[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 15 (Thursday, January 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1190-S1199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 387. A bill to prohibit the sale by the Department of Defense of
parts for F-14 fighter aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to light an important
issue which threatens our national security and begs the attention of
Congress. The legislation I propose today seeks to end the Iranian
government's acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking
the Pentagon's sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.
It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize
and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent
investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding
the sale of F-14 ``Tomcat'' aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have
discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who
bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.
Other than the United States, Iran is the only Nation to fly the F-
14. The U.S. allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its revolution in
1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently grounded for lack
of parts.
We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know
that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active
state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F-
14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons
capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DoD.
Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne,
greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and
global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to
deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14
fleet.
The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking
action to control the sale of F-14 parts. A few times a year they
change the restriction on the sale of F-14 parts. But history has shown
us that these rules are not enough. The Department has been caught
still selling F-14 parts, even when its rules forbid it. It has sold F-
14 parts to companies that have turned out to be fronts for the
Iranians. More recently, the DoD sold sensitive technology, including
classified F-14 parts to undercover GAO investigators.
My intention with this bill is to make it crystal clear to the
Department of Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for
any reason. There should be no chance for the parts to make their way
to the Iranians.
Additionally, my bill would prohibit the export of any F-14 parts
that have already been sold. This prevents the parts from ending up in
Iran through even the most roundabout route.
I am not trying to reform the entire military surplus sales process.
I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its
investigations and propose some much needed changes. My bill would
simply fix a very specific, but very important, problem: the sale of F-
14 components that end up in the hands of Iran.
I urge the members of the Senate to support this bill.
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. 387
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 ``Stop Arming Iran Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF PARTS
FOR F-14 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Defense is responsible for
demilitarizing and auctioning off sensitive surplus United
States military equipment.
(2) F-14 ``Tomcat'' fighter aircraft have recently been
retired, and their parts are being made available by auction
in large quantities.
(3) Iran is the only country, besides the United States,
flying F-14 fighter aircraft and is purchasing surplus parts
for such aircraft from brokers.
(4) The Government Accountability Office has, as a result
of undercover investigative work, declared the acquisition of
the surplus United States military equipment, including parts
for F-14 fighter aircraft, to be disturbingly effortless.
(5) Upon the seizure of such sensitive surplus military
equipment being sold to Iran, United States customs agents
have discovered these same items, having been resold by the
Department of Defense, being brokered illegally to Iran
again.
(6) Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, and the
Department of State has identified Iran as the most active
state sponsor of terrorism.
(7) Iran continues to provide funding, safe haven,
training, and weapons to known terrorist groups, including
Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
(8) The sale of spare parts for F-14 fighter aircraft could
make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons
capability of Iran and would strengthen the ground war
capability of Iran. To prevent these threats to regional and
global security, the sale of spare parts for F-14 fighter
aircraft should be prohibited.
(b) Prohibition on Sale by Department of Defense.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in paragraph (2), the Department of
Defense may not sell (whether directly or indirectly) any
parts for F-14 fighter aircraft, whether through the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service or through another agency
or element of the Department.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to the sale of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft to a museum or
similar organization located in the United States that is
involved in the preservation of F-14 fighter aircraft for
historical purposes.
(c) Prohibition on Export License.--No license for the
export of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft to a non-United
States person or entity may be issued by the United States
Government.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr.
Cornyn):
S. 389. A bill to increase the number of Federal judgeships, in
accordance with recommendations by the Judicial Conference, in
districts that have an extraordinarily high immigration caseload; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DOMENICIl. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial
Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with
immigration cases.
It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they
need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including
courts which must adjudicate criminal immigration cases that appear on
their dockets. This includes our U.S. District Courts, which must try
repeat immigration law violators who are charged with a felony in U.S.
District Court.
The legislation I am introducing today creates eleven new Federal
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for the four U.S.
Districts in which more than 50 percent of their criminal cases are
immigration cases. Each of these Districts shares a border Mexico.
In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5,599 criminal
case filings, 3,688 of those cases, or 65 percent, dealt with
immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings,
of which 2,404 cases, that's 59 percent, were immigration filings. The
Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings, 64
percent of the 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of
New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent, or 1,502 cases, were
immigration cases.
Based on these caseloads, we should already be giving these Districts
new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration
enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without
equipping these courts
[[Page S1191]]
to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected
to face would amount to willful negligence.
The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a
letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge
Vazquez wrote: ``As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this
District is considerable. This District ranks first among all districts
in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal filings compared to the
national average of 87. As in all federal districts along the southwest
border, the majority of cases filed in this District relate to
immigration offenses under United States Code, Title 8 and drug
offenses arising under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for
eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New Mexico. . .
. In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the
District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration
felony filings increased to 1,826, which is an increase of 661
percent.''
The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our
Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled
``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated: ``U.S.
District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe oversees a court that
faces a rising caseload from illegal border crossings and related
crime. And help from Washington is by no means certain. . . . From
Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the
caseload in the New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5
percent, from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126
felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th
Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.
Most typical immigration cases go before an immigration judge, and the
subjects are deported. But people deported once and caught crossing
illegally again can be charged with a felony. And that brings the
defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases driving up
New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants crowd
the courtroom in Las Cruces. . . . The same problems are afflicting
federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas.''
Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article
``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said: ``President
George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to the
U.S.-Mexico border could spark a surge in immigration cases and U.S.
courts are ill prepared to handle them. . . . Even without the stepped-
up security at the border, federal courts in southern California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a
spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial districts,
out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of all criminal cases
moving through U.S. courts. . . . Most immigrants caught crossing
illegally are ordered out of the country without prosecution. But that
still leaves a growing pile of cases involving illegals who are being
prosecuted after being caught multiple times or those accused of other
crimes. Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of 87 cases a
year. But along the southern border, even before Bush's plan moves
forward, the average is around 300 per judge, Carelli said.''
Lastly, I recently heard first-hand about this problem from a Federal
judge in New Mexico. He told me that he travels almost 200 miles to
hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees
involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the
system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive
almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State.
This is a dire situation that must be addressed.
The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration
caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I
am introducing today does that by authorizing the nine permanent and
two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference
for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total
more than 50 percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload.
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. 389
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGESHIPS.
The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, such additional district court judges
as are necessary to carry out the 2005 recommendations of the
Judicial Conference for district courts in which the criminal
immigration filings represented more than 50 percent of all
criminal filings for the 12-month period ending September 30,
2004.
______
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 390. A bill to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San
Juan, and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce
the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007, together with my
colleague Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of
critical lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah
and will help provide important funding for Utah's school children.
In Utah, we treasure our children's education. A key component of our
education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands
scattered throughout the State. Upon Utah's admission to the Union in
1896, these lands were dedicated to support public education. Revenue
from the trust lands, whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing,
or mineral development, is placed in the State School Fund. This fund
is a permanent, income-producing endowment created by Congress to fund
Utah's public education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are
surrounded by public lands, making responsible management very
difficult. It is critical to both the State of Utah and the Bureau of
Land Management that we consolidate their respective lands to ensure
that both public agencies are permitted to fulfill their mandates.
The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in
our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the
financial well-being of our education system. These efforts allow the
Federal land management agencies to consolidate public lands in
environmentally-sensitive areas that can then be reasonably managed. We
see this exchange as a win-win solution for the State of Utah and its
school children, as well as the Department of the Interior, the
caretaker of our public lands.
In 1998, Congress passed the first major Utah school trust land
exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again in
2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000 acres.
I was proud to play a role in those efforts, and the bill we are
introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward
fulfilling the promise Congress made to Utah's school children in 1896.
Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manages
some of the most spectacular lands in America, located along the
Colorado River in southeastern Utah. This legislation will ensure that
places like Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River, the world famous
Kokopelli and Slickrock biking trails, some of the largest natural rock
arches in the United States, wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for
Arches National Park will be traded into Federal ownership and for the
benefit of future generations. At the same time, the school children of
Utah will receive mineral and development lands that are not
environmentally-sensitive, and where responsible development makes
sense. This will be an equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000
acres exchanged on both sides, giving taxpayers and the school children
of Utah a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a common-
sense valuation process for resources that are often either overlooked
or overvalued because of their highly-speculative nature.
This legislation represents a truly collaborative process that has
included local governments, the State, the recreation and environmental
communities, and other interested parties. We
[[Page S1192]]
also worked closely with the Department of the Interior on proper
valuation in the appraisal of the lands. In a hearing held before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 24, 2006, the
Department of the Interior expressed their support for the bill and
said that this land exchange will resolve management issues, improve
public access, and facilitate greater resource protection. We look
forward to working with the appropriate committees toward a successful
resolution of this proposed exchange during this Congress.
I ask my colleagues to support our effort to fund the education of
our children in Utah and to protect some of this nation's truly great
land. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of
2007.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 392. A bill to ensure payment of United States assessments for
United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time
period; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure
that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United
Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1,
2006.
For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the
U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like
Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that
advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the
peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt,
and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping
operations.
Here is why.
In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N.
peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations
continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt
accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S.
law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N.
In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it
authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on
certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a
negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent.
Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in
reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.
In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears
payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke
had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law
limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.
In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a
temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to
the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent
temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005.
Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more
than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations
assesses the United States at a higher rate.
Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government
continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a
mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than
encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it.
How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time
push the U.N. to get its financial house in order?
More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's
national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so.
The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts
that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring
cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now,
the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust
mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security
Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions.
Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international
peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests,
while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other
nations. We should not shortchange these operations.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 393. A bill to transfer unspent funds for grants by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office of Justice Programs,
and the Office on Violence Against Women to the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
restore critical funding to one of our Nation's most effective drug
enforcement tools, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program. My bill, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance
Act of 2007, will bring a desperately needed infusion of cash into this
critical local law enforcement assistance program.
The Byrne grant program provides funding for local drug task forces
all over the country. These local drug task forces are critical to
creating regional cooperation and to fighting the manufacture,
distribution, and use of methamphetamine.
A survey by the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy found that in
fiscal year 2004 Byrne JAG dollars funded 4,316 police officers and
prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces. The study also
found that Byrne JAG funding led to 221,000 arrests in 45 states, the
seizure of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the breakup of
almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs.
