[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1328-S1352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 427. A bill to provide for additional section 8 vouchers, to
reauthorize the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Affordable
Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing
affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around
the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and
affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and
federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also
providing $2.69 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability
challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing
affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters
throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and
secure housing is about more than just providing families with
somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children
with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve
at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows
families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities
including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save
money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites
around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable
housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that
families have to undertake in order to afford housing.
This bill is especially needed now, given the breakdown in the fiscal
year 2007 appropriations process. This week, the House is scheduled to
pass a joint funding resolution to fund federal agencies through the
rest of fiscal year 2007. I have heard from Wisconsinites concerned
that the funding levels in the resolution could affect the ability of
various local housing authorities to serve the same number of
individuals as were assisted last year, never mind trying to serve the
increasing numbers of individuals around the State who need housing
assistance. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee filed the
joint funding resolution and I am pleased to see the Committee included
a boost in funding for Section 8 tenant-based and project-based
vouchers, allowing HUD to renew the vouchers that are currently in use
by families. In addition to maintaining the current level of vouchers,
I hope that we in Congress can work together this year to fund new
Section 8 vouchers to help address the critical rental assistance needs
throughout the country.
My bill does not address every housing need out there, but I believe
it is a good, necessary first step. My legislation does address a
number of different issues that local communities in my State and
around the country are facing, including the need for more rental
assistance, the creation and preservation of more affordable housing
units, and the ability to more adequately address public safety
concerns of residents of federally assisted housing.
Congress needs to act on other vital housing needs this year
including addressing the large shortfall in the public housing
operating fund. I have heard from housing authorities ranging in size
from Menomonie Housing Authority to Milwaukee Housing Authority about
the shortfall in operating funds and the negative impact it is having
on the communities these housing agencies are serving. This shortfall
in operating subsidies impacts public housing authorities and the
people they serve by reducing funding for maintenance costs associated
with running buildings and limiting the services that housing
authorities can provide, such as covering utility cost increases. The
joint funding resolution filed yesterday also included an increase of
$300 million for public housing authorities to pay for these important
operating costs, including the increases in utility costs. This is a
good start and we must continue working this year to provide much-
needed assistance to these housing authorities and the individuals and
families they serve.
Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more,
available in the United States. Research shows that the number of
families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million
households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families
spends more than 30 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The
National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000
Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million
Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities,
towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack
of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that
confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans.
Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of
Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance
to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe
and affordable housing.
Congress has created effective affordable housing and community
development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal
social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do
not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we
can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into
account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in
1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's
budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized.
Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the
demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of
Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list
for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours
and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not
accepted new applications for Section 8
[[Page S1329]]
in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the
waiting list.
Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country.
According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness
Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in
Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and
currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its
waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its
waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical
waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given
these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8
vouchers than currently exist.
While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to
be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government
agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of
Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their
housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined
that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8
program costs less than it would through other federal housing
programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission
reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost-
effective, and successful in its mission.''
The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to
be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters
access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also
called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for
families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the
calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for
100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually
by Congress.
My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000
incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2008. I have identified enough
funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000
vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the
total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it
is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were
passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of
these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine
where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide
sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program.
According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers
have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to
four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it
will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to
find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased
funding for Section 8 vouchers.
We should examine doing more than just providing more money for
Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of
Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging
from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to
rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens
landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program.
Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula
the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I
look forward to working with my colleagues in this Congress to address
these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective,
more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country.
But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the
housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to
increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our
communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable
to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments
Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990
to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing
for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows
participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other
existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low
income Americans throughout the country.
According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23
billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating
jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units
committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports
that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in
my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and
have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and
States around the country are able to report numerous success stories
in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to
participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial
Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and
recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.
Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has
seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9
billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than
$1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating
jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some
jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to
ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we
must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in
need.
But, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to
assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target
additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME
structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with
the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set-
aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for
extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median
income or below.
As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe
affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data
from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low
income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues
while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with
affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low
income owner households are severely burdened by affordability
concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with
severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families
and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half
of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing
Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in
America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income
renter households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted
that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or
production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.
Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe
and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area
median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of
the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard
from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective
housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is
why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program;
local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of
the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary
and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.
Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding
under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the
needs of the extremely low income families in their
[[Page S1330]]
respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify
that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must
report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds
are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure
participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also
require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this
new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such
jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve
extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding
will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to
dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing
for the most vulnerable Americans.
My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant
program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination
Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program
has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired
in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which
provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing
authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200
million per year for five years for this program.
After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics
indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across
the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime
increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest,
violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing
authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the
effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their
resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with
funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related
crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their
tenants.
Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug
Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long
enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator
Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing
and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded
numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the
country.
In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important
programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of
Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day
to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work
collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the
Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public
safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year,
dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and
other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing
Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the
Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies,
providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of
educational, job training and life skill programs.
When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002
budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures
should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised
an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP
funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to
continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in
the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can
be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee--
have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of
their crime reduction programs.
It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants.
Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide
housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing
entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.
But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with
grant money. The Federal Government also needs to provide more
resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most
effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains
several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program.
It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R)
to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and
issue a report within six months identifying effective programs,
providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require
PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to
develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation
of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant
program that have not previously been subject to that type of
evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of
information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require
HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns
from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most
effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted
housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related
guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving
the effectiveness of the program going forward.
As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use
of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on
their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program
was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can
be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used
inappropriately.
My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on
Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the
outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry,
Senator Reed, Senator Sanders and others for all their work on
advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look
forward to working with them and others in the 110th Congress to push
for the creation of such a trust fund.
I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the
goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next
10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect
the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and
very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local
communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing
units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters
the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.
Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and
states throughout the country, including recently in the city of
Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for
working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces
and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help
Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe
and affordable housing to all Americans.
This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our
most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and,
unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are
struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families.
This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that
communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This
issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head,
however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs,
better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans.
Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work
together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all
Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in this new Congress to advance my bill and
other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the
[[Page S1331]]
goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.
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. 427
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 ``Affordable Housing Expansion
and Public Safety Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 VOUCHERS.
(a) In General.--In fiscal year 2008 and subject to
renewal, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide an additional 100,000 incremental vouchers for
tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8(o) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$8,650,000,000 for the provision and renewal of the vouchers
described in subsection (a).
(2) Availability.--Any amount appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.
(3) Carryover.--To the extent that any amounts appropriated
for any fiscal are not expended by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development in such fiscal year for purposes of
subsection (a), any remaining amounts shall be carried
forward for use by the Secretary to renew the vouchers
described in subsection (a) in subsequent years.
