and reservists employees 
who have been called to active duty. There are literally thousands of 
employers out there who already take this noble step--they do it 
voluntarily, selflessly and at great sacrifice. The HOPE at HOME Act 
honors that sacrifice.
  HOPE at HOME will also give companies that cannot afford to make up 
the pay-gap an incentive to do so. One survey found that only 173 of 
the Fortune 500 companies make up the pay gap. If the wealthiest 
companies cannot afford to help their active duty employees, imagine 
how difficult this is for smaller companies. HOPE at HOME will allow 
companies large and small to do the patriotic thing and reward those 
employees who are serving to keep us all free.
  HOPE at HOME will also give small patriotic employers additional tax 
relief if they need to hire a worker to temporarily replace the active 
duty Guardsmen or Reservist. In addition, the bill clarifies the tax 
treatment of any pay-gap payments to make income tax filing easier for 
our Guard and Reservists.

  I mentioned that thousands of employers make up the pay-gap for their 
employees. There is one employer, however, and it happens to be the 
Nation's largest, that does not make up the pay gap: Uncle Sam. The 
Federal Government, which should set the bar for patriotism in our 
country, does not do its part to help our citizen soldiers. We cannot 
ask the private sector to do more than they are doing if the Federal 
government is not willing to step up and do its part for our military 
men and women.
  Today our Nation relies on the Guard and Reserve to meet our armed 
forces needs more than at any other time in our history. At times in 
the war on terror, 40 percent of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 
were citizen soldiers, if not more. Many of them performed multiple 
tours of duty or found their duties extended.
  All of the experts tell us that our need for our Guard and Reserve 
troops will only get greater. During the Cold War, end strength of the 
U.S. military force never dropped below 2.0 million personnel and 
peaked at over 3.5 million during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. From 
1989 to 1999, end strength dropped steadily from 2.1 million to 1.4 
million, where it has remained. Our ground forces are stretched thin 
and the number of deployments has increased by over 300 percent. The 
Guard and Reserve have made it possible to meet these challenges. We 
still find ourselves stretched thin, but without the Guard and Reserve 
we would never be able to meet our obligation as guardians of freedom 
in the World.
  But this over-reliance on the Guard and Reserve is starting to have a 
toll on our ability to recruit and retain these men and women. The top 
reasons for leaving the Guard and Reserve, according to the Status of 
Forces Survey of Reserve Components, are family stress, the number and 
lengths of deployments, income loss, and conflict with civilian 
employment.
  HOPE at HOME recognizes that a soldier who is worrying about how his 
or her family is paying the bills is not focusing on the mission at 
hand. A soldier who is worrying about whether the family is paying the 
rent, is not going to reenlist. And every time one of our soldiers 
leaves, our nation loses the experience and service of a highly 
trained, capable professional. We need to make every effort to keep our 
citizen soldiers in service to their country. HOPE at HOME is a first 
step to addressing our military's larger recruitment and retention 
issues.
  During the Cold War we built our strength on having the biggest, best 
equipped standing army in the World. Now our military gathers its 
strength from a large reserve of qualified men and women in the Guard 
and Reserve who are ready to fight at a moment's call. We will lose 
that strength if we do not give our guardsmen and Reservists and their 
families HOPE at HOME.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in giving our Guard and Reserve 
HOPE at HOME Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith, 
        and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 385. A bill to improve the interoperability of emergency 
communications equipment; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to an 
important issue that the Congress has not adequately addressed since 
the painful events of September 11, 2001.
  That issue is the inability of our first responders to speak to each 
other, a problem especially troubling during an emergency, when the 
ability to quickly and effectively communicate saves lives.
  This is why I, with the cosponsorship of my colleagues, Senators 
Stevens, Kerry, Smith and Snowe, are introducing the Interoperable 
Emergency Communications Act.
  After September 11, 2001, we heard heartbreaking stories of 
firefighters and police officers who went into harm's way because they 
lacked adequate information. These brave men and women were unable to 
reach victims because their systems could not communicate with one 
another.
  At that time, the Congress began devoting greater attention to why 
many of our first responders lacked this ability to communicate with 
each other in the field. We asked what it would take to ensure 
communications equipment and facilities could withstand a natural 
disaster. We asked which equipment would be worthy of our investment.
  Then Hurricane Katrina struck in August, 2006, and we found that our 
first responders faced the same communications failures. This is an 
unnecessary frustration that prevents our first responders from 
effectively doing their jobs.
  Our bill provides needed direction to the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding its administration of 
the $1 billion grant program for interoperable communications systems 
for first responders, which was created by the Senate Commerce 
Committee early last year. It will be funded by money from the Digital 
Transition and Public Safety Fund and administered by the NTIA.
  The bill designates grants for regional or statewide communications 
systems that will allow first responders to talk to one another during 
an emergency. It also sets aside funding for a technology reserve for 
immediate deployment of communications equipment in the event of an 
emergency or disaster.
  To ensure a fair distribution of funds, the money will be distributed 
in accordance with guidelines outlined in the Patriot Act to ensure a 
fair distribution of funds, and grant allocations will be prioritized 
based on an ``all hazards'' approach that will take into account threat 
and risk factors associated with natural disasters--such as hurricanes, 
tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornadoes--as well as risks associated with 
terrorist attacks.
  Every day we hear about potential threats against our Nation and it 
will not be long until we are again in the midst of hurricane season. I 
hope that history will not repeat itself and that the Congress can act 
quickly in directing the NTIA to give our first responders the tools 
they need to effectively do their jobs. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 385