Yet the program has suffered draconian cuts over the past 4 years.
Between 2003 and 2006 the President and the Attorney General have
refused to provide a single dollar for Byrne local law enforcement
funding. As a result, funding for the Byrne program has been slashed by
almost 60 percent from $1 billion dollars in 2003 to just $416 million
in 2006.
I hear on a weekly basis from Sheriffs and other law enforcement
officials in Iowa how hard these cuts are hitting them. Over the past
year, Iowa has had to absorb a 42 percent cut in Byrne funding. That
translates to less law enforcement officers and less regional
cooperation in finding and stopping that meth that continues to flood
the State of Iowa. I recently heard from Story County Sheriff Paul
Fitzgerald that his agency alone will lose two drug task force agents
this year, a statistic that is being repeated in almost every county
across my State.
The anecdotal evidence from Iowa law enforcement is clearly reflected
at the national level. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform
Crime Reports recently found that violent crime in the United States
increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent in the
first half of 2006, the largest increase in 15 years! The increase was
much more severe in the meth plagued Midwest with violent crime up 5.7
percent in 2005.
You don't need a side by side chart to understand the connection
between drastic reductions in federal funding for local law enforcement
and rising crime rates!
At the same time, a recent report by the Department of Justice
Inspector General found that the Department of Justice has not been
doing a particularly effective job of administering the grants within
its jurisdiction. The Inspector General found that just over $170
million expired grant funding is sitting at DOJ. Some of this funding
is for grants that expired as long as five years ago!
My bill simply takes this unused money and puts it into the Byrne
grant program. Specifically, the legislation transfers all balances on
COPS and Office of Justice Program grants that have been expired for
more than 90 days and all Office of Violence Against Women grants that
have been expired for more than 2 years, to the Byrne JAG program for
fiscal year 2007. These expired grant funds are currently sitting in
DOJ coffers and cannot legally be used by the grantee, and the funds
would ultimately revert to the treasury. My bill instead puts the money
to good use in offsetting some of the most drastic consequences of cuts
to the Byrne program.
While reallocating these amounts to Byrne JAG will make only a dent
in the massive budget cuts of recent years, the Emergency Local Law
Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007 is an important first step and
sends an immediate message to line officers
[[Page S1193]]
overwhelmed by the unstoppable flow of meth into our States that we are
going to help.
I am hopeful that in this new Congress the President and the Congress
will more adequately fund crucial law enforcement programs like Byrne
JAG. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating
a commitment to local law enforcement and to our continuing fight
against methamphetamine by coming together to quickly pass the
Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007.
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. 393
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 ``Emergency Local Law
Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) A report by the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice documents that the Office of Justice Programs, the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the
Office on Violence Against Women of the Department of Justice
have failed to close out and deobligate over $160,000,000 in
expired grant funds and that these funds have not been
redirected to other programs or returned to the Treasury.
(2) Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006, funding
for the formula grant program of the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) has been reduced by over 50 percent,
from $900,000,000 to $416,000,000.
(3) According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Reports, violent crime in the United States
increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent
in the first half of 2006. In the Midwest, which continues to
struggle with a methamphetamine epidemic, violent crime
increased 5.7 percent between 2004 and 2005.
SEC. 3. UNSPENT GRANTS.
(a) In General.--All amounts described in subsection (b)
shall be transferred for use for grants under the formula
grant program of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et
seq.), to remain available until expended.
(b) Amounts Covered.--The amounts described in this
subsection are any unexpended amounts for--
(1) any covered grant administered by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services;
(2) any covered grant administered by the Office of Justice
Programs; and
(3) any covered grant administered by the Office on
Violence Against Women for which the grant expired not less
than 2 years before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
grant'' means a grant--
(1) that has expired but has not been closed out; or
(2)(A) that has expired and been closed out; and
(B) the remaining funds of which have not been deobligated.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 394. A bill to amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act
of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues,
Senators Ted Stevens, R-AK, Carl Levin, D-MI, Susan Collins, R-ME,
Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, John Kerry, D-MA, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Dianne
Feinstein, D-CA, and Robert Menendez, D-NJ to introduce the Downed
Animal and Food Safety Protection Act of 2007, legislation intended to
protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill, which
has bipartisan support, would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals
for human consumption.
Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock
such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines
that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals
are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway
for the spread of disease.
The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance.
With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, also known
as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies, TSE, which are related animal diseases found not only
in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that
we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe.
Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of
Agriculture's, USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts
downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with
BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other
diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem
inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar
to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate
for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed
animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal
showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an
ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human
consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally
safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of
downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled
to contaminate otherwise safe meat.
There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that
affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and
classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present
in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases is
limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in
this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is
needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by
diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has already
created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other
ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is
known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all
mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feed given to
cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in
protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go
far enough, because they still allow the processing of downer cattle.
According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public
Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European
countries, downer cattle are at high risk for BSE. According to the
Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population
intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by
82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals
serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have
entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle,
they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress,
ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the
best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer
livestock from entering our food supply.
The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and
FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of
nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The
euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk
population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption.
Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other
species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of
livestock will be included in this bill.
The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the
industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering
by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed
animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better
quality. The reduction in the likelihood of disease would result in
safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added
protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and
livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce
in livestock more easily attainable.
[[Page S1194]]
Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive
financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my
colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in
2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated
that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more
than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of
BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its
economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in
preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.
Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten
percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my
understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not
believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our
livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This
bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to
our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human
consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and
protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry
from economic distress.
American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government
to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human
consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the measure 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. 394
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 ``Downed Animal and Food
Safety Protection Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the humane euthanization
of nonambulatory livestock in interstate and foreign
commerce--
(1) prevents needless suffering;
(2) results in safer and better working conditions for
persons handling livestock;
(3) brings about improvement of products and reduces the
likelihood of the spread of diseases that have a great and
deleterious impact on interstate and foreign commerce in
livestock; and
(4) produces other benefits for producers, processors, and
consumers that tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock
and livestock products in interstate foreign commerce.
(b) Declaration of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States that all nonambulatory livestock in interstate and
foreign commerce shall be immediately and humanely euthanized
when such livestock become nonambulatory.
SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY
LIVESTOCK.
(a) In General.--Public Law 85-765 (commonly known as the
``Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'') (7 U.S.C. 1901
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 2 (7 U.S.C.
1902) the following:
``SEC. 3. NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(A) a stockyard;
``(B) a market agency;
``(C) a dealer;
``(D) a packer;
``(E) a slaughter facility; or
``(F) an establishment.
``(2) Establishment.--The term `establishment' means an
establishment that is covered by the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
``(3) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize'
means to immediately render an animal unconscious by
mechanical, chemical, or other means, with this state
remaining until the death of the animal.
``(4) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory
livestock' means any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses,
mules, or other equines, that will not stand and walk
unassisted.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(b) Humane Treatment, Handling, and Disposition.--The
Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the
humane treatment, handling, and disposition of all
nonambulatory livestock by covered entities, including a
requirement that nonambulatory livestock be humanely
euthanized.
``(c) Humane Euthanasia.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), when an animal
becomes nonambulatory, a covered entity shall immediately
humanely euthanize the nonambulatory livestock.
``(2) Disease testing.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the
ability of the Secretary to test nonambulatory livestock for
a disease, such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.
``(d) Movement.--
``(1) In general.--A covered entity shall not move
nonambulatory livestock while the nonambulatory livestock are
conscious.
``(2) Unconsciousness.--In the case of any nonambulatory
livestock that are moved, the covered entity shall ensure
that the nonambulatory livestock remain unconscious until
death.
``(e) Inspections.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for an inspector at
an establishment to pass through inspection any nonambulatory
livestock or carcass (including parts of a carcass) of
nonambulatory livestock.
``(2) Labeling.--An inspector or other employee of an
establishment shall label, mark, stamp, or tag as `inspected
and condemned' any material described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate final regulations to implement the amendment made
by subsection (a).
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 396. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
controlled foreign corporations in tax havens as domestic corporations;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Carl Levin of
Michigan and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin in re-introducing
legislation that we believe will help the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) combat offshore tax haven abuses and ensure that U.S.
multinational companies pay the U.S. taxes that they rightfully owe.
Every year, tens of millions of taxpayers work through piles of
complicated IRS instructions and complex forms to prepare and file
their tax returns to fulfill their taxpaying responsibility. Some tax
experts have estimated that taxpayers spend over $100 billion and more
than 6 billion hours trying to comply with their Federal tax
obligation.
That's why every American has a right to be angry when they hear
repeated press accounts of corporate taxpayers that are shirking their
tax obligations by actively shifting their profits to foreign tax
havens or using other inappropriate tax avoidance techniques. The bill
that we are re-introducing today is a simple and straightforward way to
try to tackle the offshore tax haven problem. It is virtually identical
to our bill in the 109th Congress, S. 779, but we have granted
potentially impacted companies an extra year to comply with its
provisions.
We have known for many years that some very profitable U.S.
multinational businesses are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying
their fair share of U.S. taxes. But in the face of these reports, the
Congress and the administration have shown little interest in stopping
this hemorrhaging of tax revenues. In fact, a growing body of evidence
suggests that the tax haven problem is getting much worse and may be
costing the U.S. Treasury tens of billions of dollars every year.
Although the Congress did pass legislation a few years ago, which I
supported, that addresses a narrow problem of a couple dozen corporate
expatriates that reincorporated overseas, that legislation did nothing
to deal with the problem of U.S. companies that are setting up tax
haven subsidiaries offshore to avoid their taxpaying responsibilities
in this country.
Around the time of the debate on corporate inversions, a New York
Times article got it right when it suggested that ``instead of moving
headquarters offshore, many companies are simply placing patents on
drugs, ownership of corporate logos, techniques for manufacturing
processes and other intangible assets in tax havens . . . The companies
then charge their subsidiaries in higher-tax locales, including the
U.S., for the use of these intellectual properties. This allows the
companies to take profits in these havens and pay far less in taxes.''