(c) Distribution of Amounts.--
(1) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may not use more
than $800,000,000 of the amounts authorized under paragraph
(1) to cover the administrative costs associated with the
provision and renewal of the vouchers described in subsection
(a).
(2) Voucher costs.--The Secretary shall use all remaining
amounts authorized under paragraph (1) to cover the costs of
providing and renewing the vouchers described in subsection
(a).
SEC. 3. TARGETED EXPANSION OF HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
(HOME) PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are as follows:
(1) To authorize additional funding under subtitle A of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12741 et. seq), commonly referred to as the
Home Investments Partnership (``HOME'') program, to provide
dedicated funding for the expansion and preservation of
housing for extremely low-income individuals and families
through eligible uses of investment as defined in paragraphs
(1) and (3) of section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act.
(2) Such additional funding is intended to supplement the
HOME funds already allocated to a participating jurisdiction
to provide additional assistance in targeting resources to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
(3) Such additional funding is not intended to be the only
source of assistance for extremely low-income individuals and
families under the HOME program, and participating
jurisdictions shall continue to use non-set aside HOME funds
to provide assistance to such extremely low-income
individuals and families.
(b) Set Aside for Extremely Low-Income Individuals and
Families.--
(1) Eligible use.--Section 212(a) of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12742(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Extremely low-income individuals and families.--
``(A) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall--
``(i) use funds provided under this subtitle to provide
affordable housing to individuals and families whose incomes
do not exceed 30 percent of median family income for that
jurisdiction; and
``(ii) ensure the use of such funds does not result in the
concentration of individuals and families assisted under this
section into high-poverty areas.
``(B) Exception.--If a participating jurisdiction can
certify to the Secretary that such participating jurisdiction
has met in its jurisdiction the housing needs of extremely
low-income individuals and families described in subparagraph
(A), such participating jurisdiction may use any remaining
funds provided under this subtitle for purposes of
subparagraph (A) to provide affordable housing to individuals
and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of median
family income for that jurisdiction.
``(C) Rule of construction.--The Secretary shall notify
each participating jurisdiction receiving funds for purposes
of this paragraph that use of such funds, as required under
subparagraph (A), does not exempt or prevent that
participating jurisdiction from using any other funds awarded
under this subtitle to provide affordable housing to
extremely low-income individuals and families.
``(D) Rental housing.--Notwithstanding section 215(a),
housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable
housing under this paragraph only if such housing is occupied
by extremely low-income individuals or families who pay as a
contribution toward rent (excluding any Federal or State
rental subsidy provided on behalf of the individual or
family) not more than 30 percent of the monthly adjusted
income of such individual or family, as determined by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Pro rata distribution.--Section 217 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12747) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Pro Rata Distribution for Extremely Low-Income
Individuals and Families.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, in any fiscal year the Secretary shall
allocate any funds specifically approved in an appropriations
Act to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6), such funds
shall be allocated to each participating jurisdiction in an
amount which bears the same ratio to such amount as the
amount such participating jurisdiction receives for such
fiscal year under this subtitle, not including any amounts
allocated for any additional set-asides specified in such
appropriations Act for that fiscal year.''.
(3) Certification.--Section 226 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12756) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Certification.--
``(1) In general.--Each participating jurisdiction shall
certify on annual basis to the Secretary that any funds used
to provide affordable housing to extremely low-income
individuals or families under section 212(a)(6) were actually
used to assist such families.
``(2) Content of certification.--Each certification
required under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) state the number of extremely low-income individuals
and families assisted in the previous 12 months;
``(B) separate such extremely low-income individuals and
families into those individuals and families who were
assisted by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle; and
``(C) describe the type of activities, including new
construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing,
provided to such extremely low-income individuals and
families that were supported by--
``(i) funds set aside specifically for such individuals and
families under section 212(a)(6); and
``(ii) any other funds awarded under this subtitle.
``(3) Inclusion with performance report.--The certification
required under paragraph (1) shall be included in the
jurisdiction's annual performance report submitted to the
Secretary under section 108(a) and made available to the
public.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any
other amounts authorized to be appropriated under any other
law or appropriations Act to carry out the provisions of
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq.), there are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out the provisions of this section
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
SEC. 4. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG
ELIMINATION PROGRAM.
(a) Title Change.--The chapter heading of chapter 2 of
subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 2--PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING CRIME AND DRUG ELIMINATION
PROGRAM''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Amounts authorized.--Section 5129(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11908(a)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this chapter $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
(2) Set aside for the office of policy development and
research.--Section 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
(42 U.S.C. 11908) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Set Aside for the Office of Policy Development and
Research.--Of any amounts made available in any fiscal year
to carry out this chapter not less than 2 percent shall be
available to the Office of Policy Development and Research to
carry out the functions required under section 5130.''.
(c) Eligible Activities.--Section 5124(a)(6) of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11903(a)(6)) is amended by
striking the semicolon and inserting the following: ``,
except that the activities conducted under any such program
and paid for, in whole or in part, with grant funds awarded
under this chapter may only include--
``(A) providing access to treatment for drug abuse through
rehabilitation or relapse prevention;
``(B) providing education about the dangers and adverse
consequences of drug use or violent crime;
``(C) assisting drug users in discontinuing their drug use
through an education program, and, if appropriate, referring
such users to a drug treatment program;
``(D) providing after school activities for youths for the
purpose of discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or
violent crime by youths;
``(E) providing capital improvements for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime; and
``(F) providing security services for the purpose of
discouraging, reducing, or eliminating drug use or violent
crime.''.
[[Page S1332]]
(d) Effectiveness.--
(1) Application plan.--Section 5125(a) of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11904(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``To the maximum extent feasible,
each plan submitted under this section shall be developed in
coordination with relevant local law enforcement agencies and
other local entities involved in crime prevention and
reduction. Such plan also shall include an agreement to work
cooperatively with the Office of Policy Development and
Research in its efforts to carry out the functions required
under section 5130.''
(2) HUD report.--Section 5127 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11906) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Effectiveness Report.--The Secretary shall submit a
report to the Congress not later than 4 years after the date
of the enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and
Public Safety Act that includes--
``(1) aggregate data regarding the categories of program
activities that have been funded by grants under this
chapter;
``(2) promising strategies related to preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and
federally assisted low-income housing derived from--
``(A) a review of existing research; and
``(B) evaluations of programs funded by grants under this
chapter that were conducted by the Office of Policy
Development and Review or by the grantees themselves;
``(3) how the information gathered in paragraph (2) has
been incorporated into--
``(A) the guidance provided to applicants under this
chapter; and
``(B) the implementing regulations under this chapter; and
``(4) any statutory changes that the Secretary would
recommend to help make grants awarded under this chapter more
effective.''.
(3) Office of policy development and research review and
plan.--Chapter 2 of subtitle C of title V of the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 5130. OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REVIEW
AND PLAN.