       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 ``Interoperable Emergency 
     Communications Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3006 of Public Law 109-171 (47 
     U.S.C. 309 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) may take such administrative action as is necessary 
     to establish and implement a grant program to assist public 
     safety agencies--
       ``(A) in conducting statewide or regional planning and 
     coordination to improve the interoperability of emergency 
     communications;
       ``(B) in supporting the design and engineering of 
     interoperable emergency communications systems;
       ``(C) in supporting the acquisition or deployment of 
     interoperable communications

[[Page S1072]]

     equipment or systems that improve or advance the 
     interoperability with public safety communications systems;
       ``(D) in obtaining technical assistance and conducting 
     training exercises related to the use of interoperable 
     emergency communications equipment and systems; and
       ``(E) in establishing and implementing a strategic 
     technology reserve to pre-position or secure interoperable 
     communications in advance for immediate deployment in an 
     emergency or major disaster (as defined in section 102(2) of 
     Public Law 93-288 (42 U.S.C. 5122); and
       ``(2) shall make payments of not to exceed $1,000,000,000, 
     in the aggregate, through fiscal year 2010 from the Digital 
     Television Transition and Public Safety Fund established 
     under section 309(j)(8)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(E)) to carry out the grant program 
     established under paragraph (1), of which not more than 
     $100,000,000, in the aggregate, may be allocated for grants 
     under paragraph (1)(E).'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (k) and (l), respectively, and inserting after subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(b) Expedited Implementation.--Pursuant to section 4 of 
     the Call Home Act of 2006, no less than $1,000,000,000 shall 
     be awarded for grants under subsection (a) no later than 
     September 30, 2007, subject to the receipt of qualified 
     applications as determined by the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--In awarding grants under 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (a)(1), the 
     Assistant Secretary shall ensure that grant awards--
       ``(1) result in distributions to public safety entities 
     among the several States that are consistent with section 
     1014(c)(3) of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714(c)(3)); and
       ``(2) are prioritized based upon threat and risk factors 
     that reflect an all-hazards approach to communications 
     preparedness.
       ``(d) Eligibility.--To be eligible for assistance under the 
     grant program established under subsection (a), an applicant 
     shall submit an application, at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Assistant Secretary may 
     require, including--
       ``(1) a detailed explanation of how assistance received 
     under the program would be used to improve regional, State, 
     or local communications interoperability and ensure 
     interoperability with other appropriate public safety 
     agencies in an emergency or a major disaster; and
       ``(2) assurance that the equipment and system would--
       ``(A) be compatible with the communications architecture 
     developed under section 7303(a)(1)(E) of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 
     194(a)(1)(E));
       ``(B) meet any voluntary consensus standards developed 
     under section 7303(a)(1)(D) of that Act (6 U.S.C. 
     194(a)(1)(D); and
       ``(C) be consistent with the common grant guidance 
     established under section 7303(a)(1)(H) of that Act (6 U.S.C. 
     194(a)(1)(H)).
       ``(e) Criteria for Certain Grants.--In awarding grants 
     under subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection (a)(1), the 
     Assistant Secretary shall ensure that all grants funded are 
     consistent with Federal grant guidance established by the 
     SAFECOM Program within the Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(f) Criteria for Strategic Technology Reserve Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under subsection 
     (a)(1)(E), the Assistant Secretary shall consider the 
     continuing technological evolution of communications 
     technologies and devices, with its implicit risk of 
     obsolescence, and shall ensure, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, that a substantial part of the reserve involves 
     prenegotiated contracts and other arrangements for rapid 
     deployment of equipment, supplies, and systems rather than 
     the warehousing or storage of equipment and supplies 
     currently available at the time the reserve is established.
       ``(2) Requirements and characteristics.--A reserve 
     established under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) be capable of re-establishing communications when 
     existing infrastructure is damaged or destroyed in an 
     emergency or a major disaster;
       ``(B) include appropriate current, widely-used equipment, 
     such as Land Mobile Radio Systems, cellular telephones and 
     satellite equipment, Cells-On-Wheels, Cells-On-Light-Trucks, 
     or other self-contained mobile cell sites that can be towed, 
     backup batteries, generators, fuel, and computers;
       ``(C) include equipment on hand for the Governor of each 
     State, key emergency response officials, and appropriate 
     State or local personnel;
       ``(D) include contracts (including prenegotiated contracts) 
     for rapid delivery of the most current technology available 
     from commercial sources; and
       ``(E) include arrangements for training to ensure that 
     personnel are familiar with the operation of the equipment 