How pervasive is the tax haven subsidiary problem? A couple of years
ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm
of Congress, issued a report that Senator Levin and I requested that
gives some insight to the potential magnitude of this tax avoidance
activity.
[[Page S1195]]
The GAO found that 59 out of the 100 largest publicly-traded Federal
contractors in 2001--with tens of billions of dollars of Federal
contracts in 2001-- had established hundreds of subsidiaries located in
offshore tax havens. According to the GAO, Exxon-Mobil Corporation, the
21st largest publicly traded Federal contractor in 2001, has some 11
tax-haven subsidiaries in the Bahamas. The same report revealed that
the Halliburton Company has 17 tax-haven subsidiaries, including 13 in
the Cayman Islands, a country that has never imposed a corporate income
tax, as well as 2 in Liechtenstein and 2 in Panama. And the now
infamous Enron Corporation had 1,300 different foreign entities,
including some 441 located in the Cayman Islands.
But the poster child for offshore tax haven abuses, in my opinion, is
a five-story building located in the Cayman Islands that thousands of
companies call home. According to a very good investigative report
published by David Evans with Bloomberg News in the summer of 2004,
there is a building named the Ugland House in Grand Cayman that is used
as the address of 12,748 companies.
In fact, nearly half of the money U.S. companies earned overseas is
accounted for in tax havens like the Cayman Islands. A former Joint
Committee on Taxation economist released a study that looked at the
amount of profits that U.S. companies are shifting to offshore tax
havens. He found that U.S. multinational companies had moved hundreds
of billions of dollars in profits to tax havens for years 1999-2002,
the latest years for which IRS data was available.
The legislation we are re-introducing today would help put a stop to
these tax avoidance schemes. Specifically, our legislation denies tax
benefits, namely tax deferral, to U.S. multinational companies that set
up controlled foreign corporations in tax haven countries. This tracks
the same general approach in legislation passed by the Congress and
enacted into law that was designed to curb the problem of corporate
inversions. Our bill builds upon the good work of Senators Baucus and
Grassley and other members of the Senate Finance Committee by extending
similar tax policy changes to cover the case of U.S. companies and
their tax haven subsidiaries.
Specifically, our legislation would treat U.S. controlled foreign
subsidiaries that are set up in tax haven countries--but are not
engaged in a real and active business--as domestic companies for U.S.
tax purposes. In other words, we would simply treat these companies as
if they never left the United States, which is essentially the case in
these tax avoidance motivated transactions. The bill's list of specific
tax haven countries subjected to the new rule is based upon the
previous work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. However, our legislation does give the Secretary of the
Treasury the ability to add or remove a foreign country from this list
in appropriate cases. We also give businesses plenty of time, two
additional years through December 31, 2008, to restructure their tax
haven operations if they so choose.
As mentioned, our legislation effectively ends the deferral tax
benefit for U.S. companies that shift income to offshore inactive tax
haven subsidiaries. This means, for example, that any efforts by a U.S.
company to move profits to the subsidiary through transfer pricing
schemes will not work because the income earned by the subsidiary would
still be immediately taxable by the United States. Likewise, any
efforts to move otherwise active income earned by a U.S. company in a
high-tax foreign country to a tax haven would cause the income to be
immediately taxable by the United States. Under this bill, companies
that try to move intangible assets--and the income they produce--to tax
havens would be unsuccessful because that income would still be
immediately taxable by the United States. The Joint Tax Committee says
our legislation that will help close this tax shelter game will prevent
these companies from draining some $15 billion in revenues from the
U.S. Treasury over the next decade.
Let me be very clear about one thing. This legislation will not
adversely impact U.S. companies with controlled foreign subsidiaries
that are located in tax havens and doing legitimate and substantial
business. The legislation expressly exempts a U.S.-controlled foreign
subsidiary from its tax rule changes when all of its income is derived
from the active conduct of a trade or business within a listed tax
haven country.
In 2002, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti told Congress that
``nothing undermines confidence in the tax system more than the
impression that the average honest taxpayer has to pay his or her taxes
while more wealthy or unscrupulous taxpayers are allowed to get away
with not paying.'' He is absolutely right. It's grossly unfair to ask
our Main Street businesses to operate at a competitive disadvantage to
large multinational businesses simply because our tax authorities are
unable to grapple with the growing offshore tax avoidance problem. It
is also outrageous that tens of millions of working families who pay
their taxes on time every year are shouldering the tax burden of large
profitable U.S. multinational companies that use tax haven
subsidiaries.
In conclusion, it is my hope that the White House and Congress in a
new spirit of bipartisanship will help in our effort to get this needed
tax law change enacted into law. I urge my colleagues to support this
effort by cosponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Thomas,
and Mr. Domenici):
S. 398. Abill to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act to identify and remove barriers to reducing
child abuse, to provide for examinations of certain children, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with
Senator McCain and other senators the Indian Child Protection and
Family, Violence Prevention Act Amendments of 2007. The bill we
introduce today is virtually identical to legislation which the Senate
adopted last year to amend and reauthorize the Indian Child Protection
and Family Violence Prevention Act of 1990. The primary goals of that
Act were to reduce the incidence of child abuse, and mandate the
reporting and tracking of child abuse in Indian Country.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
Amendments would authorize a study to identify impediments to the
reduction of child abuse in Indian Country, as well as require data
collection and annual reporting to Congress concerning child abuse in
Indian Country; provide additional safeguards for the privacy of
information about a child by local law enforcement and child protective
services; provide for more involvement by the FBI and the Attorney
General in documenting incidents of child abuse on Indian reservations;
and authorize the Indian Health Service to use telemedicine in
connection with examinations of abused Indian children. The bill would
also authorize background investigations for employees and volunteers
who work with Indian children, amend the Major Crimes Act to
criminalize acts of child abuse and neglect in Indian Country, and
authorize several treatment programs for Indian children who have been
victimized.