``(a) Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Office of Policy Development and
Research established pursuant to section 501 of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1) shall
conduct a review of existing research relating to preventing
and reducing violent and drug-related crime to assess, using
scientifically rigorous and acceptable methods, which
strategies--
``(A) have been found to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes; and
``(B) would be likely to be effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crimes in public and
federally assisted low-income housing environments.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public
Safety Act, the Secretary shall issue a written report with
the results of the review required under paragraph (1).
``(b) Evaluation Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Upon completion of the review required
under subsection (a)(1), the Office of Policy Development and
Research, in consultation with housing authorities, social
scientists, and other interested parties, shall develop and
implement a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of
strategies funded under this chapter, including new and
innovative strategies and existing strategies, that have not
previously been subject to rigorous evaluation methodologies.
``(2) Methodology.--The plan described in paragraph (1)
shall require such evaluations to use rigorous methodologies,
particularly random assignment (where practicable), that are
capable of producing scientifically valid knowledge regarding
which program activities are effective in preventing and
reducing violent and drug-related crime in public and other
federally assisted low-income housing.''.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A
NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Only 1 in 4 eligible households receives Federal rental
assistance.
(2) The number of families facing severe housing cost
burdens grew by almost 2,000,0000 households between 2001 and
2004.
(3) 1 in 3 families spend more than 30 percent of their
earnings on housing costs.
(4) More than 75 percent of renter households with severe
housing affordability burdens are extremely low-income
families.
(5) More than half of extremely low-income households pay
at least half of their income on housing.
(6) At least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day.
(7) 2,000,000 to 3,000,0000 Americans are homeless for
various lengths of time each year.
(8) It is estimated that the development of an average
housing unit creates on average more than 3 jobs and the
development of an average multifamily unit creates on average
more than 1 job.
(9) It is estimated that over $80,000 is produced in
government revenue for an average single family unit built
and over $30,000 is produced in government revenue for an
average multifamily unit built.
(10) The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission stated
that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the
mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter
households and the number of units available to them with
acceptable quality and affordable rents.''.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) Congress shall create a national affordable housing
trust fund with the purpose of supplying 1,500,000 additional
affordable housing units over the next 10 years;
(2) such a trust fund shall contain sufficient income
targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced
by extremely low-income and very low-income families; and
(3) such a trust fund shall contain enough flexibility to
allow local communities to produce, preserve, and
rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that
such affordable housing development fosters the creation of
healthy and sustainable communities.
SEC. 6. OFFSETS.
(a) Repeal of Multiyear Procurement Authority for F-22A
Raptor Fighter Aircraft.--Effective as of October 17, 2006,
section 134 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), relating to
multiyear procurement authority for F-22A Raptor fighter
aircraft, is repealed.
(b) Advanced Research for Fossil Fuels.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy shall not
carry out any program that conducts, or provides assistance
for, applied research for fossil fuels.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 429. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend that Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator
Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law
in 1988, and has been reauthorized several times throughout the years.
The Act provides authority for a range of programs and services
designed to improve the health care status of the native people of
Hawaii.
With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act
and the establishment of Native Hawaiian health care systems on most of
the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed
significant improvements in the health status of Native Hawaiians, but
as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this
bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.
For instance, Native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality
rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 22 percent higher than the
rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the
rate for the total State female population. Nationally, Native
Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast
cancer.
With respect to diabetes, in 2004 Native Hawaiians had the highest
mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is
119 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.
When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of Native
Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 86 percent higher than the
rate for the entire State, and the mortality rate for hypertension is
46 percent higher than that for the entire State.
These statistics on the health status of Native Hawaiians are but a
small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective
of assuring that the Native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good
health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet
been achieved.
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. 429
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 ``Native Hawaiian Health Care
Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE
IMPROVEMENT ACT.
The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (42 U.S.C.
11701 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Native
Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
[[Page S1333]]
``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Findings.
``Sec. 3. Definitions.
``Sec. 4. Declaration of national Native Hawaiian health policy.
``Sec. 5. Comprehensive health care master plan for Native Hawaiians.
``Sec. 6. Functions of Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 7. Native Hawaiian health care.
``Sec. 8. Administrative grant for Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 9. Administration of grants and contracts.
``Sec. 10. Assignment of personnel.
``Sec. 11. Native Hawaiian health scholarships and fellowships.
``Sec. 12. Report.
``Sec. 13. Use of Federal Government facilities and sources of supply.
``Sec. 14. Demonstration projects of national significance.
``Sec. 15. Rule of construction.
``Sec. 16. Compliance with Budget Act.
``Sec. 17. Severability.
``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
``(a) In General.--Congress finds that--
``(1) Native Hawaiians begin their story with the Kumulipo,
which details the creation and interrelationship of all
things, including the evolvement of Native Hawaiians as
healthy and well people;
``(2) Native Hawaiians--
``(A) are a distinct and unique indigenous people with a
historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the
Hawaiian archipelago within Ke Moananui, the Pacific Ocean;
and
``(B) have a distinct society that was first organized
almost 2,000 years ago;
``(3) the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians are
intrinsically tied to the deep feelings and attachment of
Native Hawaiians to their lands and seas;
``(4) the long-range economic and social changes in Hawai`i
over the 19th and early 20th centuries have been devastating
to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians;
``(5) Native Hawaiians have never directly relinquished to
the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty
as a people or over their national territory, either through
their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
``(6) the Native Hawaiian people are determined to
preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations, in
accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs,
their customs, practices, language, social institutions,
ancestral territory, and cultural identity;
``(7) in referring to themselves, Native Hawaiians use the
term `Kanaka Maoli', a term frequently used in the 19th
century to describe the native people of Hawai`i;
``(8) the constitution and statutes of the State of
Hawai`i--
``(A) acknowledge the distinct land rights of Native
Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of the public lands trust;
and
``(B) reaffirm and protect the unique right of the Native
Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their cultural and
religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language;
``(9) at the time of the arrival of the first nonindigenous
people in Hawai`i in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived
in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistence social
system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated
language, culture, and religion;
``(10) a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian
Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first
King of Hawai`i;
``(11) throughout the 19th century until 1893, the United
States--
``(A) recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation;
``(B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to
the Hawaiian Government; and
``(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the
Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826,
1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
``(12) in 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister
assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawai`i,
conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the
Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to
overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawai`i;
``(13) in pursuance of that conspiracy--
``(A) the United States Minister and the naval
representative of the United States caused armed forces of
the United States Navy to invade the sovereign Hawaiian
Nation in support of the overthrow of the indigenous and
lawful Government of Hawai`i; and
``(B) after that overthrow, the United States Minister
extended diplomatic recognition of a provisional government
formed by the conspirators without the consent of the native
people of Hawai`i or the lawful Government of Hawai`i, in
violation of--
``(i) treaties between the Government of Hawai`i and the
United States; and
``(ii) international law;
``(14) in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893,
President Grover Cleveland--
``(A) reported fully and accurately on those illegal
actions;
``(B) acknowledged that by those acts, described by the
President as acts of war, the government of a peaceful and
friendly people was overthrown; and
``(C) concluded that a `substantial wrong has thus been
done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people required that we should
endeavor to repair';
``(15) Queen Lili`uokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawai`i,
and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the
aboriginal citizens of Hawai`i, promptly petitioned the
United States for redress of those wrongs and restoration of
the indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but no
action was taken on that petition;
``(16) in 1993, Congress enacted Public Law 103-150 (107
Stat. 1510), in which Congress--
``(A) acknowledged the significance of those events; and
``(B) apologized to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the
people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom
of Hawai`i with the participation of agents and citizens of
the United States, and the resulting deprivation of the
rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
``(17) between 1897 and 1898, when the total Native
Hawaiian population in Hawai`i was less than 40,000, more
than 38,000 Native Hawaiians signed petitions (commonly known
as `Ku'e Petitions') protesting annexation by the United
States and requesting restoration of the monarchy;
``(18) despite Native Hawaiian protests, in 1898, the
United States--
``(A) annexed Hawai`i through Resolution No. 55 (commonly
known as the `Newlands Resolution') (30 Stat. 750), without
the consent of, or compensation to, the indigenous people of
Hawai`i or the sovereign government of those people; and
``(B) denied those people the mechanism for expression of
their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-
determination of their lands and ocean resources;
``(19) through the Newlands Resolution and the Act of April
30, 1900 (commonly known as the `1900 Organic Act') (31 Stat.