     and devices to be delivered pursuant to such contracts.
       ``(3) Additional characteristics.--Portions of the reserve 
     may be virtual and may include items donated on an in-kind 
     contribution basis.
       ``(4) Consultation.--In developing the reserve, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall seek advice from the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as 
     national public safety organizations, emergency managers, 
     State, local, and tribal governments, and commercial 
     providers of such systems and equipment.
       ``(5) Allocation and use of funds.--The Assistant Secretary 
     shall allocate--
       ``(A) a portion of the reserve's funds for block grants to 
     States to enable each State to establish a strategic 
     technology reserve within its borders in a secure location to 
     allow immediate deployment; and
       ``(B) a portion of the reserve's funds for regional Federal 
     strategic technology reserves to facilitate any Federal 
     response when necessary, to be held in each of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency's regional offices, including 
     Boston, Massachusetts (Region 1), New York, New York (Region 
     2), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Region 3), Atlanta, Georgia 
     (Region 4), Chicago, Illinois (Region 5), Denton, Texas 
     (Region 6), Kansas City, Missouri (Region 7), Denver, 
     Colorado (Region 8), Oakland, California (Region 9), Bothell, 
     Washington (Region 10), and each of the noncontiguous States 
     for immediate deployment.
       ``(g) Consensus Standards.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Assistant Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall identify and, if necessary, encourage 
     the development and implementation of, consensus standards 
     for interoperable communications systems to the greatest 
     extent practicable.
       ``(h) Use of Economy Act.--In implementing the grant 
     program established under subsection (a)(1), the Assistant 
     Secretary may seek assistance from other Federal agencies in 
     accordance with section 1535 of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(i) Inspector General Report.--Beginning with the first 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of the 
     Interoperable Emergency Communications Act, the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Commerce shall conduct an annual 
     assessment of the management of the grant program implemented 
     under subsection (a)(1) and transmit a report containing the 
     findings of that assessment and any recommendations related 
     thereto to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
       ``(j) Deadline for Implementation Program Rules.--Within 90 
     days after the date of enactment of the Interoperable 
     Emergency Communications Act, the Assistant Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     Federal Communications Commission, shall promulgate program 
     rules for the implementation of this section.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) of subsection (l), as 
     redesignated.
       (b) FCC Report on Emergency Communications Back-up 
     System.--
       (1) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission, 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     shall evaluate the technical feasibility of creating a back-
     up emergency communications system that complements existing 
     communications resources and takes into account next 
     generation and advanced telecommunications technologies. The 
     overriding objective for the evaluation shall be providing a 
     framework for the development of a resilient interoperable 
     communications system for emergency responders in an 
     emergency. The Commission shall evaluate all reasonable 
     options, including satellites, wireless, and terrestrial-
     based communications systems and other alternative transport 
     mechanisms that can be used in tandem with existing 
     technologies.
       (2) Factors to be evaluated.--The evaluation under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) a survey of all Federal agencies that use terrestrial 
     or satellite technology for communications security and an 
     evaluation of the feasibility of using existing systems for 
     the purpose of creating such an emergency back-up public 
     safety communications system;
       (B) the feasibility of using private satellite, wireless, 
     or terrestrial networks for emergency communications;
       (C) the technical options, cost, and deployment methods of 
     software, equipment, handsets or desktop communications 
     devices for public safety entities in major urban areas, and 
     nationwide; and
       (D) the feasibility and cost of necessary changes to the 
     network operations center of terrestrial-based or satellite 
     systems to enable the centers to serve as emergency back-up 
     communications systems.
       (3) Report.--Upon the completion of the evaluation under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall submit a report to 
     Congress that details the findings of the evaluation, 
     including a full inventory of existing public and private 
     resources most efficiently capable of providing emergency 
     communications.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Title VI of the Post-Katrina emergency 
     Management Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-295) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 699A. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this title, including the amendments made by 
     this title, may be construed to reduce or otherwise limit the 
     authority of the Department of Commerce or the Federal 
     Communications Commission.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as though enacted as part of the Department 
     of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CHAMBLISS:

[[Page S1073]]

  S. 386. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require a higher volume 
of renewable fuel derived from cellulosic biomass, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the connection 
between energy production and agriculture. Agriculture and energy 
policy are converging and unlike anytime in the past, farmers and 
ranchers are producing food, fiber, and fuel. As the country recognizes 
the danger of relying on imported oil, we need to develop an energy 
policy that is aggressive while at the same time thoughtful. Renewable 
fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are not the total solution to our 
problems, but they can help reduce our dependence on imported oil from 
unstable regions of the world.
  In 2005, the Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Energy 
Policy Act that established the Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS. The RFS 
requires minimum volumes of renewable fuels be used in America's motor 
fuels market annually, from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion in 
2012. On January 1, 2006, the Renewable Fuel Standard went into effect 
and since then, the United States has used more than 5 billion gallons 
of ethanol, outpacing RFS requirements by more than 25 percent. 
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, in the next 18 months the 
industry will add nearly 6 billion gallons of new production capacity. 
In short, in 2008, new capacity will exceed the minimum level as called 
for in the RFS.
  This progress is astounding. However, the expansion has not come 
without some cost to the rest of the agriculture sector. For the first 
time in memory corn prices increased during the 2006 harvest season and 
exceeded a critical threshold of $4 per bushel on the Chicago Board of 
Trade and continue to do so.
  If corn prices continue to set new highs over the next year, the 
broiler industry in my home State of Georgia and across the Southeast 
will come under increasing pressure. I fear continued price spikes will 
force some producers out of business. This is not unique to the poultry 
industry, but will also impact swine and cattle operations across the 
country as ethanol outbids livestock for corn.
  We find ourselves in the position of encouraging an industry that 
directly competes with another that is important in all our States, and 
I hope the end result is not policy that encourages livestock operators 
to further integrate and consolidate. We need to continue to support 
the biofuels sector, but also do it in a way that has the least 
disruption on existing markets as possible.
  For this reason, I am introducing the Cellulosic Ethanol Incentive 
Act of 2007. This act builds upon the success of the RFS and increases 
the target from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 30 billion gallons in 
2030. Central to the bill is a set-aside that will help commercialize 
cellulosic ethanol much faster than under current law. This is 
important in order to ensure Federal policy does not erode the 
profitability of the U.S. livestock sector by encouraging additional 
competition for available corn. The bill meets the challenge set forth 
by President Bush last night and mirrors the renewable fuel targets in 
his proposal.
  Furthermore, the legislation promotes regional diversity in the 
production of biofuels. This is important in order to spread the 
benefits of renewable energy policy more evenly across all regions of 
the country. By recommending a minimum level of consumption within a 
particular region, we will provide a needed economic boost to rural 
areas, a new income stream for farmers and ranchers and a further 
acceleration in the production of cellulosic ethanol from a diverse 
resource base ranging from wood chips in the Southeast to wheat straw 
on the Great Plains.
  Ever since the founding of our great country, farmers and ranchers 
have been an integral part in growing the safest, most affordable food 
supply in the world. Now we can build upon their success and we ask 
them to help grow an abundant source of energy. I am confident they are 
up to the task and the Cellulosic Ethanol Incentive Act is an important 
step to help promote this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 386