I particularly appreciate that this reauthorization legislation
addresses a related issue about which I have deep concern--the epidemic
of youth suicide in many reservation communities. Indian Country has
higher rates of youth suicide, as well as of child abuse, than other
American population groups. Often, children who attempt suicide have
been abused by a family or community member. This bill would authorize
professionals trained in behavioral health, including suicide
prevention and treatment, to be included on the staff of regional
Indian Child Resource and Family Services Centers authorized under the
Act.
I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly this session to
authorize the additional protections for Native American children that
would be provided by the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence
Prevention Act Amendments of 2007. 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:
[[Page S1196]]
S. 398
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 ``Indian Child Protection and
Family Violence Prevention Act Amendments of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
Section 402 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3201) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
(ii) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) the Federal Government and certain State governments
are responsible for investigating and prosecuting certain
felony crimes, including child abuse, in Indian country,
pursuant to chapter 53 of title 18, United States Code;'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``two'' and inserting ``the'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) identify and remove any impediment to the immediate
investigation of incidents of child abuse in Indian
country.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) provide for a background investigation for any
employee or volunteer who has access to children;''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``Area Office'' and
inserting ``Regional Office''.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 403 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (18) as
paragraphs (7) through (19), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) `final conviction' means the final judgment on a
verdict or finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of
nolo contendere, but does not include a final judgment that
has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set aside, or
otherwise rendered void;'';
(3) in paragraph (13) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``that agency'' and all that follows through
``Indian tribe'' and inserting ``the Federal, State, or
tribal agency'';
(4) in paragraph (14) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by inserting ``(including a tribal law enforcement agency
operating pursuant to a grant, contract, or compact under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450 et seq.))'' after ``State law enforcement
agency'';
(5) in paragraph (18) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``and'' at the end;
(6) in paragraph (19) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and'';
and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) `telemedicine' means a telecommunications link to an
end user through the use of eligible equipment that
electronically links health professionals or patients and
health professionals at separate sites in order to exchange
health care information in audio, video, graphic, or other
format for the purpose of providing improved health care
diagnosis and treatment.''.
SEC. 4. REPORTING PROCEDURES.
Section 404 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Within'' and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Not later than''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``(2)(A) Any'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Investigation of reports.--
``(A) In general.--Any'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``(B) Upon'' and inserting the following:
``(B) Final written report.--On''; and
(II) by inserting ``including any Federal, State, or tribal
final conviction, and provide to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation a copy of the report'' before the period at the
end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Maintenance of final reports.--The Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall maintain a record of each written report
submitted under this subsection or subsection (b) in a manner
in which the report is accessible to--
``(i) a local law enforcement agency that requires the
information to carry out an official duty; and
``(ii) any agency requesting the information under section
408.
``(D) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subsection, and annually
thereafter, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in coordination with the Secretary and the
Attorney General, shall submit to the Committees on Indian
Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committees on
Natural Resources and the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on child abuse in Indian country
during the preceding year.
``(E) Collection of data.--Not less frequently than once
each year, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any
Indian tribe, shall--
``(i) collect any information concerning child abuse in
Indian country (including reports under subsection (b)),
including information relating to, during the preceding
calendar year--
``(I) the number of criminal and civil child abuse
allegations and investigations in Indian country;
``(II) the number of child abuse prosecutions referred,
declined, or deferred in Indian country;
``(III) the number of child victims who are the subject of
reports of child abuse in Indian country;
``(IV) sentencing patterns of individuals convicted of
child abuse in Indian country; and
``(V) rates of recidivism with respect to child abuse in
Indian country; and
``(ii) to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the
duplication of information collection under clause (i).'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Confidentiality of Children.--No local law
enforcement agency or local child protective services agency
shall disclose the name of, or information concerning, the
child to anyone other than--
``(1) a person who, by reason of the participation of the
person in the treatment of the child or the investigation or
adjudication of the allegation, needs to know the information
in the performance of the duties of the individual; or
``(2) an officer of any other Federal, State, or tribal
agency that requires the information to carry out the duties
of the officer under section 406.
``(f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Indian Affairs
and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committees on Natural
Resources and the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a
report on child abuse in Indian country during the preceding
year.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
SEC. 5. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO REDUCING CHILD ABUSE.
Section 405 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3204) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 405. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO REDUCING CHILD ABUSE.
``(a) Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Attorney General and the Service, shall conduct a study under
which the Secretary shall identify any impediment to the
reduction of child abuse in Indian country and on Indian
reservations.