141, chapter 339), the United States--
``(A) received 1,750,000 acres of land formerly owned by
the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
``(B) exempted the land from then-existing public land laws
of the United States by mandating that the revenue and
proceeds from that land be `used solely for the benefit of
the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and
other public purposes', thereby establishing a special trust
relationship between the United States and the inhabitants of
Hawai`i;
``(20) in 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), which--
``(A) designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public land for
exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians; and
``(B) affirmed the trust relationship between the United
States and Native Hawaiians, as expressed by Secretary of the
Interior Franklin K. Lane, who was cited in the Committee
Report of the Committee on Territories of the House of
Representatives as stating, `One thing that impressed me . .
. was the fact that the natives of the islands . . . for whom
in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in
numbers and many of them are in poverty.';
``(21) in 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique
status of the Native Hawaiian people by including in the Act
of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781), a provision--
``(A) to lease land within the extension to Native
Hawaiians; and
``(B) to permit fishing in the area `only by native
Hawaiian residents of said area or of adjacent villages and
by visitors under their guidance';
``(22) under the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec. 491
note; 73 Stat. 4), the United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for the administration of
the Hawaiian home lands to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the exclusive power to enforce the trust, including
the power to approve land exchanges and legislative
amendments affecting the rights of beneficiaries under that
Act;
``(23) under the Act referred to in paragraph (22), the
United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for administration over
portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the
United States to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the legal responsibility of the State for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under
section 5(f) of that Act (73 Stat. 6);
``(24) in 1978, the people of Hawai`i--
``(A) amended the constitution of Hawai`i to establish the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and
``(B) assigned to that Office the authority--
``(i) to accept and hold in trust for the Native Hawaiian
people real and personal property transferred from any
source;
``(ii) to receive payments from the State owed to the
Native Hawaiian people in satisfaction of the pro rata share
of the proceeds of the public land trust established by
section 5(f) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec.
491 note; 73 Stat. 6);
``(iii) to act as the lead State agency for matters
affecting the Native Hawaiian people; and
``(iv) to formulate policy on affairs relating to the
Native Hawaiian people;
``(25) the authority of Congress under the Constitution to
legislate in matters affecting the aboriginal or indigenous
people of the United States includes the authority to
legislate in matters affecting the native people of Alaska
and Hawai`i;
[[Page S1334]]
``(26) the United States has recognized the authority of
the Native Hawaiian people to continue to work toward an
appropriate form of sovereignty, as defined by the Native
Hawaiian people in provisions set forth in legislation
returning the Hawaiian Island of Kaho`olawe to custodial
management by the State in 1994;
``(27) in furtherance of the trust responsibility for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, the United
States has established a program for the provision of
comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention
services to maintain and improve the health status of the
Hawaiian people;
``(28) that program is conducted by the Native Hawaiian
Health Care Systems and Papa Ola Lokahi;
``(29) health initiatives implemented by those and other
health institutions and agencies using Federal assistance
have been responsible for reducing the century-old morbidity
and mortality rates of Native Hawaiian people by--
``(A) providing comprehensive disease prevention;
``(B) providing health promotion activities; and
``(C) increasing the number of Native Hawaiians in the
health and allied health professions;
``(30) those accomplishments have been achieved through
implementation of--
``(A) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-579); and
``(B) the reauthorization of that Act under section 9168 of
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public
Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1948);
``(31) the historical and unique legal relationship between
the United States and Native Hawaiians has been consistently
recognized and affirmed by Congress through the enactment of
more than 160 Federal laws that extend to the Native Hawaiian
people the same rights and privileges accorded to American
Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities,
including--
``(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
2991 et seq.);
``(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996);
``(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 80q et seq.); and
``(D) the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
``(32) the United States has recognized and reaffirmed the
trust relationship to the Native Hawaiian people through
legislation that authorizes the provision of services to
Native Hawaiians, specifically--
``(A) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.);
``(B) the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act Amendments of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.);
``(C) the Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-322);
``(D) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.);
``(E) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11701 et seq.);
``(F) the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3122);
``(G) the Nursing Shortage Reduction and Education
Extension Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3153);
``(H) the Handicapped Programs Technical Amendments Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-630);
``(I) the Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988 (Public Law
100-713); and
``(J) the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-527);
``(33) the United States has affirmed that historical and
unique legal relationship to the Hawaiian people by
authorizing the provision of services to Native Hawaiians to
address problems of alcohol and drug abuse under the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (21 U.S.C. 801 note; Public Law 99-
570);
``(34) in addition, the United States--
``(A) has recognized that Native Hawaiians, as aboriginal,
indigenous, native people of Hawai`i, are a unique population
group in Hawai`i and in the continental United States; and
``(B) has so declared in--
``(i) the documents of the Office of Management and Budget
entitled--
``(I) `Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and
Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity' and dated
October 30, 1997; and
``(II) `Provisional Guidance on the Implementation of the
1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity' and
dated December 15, 2000;
``(ii) the document entitled `Guidance on Aggregation and
Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring
and Enforcement' (Bulletin 00-02 to the Heads of Executive
Departments and Establishments) and dated March 9, 2000;
``(iii) the document entitled `Questions and Answers when
Designing Surveys for Information Collections' (Memorandum
for the President's Management Council) and dated January 20,
2006;
``(iv) Executive order number 13125 (64 Fed. Reg. 31105;
relating to increasing participation of Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders in Federal programs) (June 7, 1999);
``(v) the document entitled `HHS Tribal Consultation
Policy' and dated January 2005; and
``(vi) the Department of Health and Human Services
Intradepartment Council on Native American Affairs, Revised
Charter, dated March 7, 2005; and
``(35) despite the United States having expressed in Public
Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) its commitment to a policy of
reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people for past
grievances--
``(A) the unmet health needs of the Native Hawaiian people
remain severe; and
``(B) the health status of the Native Hawaiian people
continues to be far below that of the general population of
the United States.
