[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''.
____________________