``(b) Inclusions.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include a description of--
``(1) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect
to removing impediments, to reporting child abuse in Indian
country;
``(2) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect
to removing impediments, to Federal, State, and tribal
investigations and prosecutions of allegations of child abuse
in Indian country; and
``(3) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect
to removing impediments, to the treatment of child abuse in
Indian country.
``(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence
Prevention Act Amendments of 2007, the Secretary shall submit
to the Committees on Indian Affairs and the Judiciary of the
Senate, and the Committees on Natural Resources and the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives, a report
describing--
``(1) the findings of the study under this section; and
``(2) recommendations for legislative actions, if any, to
reduce instances of child abuse in Indian country.''.
SEC. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY.
Section 406 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3205) is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 406. CONFIDENTIALITY.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any Federal, State, or tribal government agency that
treats or investigates incidents of child abuse may provide
information and records to an officer of any other Federal,
State, or tribal government agency that requires the
information to carry out the duties of the officer, in
accordance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code,
section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264),
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20
U.S.C. 1232g), part C of title XI of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.), and other applicable Federal law.
``(b) Treatment of Indian Tribes.--For purposes of this
section, an Indian tribal government shall be considered to
be an entity of the Federal Government.''.
SEC. 7. WAIVER OF PARENTAL CONSENT.
Section 407 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3206) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and forensic'' after
``psychological''; and
[[Page S1197]]
(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Protection of Child.--Any examination or interview of
a child who may have been the subject of child abuse shall--
``(1) be conducted under such circumstances and using such
safeguards as are necessary to minimize additional trauma to
the child;
``(2) avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, subjecting
the child to multiple interviewers during the examination and
interview processes; and
``(3) as time permits, be conducted using advice from, or
under the guidance of--
``(A) a local multidisciplinary team established under
section 411; or
``(B) if a local multidisciplinary team is not established
under section 411, a multidisciplinary team established under
section 410.''.
SEC. 8. CHARACTER INVESTIGATIONS.
Section 408 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3207) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``, including any voluntary positions,''
after ``authorized positions''; and
(ii) by striking the comma at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``(including in a volunteer capacity)''
after ``considered for employment''; and
(ii) by striking ``, and'' and inserting ``; and'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``guilty to'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``guilty to, any
felony offense under Federal, State, or tribal law, or 2 or
more misdemeanor offenses under Federal, State, or tribal
law, involving--
``(1) a crime of violence;
``(2) sexual assault;
``(3) child abuse;
``(4) molestation;
``(5) child sexual exploitation;
``(6) sexual contact;
``(7) child neglect;
``(8) prostitution; or
``(9) another offense against a child.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Effect on Child Placement.--An Indian tribe that
submits a written statement to the applicable State official
documenting that the Indian tribe has conducted a background
investigation under this section for the placement of an
Indian child in a tribally-licensed or tribally-approved
foster care or adoptive home, or for another out-of-home
placement, shall be considered to have satisfied the
background investigation requirements of any Federal or State
law requiring such an investigation.''.
SEC. 9. INDIAN CHILD ABUSE TREATMENT GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 409 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3208) is amended by
striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
SEC. 10. INDIAN CHILD RESOURCE AND FAMILY SERVICES CENTERS.
Section 410 of the Indian Child Protection and Family
Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3209) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``area office'' and
inserting ``Regional Office'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Secretary'' and
all that follows through ``Human Services'' and inserting
``The Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
and the Attorney General'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, State,'' after
``Federal''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``agency office'' and
inserting ``Regional Office'';
(4) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) adolescent mental and behavioral health (including
suicide prevention and treatment);'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``and sexual assault;''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) criminal prosecution; and
``(6) medicine.'';
(5) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary''
and all that follows through ``Human Services'' and inserting
the following:
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Service and the Attorney General'';
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``Each'' and inserting the following
``(2) Membership.--Each''; and
(ii) by striking ``shall consist of 7 members'' and
inserting ``shall be'';
(C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Members'' and
inserting the following:
``(3) Compensation.--Members''; and
(D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``The advisory''
and inserting the following:
``(4) Duties.--Each advisory'';
(6) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``(g)'' and all that follows through
``Indian Child Resource'' and inserting the following:
``(g) Application of Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act to Centers.--
``(1) In general.--Indian Child Resource'';
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``Act'' and
inserting ``and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.)'';
(C) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(2) Certain regional offices.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
if a Center is located in a Regional Office of the Bureau
that serves more than 1 Indian tribe, an application to enter
into a grant, contract, or compact under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.) to operate the Center shall contain a consent form
signed by an official of each Indian tribe to be served under
the grant, contract, or compact.
``(B) Alaska region.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for
Centers located in the Alaska Region, an application to enter
into a grant, contract, or compact described in that
subparagraph shall contain a consent form signed by an
official of each Indian tribe or tribal consortium that is a
member of a grant, contract, or compact relating to an Indian
child protection and family violence prevention program under
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).''; and
(D) in the third sentence, by striking ``This section'' and
inserting the following:
``(3) Effect of section.--This section''; and
(7) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
SEC. 11. USE OF TELEMEDICINE.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention
Act (25 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 412. USE OF TELEMEDICINE.