``(b) Finding of Unmet Needs and Health Disparities.--
Congress finds that the unmet needs and serious health
disparities that adversely affect the Native Hawaiian people
include the following:
``(1) Chronic disease and illness.--
``(A) Cancer.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to all cancer--
``(I) as an underlying cause of death in the State, the
cancer mortality rate of Native Hawaiians of 218.3 per
100,000 residents is 50 percent higher than the rate for the
total population of the State of 145.4 per 100,000 residents;
``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, colon,
and rectum, and for all cancers combined;
``(III) Native Hawaiian females have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, breast,
colon, rectum, pancreas, stomach, ovary, liver, cervix,
kidney, and uterus, and for all cancers combined; and
``(IV) for the period of 1995 through 2000--
``(aa) the cancer mortality rate for all cancers for Native
Hawaiian males of 217 per 100,000 residents was 22 percent
higher than the rate for all males in the State of 179 per
100,000 residents; and
``(bb) the cancer mortality rate for all cancers for Native
Hawaiian females of 192 per 100,000 residents was 64 percent
higher than the rate for all females in the State of 117 per
100,000 residents.
``(ii) Breast cancer.--With respect to breast cancer--
``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest mortality rate in
the State from breast cancer (30.79 per 100,000 residents),
which is 33 percent higher than the rate for Caucasian
Americans (23.07 per 100,000 residents) and 106 percent
higher than the rate for Chinese Americans (14.96 per 100,000
residents); and
``(II) nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third-highest
mortality rate as a result of breast cancer (25.0 per 100,000
residents), behind African Americans (31.4 per 100,000
residents) and Caucasian Americans (27.0 per 100,000
residents).
``(iii) Cancer of the cervix.--Native Hawaiians have the
highest mortality rate as a result of cancer of the cervix in
the State (3.65 per 100,000 residents), followed by Filipino
Americans (2.69 per 100,000 residents) and Caucasian
Americans (2.61 per 100,000 residents).
``(iv) Lung cancer.--Native Hawaiian males and females have
the highest mortality rates as a result of lung cancer in the
State, at 74.79 per 100,000 for males and 47.84 per 100,000
females, which are higher than the rates for the total
population of the State by 48 percent for males and 93
percent for females.
``(v) Prostate cancer.--Native Hawaiian males have the
third-highest mortality rate as a result of prostate cancer
in the State (21.48 per 100,000 residents), with Caucasian
Americans having the highest mortality rate as a result of
prostate cancer (23.96 per 100,000 residents).
``(B) Diabetes.--With respect to diabetes, in 2004--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate as a
result of diabetes mellitis (28.9 per 100,000 residents) in
the State, which is 119 percent higher than the rate for all
racial groups in the State (13.2 per 100,000 residents);
``(ii) the prevalence of diabetes for Native Hawaiians was
12.7 percent, which is 87 percent higher than the total
prevalence for all residents of the State of 6.8 percent; and
``(iii) a higher percentage of Native Hawaiians with
diabetes experienced diabetic retinopathy, as compared to
other population groups in the State.
``(C) Asthma.--With respect to asthma and lower respiratory
disease--
``(i) in 2004, mortality rates for Native Hawaiians (31.6
per 100,000 residents) from chronic lower respiratory disease
were 52 percent higher than rates for the total population of
the State (20.8 per 100,000 residents); and
``(ii) in 2005, the prevalence of current asthma in Native
Hawaiian adults was 12.8 percent, which is 71 percent higher
than the prevalence of the total population of the State of
7.5 percent.
``(D) Circulatory diseases.--
``(i) Heart disease.--With respect to heart disease--
``(I) in 2004, the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a
result of heart disease (305.5 per 100,000 residents) was 86
percent higher than the rate for the total population of the
State (164.3 per 100,000 residents); and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence for heart attack was 4.4
percent for Native Hawaiians, which is 22 percent higher than
the prevalence for the total population of 3.6 percent.
``(ii) Cerebrovascular diseases.--With respect to
cerebrovascular diseases--
``(I) the mortality rate from cerebrovascular diseases for
Native Hawaiians (75.6 percent) was 64 percent higher than
the rate
[[Page S1335]]
for the total population of the State (46 percent); and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence for stroke was 4.9 percent
for Native Hawaiians, which is 69 percent higher than the
prevalence for the total population of the State (2.9
percent).
``(iii) Other circulatory diseases.--With respect to other
circulatory diseases (including high blood pressure and
atherosclerosis)--
``(I) in 2004, the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians of
20.6 per 100,000 residents was 46 percent higher than the
rate for the total population of the State of 14.1 per
100,000 residents; and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence of high blood pressure for
Native Hawaiians was 26.7 percent, which is 10 percent higher
than the prevalence for the total population of the State of
24.2 percent.
``(2) Infectious disease and illness.--With respect to
infectious disease and illness--
``(A) in 1998, Native Hawaiians comprised 20 percent of all
deaths resulting from infectious diseases in the State for
all ages; and
``(B) the incidence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome
for Native Hawaiians is at least twice as high per 100,000
residents (10.5 percent) than the incidence for any other
non-Caucasian group in the State.
``(3) Injuries.--With respect to injuries--
``(A) the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a result
of injuries (32 per 100,000 residents) is 16 percent higher
than the rate for the total population of the State (27.5 per
100,000 residents);
``(B) 32 percent of all deaths of individuals between the
ages of 18 and 24 years resulting from injuries were Native
Hawaiian; and
``(C) the 2 primary causes of Native Hawaiian deaths in
that age group were motor vehicle accidents (30 percent) and
intentional self-harm (39 percent).
``(4) Dental health.--With respect to dental health--
``(A) Native Hawaiian children experience significantly
higher rates of dental caries and unmet treatment needs as
compared to other children in the continental United States
and other ethnic groups in the State;
``(B) the prevalence rate of dental caries in the primary
(baby) teeth of Native Hawaiian children aged 5 to 9 years of
4.2 per child is more than twice the national average rate of
1.9 per child in that age range;
``(C) 81.9 percent of Native Hawaiian children aged 6 to 8
have 1 or more decayed teeth, as compared to--
``(i) 53 percent for children in that age range in the
continental United States; and
``(ii) 72.7 percent of other children in that age range in
the State; and
``(D) 21 percent of Native Hawaiian children aged 5
demonstrate signs of baby bottle tooth decay, which is
generally characterized as severe, progressive dental disease
in early childhood and associated with high rates of dental
disorders, as compared to 5 percent for children of that age
in the continental United States.