       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 ``Cellulosic Ethanol Incentive 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. RENEWABLE FUEL PROGRAM.

       Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) in the clause heading, by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2030''; and
       (ii) in the table, by striking the item relating to 2012 
     and inserting the following:

``2012..............................................................10 
2013................................................................11 
2014.............................................................12.10 
2015.............................................................13.31 
2016.............................................................14.64 
2017.............................................................16.11 
2018.............................................................17.72 
2019.............................................................19.49 
2020.............................................................20.46 
2021.............................................................21.48 
2022.............................................................22.56 
2023.............................................................23.69 
2024.............................................................24.87 
2025.............................................................26.11 
2026.............................................................27.42 
2027.............................................................28.79 
2028.............................................................30.23 
2029.............................................................31.74 
2030..........................................................33.33.'';

       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) in the clause heading, by striking ``2013'' and 
     inserting ``2031'';
       (ii) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2031''; and
       (iii) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2030'';
       (C) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
       ``(iii) Minimum quantity derived from cellulosic biomass.--

       ``(I) Ratio.--For calendar year 2010 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, the 2.5-to-1 ratio referred to in paragraph (4) 
     shall apply only to the quantity of cellulosic biomass 
     ethanol sold or introduced into commerce during a calendar 
     year that is in excess of the minimum quantity of renewable 
     fuel derived from cellulosic biomass required for that 
     calendar year.
       ``(II) Minimum quantity.--For calendar year 2010 and each 
     calendar year thereafter, the applicable volume referred to 
     in clause (i) shall contain a minimum volume of renewable 
     fuel derived from cellulosic biomass, as determined in 
     accordance with the following table:

         Minimum volume derived from cellulosic biomass (in billions of
``Calendar year:                                              gallons):
2010..............................................................0.25 
2011..............................................................0.25 
2012..............................................................0.5  
2013..............................................................0.65 
2014..............................................................0.85 
2015..............................................................1.10 
2016..............................................................1.64 
2017..............................................................3.11 
2018..............................................................4.72 
2019..............................................................6.49 
2020..............................................................7.46 
2021..............................................................8.48 
2022..............................................................9.56 
2023.............................................................10.69 
2024.............................................................11.87 
2025.............................................................13.11 
2026.............................................................14.42 
2027.............................................................15.79 
2028.............................................................17.23 
2029.............................................................18.74 
2030..........................................................20.33.'';

       (D) in clause (iv)--
       (i) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2031''; and
       (ii) in subclause (II)--

       (I) in item (aa), by striking ``7,500,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``33,330,000,000''; and
       (II) in item (bb), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2030''; and

       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Regional requirement.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     not less than 30 percent of the total volume of renewable 
     fuel required in a State under this subsection shall be 
     derived from the region of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in which the State is located.
       ``(II) Exception.--The Administrator may reduce or waive 
     the requirement in subclause (I) for a region if the 
     Administrator determines that it would be impracticable for 
     the region to produce the required volume of renewable 
     fuel.''; and

       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
     ``2029''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2012'' and inserting 
     ``2029''.




                          ____________________