``(a) Definition of Medical or Behavioral Health
Professional.--In this section, the term `medical or
behavioral health professional' means an employee or
volunteer of an organization that provides a service as part
of a comprehensive service program that combines--
``(1) substance abuse (including abuse of alcohol, drugs,
inhalants, and tobacco) prevention and treatment; and
``(2) mental health treatment.
``(b) Contracts and Agreements.--The Service is authorized
to enter into any contract or agreement for the use of
telemedicine with a public or private university or facility,
including a medical university or facility, or any private
medical or behavioral health professional, with experience
relating to pediatrics, including the diagnosis and treatment
of child abuse, to assist the Service with respect to--
``(1) the diagnosis and treatment of child abuse; or
``(2) methods of training Service personnel in diagnosing
and treating child abuse.
``(c) Administration.--In carrying out subsection (b), the
Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
``(1) use existing telemedicine infrastructure; and
``(2) give priority to Service units and medical facilities
operated pursuant to grants, contracts, or compacts under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450 et seq.) that are located in, or providing service
to, remote areas of Indian country.
``(d) Information and Consultation.--On receipt of a
request, for purposes of this section, the Service may
provide to public and private universities and facilities,
including medical universities and facilities, and medical or
behavioral health professionals described in subsection (b)
any information or consultation on the treatment of Indian
children who have, or may have, been subject to abuse or
neglect.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.''.
SEC. 12. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Offenses Committed Within Indian Country.--Section
1153(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``felony child abuse, felony child neglect,'' after
``robbery,''.
(b) Reporting of Child Abuse.--Section 1169 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or volunteering
for'' after ``employed by'';
(B) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) by inserting ``or volunteer'' after ``child day care
worker''; and
(ii) by striking ``worker in a group home'' and inserting
``worker or volunteer in a group home'';
(C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or psychological
assistant,'' and inserting ``psychological or psychiatric
assistant, or person employed in the mental or behavioral
health profession;'';
(D) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``child'' and
inserting ``individual'';
(E) by striking subparagraph (G), and inserting the
following:
``(G) foster parent; or''; and
(F) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``law enforcement
officer, probation officer'' and
[[Page S1198]]
inserting ``law enforcement personnel, probation officer,
criminal prosecutor''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (3) and (4)
and inserting the following:
``(3) `local child protective services agency' has the
meaning given the term in section 403 of the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C.
3202); and
``(4) `local law enforcement agency' has the meaning given
the term in section 403 of that Act.''.
______
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 399. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
include podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians
services under the Medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important
bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have
access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. Senator
Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in the effort again this year, and
I appreciate her dedication to this issue.
Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals
mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly
true for individuals with diabetes.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC,
almost 21 million Americans have diabetes, which amounts to about 7
percent of the total population. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of
death in this country. In 2005, 1.5 million Americans were diagnosed
with diabetes.
If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health
problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart
disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including
foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that
82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year
because of complications with diabetes.
Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations.
The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role
podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among
diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to
include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid
beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to
provide it.
Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However,
just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are
not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to
perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to
receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained
as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities.
Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered
physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and
disabled individuals to receive appropriate care.
I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important
bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have
access to podiatrists that they need.
Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me reintroduce
this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this
important change made.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to
introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have
access to care provided by podiatrists.
This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get
services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill.
This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition
of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be
covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are
considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid.
Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should
allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care
to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.
The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid.
Currently, most State Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize
and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their
beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budget States may choose
to cut back on these optional services. There are now 7 States where
access to a podiatrist is limited or nearly impossible for someone who
receives Medicaid. Even though podiatrist services are considered
optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do
not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as
well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I
want to make sure the over 750,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland
continue to have access to the services provided by over 400
podiatrists in Maryland.
Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower
leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic
diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of
peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that
can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Nearly 21
million Americans are now living with diabetes, a 14 percent increase
from the 18 million in 2003. Another 41 million have pre-diabetes, the
condition that indicates an increased risk for developing both type 2
diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Both the CDC and the American
Diabetes Association recommend that podiatric physicians be part of the
care term for people with diabetes.
Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid
funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical
Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot
health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common
complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000
people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year.
Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education
could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. This alone could
have saved $1.3 billion in savings for Medicare and $386 million in
savings for Medicaid. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.
This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country
have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the
American Podiatric Medical Association and gained broad bi-partisan
support in both the House and Senate last Congress. 29 Senators co-
sponsored S. 440, including nearly half the members of the Finance
Committee. The House companion bill, HR 699 had 210 co-cosponsors,
including 68 percent of the committee with primary jurisdiction, Energy
and Commerce. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important
legislation.
______
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Gregg, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 400. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that dependent
students who take a medically necessary leave of absence do not lose
health insurance coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg
and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the
law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was
a 20-year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at
Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December
2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence
to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school
she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan
because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The
family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated
the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's
family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage,
and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her
homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable
chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and
the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2
years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in
Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in
[[Page S1199]]
May 2005. However, Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in
November 2005.
Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this
woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State
Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June
2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health
plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their
dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical
leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans
governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA.
Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to
focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a
full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an
additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less
than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest
change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does
not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health
insurance business.
I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure
another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence
rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators
Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the
Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.
____________________