``(5) Life expectancy.--With respect to life expectancy--
``(A) Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy of
all population groups in the State;
``(B) between 1910 and 1980, the life expectancy of Native
Hawaiians from birth has ranged from 5 to 10 years less than
that of the overall State population average;
``(C) the most recent tables for 1990 show Native Hawaiian
life expectancy at birth (74.27 years) to be approximately 5
years less than that of the total State population (78.85
years); and
``(D) except as provided in the life expectancy calculation
for 1920, Native Hawaiians have had the shortest life
expectancy of all major ethnic groups in the United States
since 1910.
``(6) Maternal and child health.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to maternal and child
health, in 2000--
``(i) 39 percent of all deaths of children under the age of
18 years in the State were Native Hawaiian;
``(ii) perinatal conditions accounted for 38 percent of all
Native Hawaiian deaths in that age group;
``(iii) Native Hawaiian infant mortality rates (9.8 per
1,000 live births) are--
``(I) the highest in the State; and
``(II) 151 percent higher than the rate for Caucasian
infants (3.9 per 1,000 live births); and
``(iv) Native Hawaiians have 1 of the highest infant
mortality rates in the United States, second only to the rate
for African Americans of 13.6 per 1,000 live births.
``(B) Prenatal care.--With respect to prenatal care--
``(i) as of 2005, Native Hawaiian women have the highest
prevalence (20.9 percent) of having had no prenatal care
during the first trimester of pregnancy, as compared to the 5
largest ethnic groups in the State;
``(ii) of the mothers in the State who received no prenatal
care in the first trimester, 33 percent were Native Hawaiian;
``(iii) in 2005, 41 percent of mothers with live births who
had not completed high school were Native Hawaiian; and
``(iv) in every region of the State, many Native Hawaiian
newborns begin life in a potentially hazardous circumstance,
far higher than any other racial group.
``(C) Births.--With respect to births, in 2005--
``(i) 45.2 percent of live births to Native Hawaiian
mothers were nonmarital, putting the affected infants at
higher risk of low birth weight and infant mortality;
``(ii) of the 2,934 live births to Native Hawaiian single
mothers, 9 percent were low birth weight (defined as a weight
of less than 2,500 grams); and
``(iii) 43.7 percent of all low birth-weight infants born
to single mothers in the State were Native Hawaiian.
``(D) Teen pregnancies.--With respect to births, in 2005--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest rate of births to
mothers under the age of 18 years (5.8 percent), as compared
to the rate of 2.7 percent for the total population of the
State; and
``(ii) nearly 62 percent of all mothers in the State under
the age of 19 years were Native Hawaiian.
``(E) Fetal mortality.--With respect to fetal mortality, in
2005--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest number of fetal
deaths in the State, as compared to Caucasian, Japanese, and
Filipino residents; and
``(ii)(I) 17.2 percent of all fetal deaths in the State
were associated with expectant Native Hawaiian mothers; and
``(II) 43.5 percent of those Native Hawaiian mothers were
under the age of 25 years.
``(7) Behavioral health.--
``(A) Alcohol and drug abuse.--With respect to alcohol and
drug abuse--
``(i)(I) in 2005, Native Hawaiians had the highest
prevalence of smoking of 27.9 percent, which is 64 percent
higher than the rate for the total population of the State
(17 percent); and
``(II) 53 percent of Native Hawaiians reported having
smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, as compared
to 43.3 percent for the total population of the State;
``(ii) 33 percent of Native Hawaiians in grade 8 have
smoked cigarettes at least once in their lifetime, as
compared to--
``(I) 22.5 percent for all youth in the State; and
``(II) 28.4 percent of residents of the United States in
grade 8;
``(iii) Native Hawaiians have the highest prevalence of
binge drinking of 19.9 percent, which is 21 percent higher
than the prevalence for the total population of the State
(16.5 percent);
``(iv) the prevalence of heavy drinking among Native
Hawaiians (10.1 percent) is 36 percent higher than the
prevalence for the total population of the State (7.4
percent);
``(v)(I) in 2003, 17.2 percent of Native Hawaiians in grade
6, 45.1 percent of Naive Hawaiians in grade 8, 68.9 percent
of Native Hawaiians in grade 10, and 78.1 percent of Native
Hawaiians in grade 12 reported using alcohol at least once in
their lifetime, as compared to 13.2, 36.8, 59.1, and 72.5
percent, respectively, of all adolescents in the State; and
``(II) 62.1 percent Native Hawaiians in grade 12 reported
being drunk at least once, which is 20 percent higher than
the percentage for all adolescents in the State (51.6
percent);
``(vi) on entering grade 12, 60 percent of Native Hawaiian
adolescents reported having used illicit drugs, including
inhalants, at least once in their lifetime, as compared to--
``(I) 46.9 percent of all adolescents in the State; and
``(II) 52.8 of adolescents in the United States;
``(vii) on entering grade 12, 58.2 percent of Native
Hawaiian adolescents reported having used marijuana at least
once, which is 31 percent higher than the rate of other
adolescents in the State (44.4 percent);
``(viii) in 2006, Native Hawaiians represented 40 percent
of the total admissions to substance abuse treatment programs
funded by the State Department of Health; and
``(ix) in 2003, Native Hawaiian adolescents reported the
highest prevalence for methamphetamine use in the State,
followed by Caucasian and Filipino adolescents.
``(B) Crime.--With respect to crime--
``(i) during the period of 1992 to 2002, Native Hawaiian
arrests for violent crimes decreased, but the rate of arrest
remained 38.3 percent higher than the rate of the total
population of the State;
``(ii) the robbery arrest rate in 2002 among Native
Hawaiian juveniles and adults was 59 percent higher (6.2
arrests per 100,000 residents) than the rate for the total
population of the State (3.9 arrests per 100,000 residents);
``(iii) in 2002--
``(I) Native Hawaiian men comprised between 35 percent and
43 percent of each security class in the State prison system;
``(II) Native Hawaiian women comprised between 38.1 percent
to 50.3 percent of each class of female prison inmates in the
State;
``(III) Native Hawaiians comprised 39.5 percent of the
total incarcerated population of the State; and
``(IV) Native Hawaiians comprised 40 percent of the total
sentenced felon population in the State, as compared to 25
percent for Caucasians, 12 percent for Filipinos, and 5
percent for Samoans;
``(iv) Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the State
prison population;
``(v) of the 2,260 incarcerated Native Hawaiians, 70
percent are between 20 and 40 years of age; and
``(vi) based on anecdotal information, Native Hawaiians are
estimated to comprise between 60 percent and 70 percent of
all jail and prison inmates in the State.
``(C) Depression and suicide.--With respect to depression
and suicide--
``(i)(I) in 1999, the prevalence of depression among Native
Hawaiians was 15 percent, as
[[Page S1336]]
compared to the national average of approximately 10 percent;
and
``(II) Native Hawaiian females had a higher prevalence of
depression (16.9 percent) than Native Hawaiian males (11.9
percent);
``(ii) in 2000--
``(I) Native Hawaiian adolescents had a significantly
higher suicide attempt rate (12.9 percent) than the rate for
other adolescents in the State (9.6 percent); and
``(II) 39 percent of all Native Hawaiian adult deaths were
due to suicide; and
``(iii) in 2006, the prevalence of obsessive compulsive
disorder among Native Hawaiian adolescent girls was 17.7
percent, as compared to a rate of--
``(I) 9.2 percent for Native Hawaiian boys and non-Hawaiian
girls; and
``(II) a national rate of 2 percent.
``(8) Overweightness and obesity.--With respect to
overweightness and obesity--
``(A) during the period of 2000 through 2003, Native
Hawaiian males and females had the highest age-adjusted
prevalence rates for obesity (40.5 and 32.5 percent,
respectively), which was--
``(i) with respect to individuals of full Native Hawaiian
ancestry, 145 percent higher than the rate for the total
population of the State (16.5 per 100,000); and
``(ii) with respect to individuals with less than 100
percent Native Hawaiian ancestry, 97 percent higher than the
total population of the State; and
``(B) for 2005, the prevalence of obesity among Native
Hawaiians was 43.1 percent, which was 119 percent higher than
the prevalence for the total population of the State (19.7
percent).
``(9) Family and child health.--With respect to family and
child health--
``(A) in 2000, the prevalence of single-parent families
with minor children was highest among Native Hawaiian
households, as compared to all households in the State (15.8
percent and 8.1 percent, respectively);
``(B) in 2002, nonmarital births accounted for 56.8 percent
of all live births among Native Hawaiians, as compared to 34
percent of all live births in the State;
``(C) the rate of confirmed child abuse and neglect among
Native Hawaiians has consistently been 3 to 4 times the rates
of other major ethnic groups, with a 3-year average of 63.9
cases in 2002, as compared to 12.8 cases for the total
population of the State;
``(D) spousal abuse or abuse of an intimate partner was
highest for Native Hawaiians, as compared to all cases of
abuse in the State (4.5 percent and 2.2 percent,
respectively); and
``(E)(i) \1/2\ of uninsured adults in the State have family
incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; and
``(ii) Native Hawaiians residing in the State and the
continental United States have a higher rate of uninsurance
than other ethnic groups in the State and continental United
States (14.5 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively).
``(10) Health professions education and training.--With
respect to health professions education and training--
``(A) in 2003, adult Native Hawaiians had a higher rate of
high school completion, as compared to the total adult
population of the State (49.4 percent and 34.4 percent,
respectively);
``(B) Native Hawaiian physicians make up 4 percent of the
total physician workforce in the State; and
``(C) in 2004, Native Hawaiians comprised--
``(i) 11.25 percent of individuals who earned bachelor's
degrees;
``(ii) 6 percent of individuals who earned master's
degrees;
``(iii) 3 percent of individuals who earned doctorate
degrees;
``(iv) 7.9 percent of the credited student body at the
University of Hawai`i;
``(v) 0.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the
University of Hawai`i at Manoa; and
``(vi) 8.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the
University of Hawai`i Community Colleges.
``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act:
``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Health and Human Services.
``(2) Disease prevention.--The term `disease prevention'
includes--
``(A) immunizations;
``(B) control of high blood pressure;
``(C) control of sexually transmittable diseases;
``(D) prevention and control of chronic diseases;
``(E) control of toxic agents;
``(F) occupational safety and health;
``(G) injury prevention;
``(H) fluoridation of water;
``(I) control of infectious agents; and
``(J) provision of mental health care.
``(3) Health promotion.--The term `health promotion'
includes--
``(A) pregnancy and infant care, including prevention of
fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(B) cessation of tobacco smoking;
``(C) reduction in the misuse of alcohol and harmful
illicit drugs;
``(D) improvement of nutrition;
``(E) improvement in physical fitness;
``(F) family planning;
``(G) control of stress;
``(H) reduction of major behavioral risk factors and
promotion of healthy lifestyle practices; and
``(I) integration of cultural approaches to health and
well-being (including traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land (`aina), water (wai), and ocean
(kai)).
``(4) Health service.--The term `health service' means--
``(A) service provided by a physician, physician's
assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse, dentist, or other
health professional;
``(B) a diagnostic laboratory or radiologic service;
``(C) a preventive health service (including a perinatal
service, well child service, family planning service,
nutrition service, home health service, sports medicine and
athletic training service, and, generally, any service
associated with enhanced health and wellness);
``(D) emergency medical service, including a service
provided by a first responder, emergency medical technician,
or mobile intensive care technician;
``(E) a transportation service required for adequate
patient care;
``(F) a preventive dental service;
``(G) a pharmaceutical and medicament service;
``(H) a mental health service, including a service provided
by a psychologist or social worker;
``(I) a genetic counseling service;
``(J) a health administration service, including a service
provided by a health program administrator;
``(K) a health research service, including a service
provided by an individual with an advanced degree in
medicine, nursing, psychology, social work, or any other
related health program;
``(L) an environmental health service, including a service
provided by an epidemiologist, public health official,
medical geographer, or medical anthropologist, or an
individual specializing in biological, chemical, or
environmental health determinants;
``(M) a primary care service that may lead to specialty or
tertiary care; and
``(N) a complementary healing practice, including a
practice performed by a traditional Native Hawaiian healer.
``(5) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means
any individual who is Kanaka Maoli (a descendant of the
aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State), as
evidenced by--
``(A) genealogical records;
``(B) kama`aina witness verification from Native Hawaiian
Kupuna (elders); or
``(C) birth records of the State or any other State or
territory of the United States.
``(6) Native hawaiian health care system.--The term `Native
Hawaiian health care system' means any of up to 8 entities in
the State that--
``(A) is organized under the laws of the State;
``(B) provides or arranges for the provision of health
services for Native Hawaiians in the State;
``(C) is a public or nonprofit private entity;
``(D) has Native Hawaiians significantly participating in
the planning, management, provision, monitoring, and
evaluation of health services;
``(E) addresses the health care needs of an island's Native
Hawaiian population; and
``(F) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(i) for the purpose of planning, conducting, or
administering programs, or portions of programs, authorized
by this Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) as having the qualifications and the capacity to
provide the services and meet the requirements under--
``(I) the contract that each Native Hawaiian health care
system enters into with the Secretary under this Act; or
``(II) the grant each Native Hawaiian health care system
receives from the Secretary under this Act.
``(7) Native hawaiian health center.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Center' means any organization that is a
primary health care provider that--
``(A) has a governing board composed of individuals, at
least 50 percent of whom are Native Hawaiians;
``(B) has demonstrated cultural competency in a
predominantly Native Hawaiian community;
``(C) serves a patient population that--
``(i) is made up of individuals at least 50 percent of whom
are Native Hawaiian; or
``(ii) has not less than 2,500 Native Hawaiians as annual
users of services; and
``(D) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi as having met each
of the criteria described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).
``(8) Native hawaiian health task force.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Task Force' means a task force established by
the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations to
implement health and wellness strategies in Native Hawaiian
communities.
``(9) Native hawaiian organization.--The term `Native
Hawaiian organization' means any organization that--
``(A) serves the interests of Native Hawaiians; and
``(B)(i) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi for planning,
conducting, or administering programs authorized under this
Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) is a public or nonprofit private entity.
``(10) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of
Hawaiian Affairs' means the governmental entity that--
``(A) is established under article XII, sections 5 and 6,
of the Hawai`i State Constitution; and
``(B) charged with the responsibility to formulate policy
relating to the affairs of Native Hawaiians.
[[Page S1337]]
``(11) Papa ola lokahi.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' means an
organization that--
``(i) is composed of public agencies and private
organizations focusing on improving the health status of
Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) governed by a board the members of which may include
representation from--
``(I) E Ola Mau;
``(II) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;
``(III) Alu Like, Inc.;
``(IV) the University of Hawaii;
``(V) the Hawai`i State Department of Health;
``(VI) the Native Hawaiian Health Task Force;
``(VII) the Hawai`i State Primary Care Association;
``(VIII) Ahahui O Na Kauka, the Native Hawaiian Physicians
Association;
``(IX) Ho`ola Lahui Hawaii, or a health care system serving
the islands of Kaua`i or Ni`ihau (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(X) Ke Ola Mamo, or a health care system serving the
island of O`ahu (which may be composed of as many health care
centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs of the
Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XI) Na Pu`uwai or a health care system serving the
islands of Moloka`i or Lana`i (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(XII) Hui No Ke Ola Pono, or a health care system serving
the island of Maui (which may be composed of as many health
care centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs
of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIII) Hui Malama Ola Na `Oiwi, or a health care system
serving the island of Hawai`i (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIV) such other Native Hawaiian health care systems as
are certified and recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi in accordance
with this Act; and
``(XV) such other member organizations as the Board of Papa
Ola Lokahi shall admit from time to time, based on
satisfactory demonstration of a record of contribution to the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' does not
include any organization described in subparagraph (A) for
which the Secretary has made a determination that the
organization has not developed a mission statement that
includes--
``(i) clearly-defined goals and objectives for the
contributions the organization will make to--
``(I) Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(II) the national policy described in section 4; and
``(ii) an action plan for carrying out those goals and
objectives.
``(12) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``(13) State.--The term `State' means the State of Hawaii.
``(14) Traditional Native Hawaiian healer.--The term
`traditional Native Hawaiian healer' means a practitioner--
``(A) who--
``(i) is of Native Hawaiian ancestry; and
``(ii) has the knowledge, skills, and experience in direct
personal health care of individuals; and
``(B) the knowledge, skills, and experience of whom are
based on demonstrated learning of Native Hawaiian healing
practices acquired by--
``(i) direct practical association with Native Hawaiian
elders; and
``(ii) oral traditions transmitted from generation to
generation.
``SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH
POLICY.
``(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that it is the policy
of the United States, in fulfillment of special
responsibilities and legal obligations of the United States
to the indigenous people of Hawai`i resulting from the unique
and historical relationship between the United States and the
indigenous people of Hawaii--
``(1) to raise the health status of Native Hawaiians to the
highest practicable health level; and
``(2) to provide Native Hawaiian health care programs with
all resources necessary to effectuate that policy.
``(b) Intent of Congress.--It is the intent of Congress
that--
``(1) health care programs having a demonstrated effect of
substantially reducing or eliminating the overrepresentation
of Native Hawaiians among those suffering from chronic and
acute disease and illness, and addressing the health needs of
Native Hawaiians (including perinatal, early child
development, and family-based health education needs), shall
be established and implemented; and
``(2) the United States--
``(A) raise the health status of Native Hawaiians by the
year 2010 to at least the levels described in the goals
contained within Healthy People 2010 (or successor
standards); and
``(B) incorporate within health programs in the United
States activities defined and identified by Kanaka Maoli,
such as--
``(i) incorporating and supporting the integration of
cultural approaches to health and well-being, including
programs using traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land ('aina), water (wai), or ocean
(kai);
``(ii) increasing the number of Native Hawaiian health and
allied-health providers who provide care to or have an impact
on the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(iii) increasing the use of traditional Native Hawaiian
foods in--
``(I) the diets and dietary preferences of people,
including those of students; and
``(II) school feeding programs;
``(iv) identifying and instituting Native Hawaiian cultural
values and practices within the corporate cultures of
organizations and agencies providing health services to
Native Hawaiians;
``(v) facilitating the provision of Native Hawaiian healing
practices by Native Hawaiian healers for individuals desiring
that assistance;
``(vi) supporting training and education activities and
programs in traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices by
Native Hawaiian healers; and
``(vii) demonstrating the integration of health services
for Native Hawaiians, particularly those that integrate
mental, physical, and dental services in health care.
``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President,
for inclusion in each report required to be submitted to
Congress under section 12, a report on the progress made
toward meeting the national policy described in this section.
``SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE MASTER PLAN FOR NATIVE
HAWAIIANS.
``(a) Development.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to, or
enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose
of coordinating, implementing, and updating a Native Hawaiian
comprehensive health care master plan that is designed--
``(A) to promote comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services;
``(B) to maintain and improve the health status of Native
Hawaiians; and
``(C) to support community-based initiatives that are
reflective of holistic approaches to health.
``(2) Consultation.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out this section, Papa Ola
Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall consult with
representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(ii) the Native Hawaiian health centers; and
``(iii) the Native Hawaiian community.
``(B) Memoranda of understanding.--Papa Ola Lokahi and the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs may enter into memoranda of
understanding or agreement for the purpose of acquiring joint
funding, or for such other purposes as are necessary, to
accomplish the objectives of this section.
``(3) Health care financing study report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Reauthorization Act of 2007, Papa Ola Lokahi, in cooperation
with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other appropriate
agencies and organizations in the State (including the
Department of Health and the Department of Human Services of
the State) and appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the impact of Federal and
State health care financing mechanisms and policies on the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
``(B) Components.--The report shall include--
``(i) information concerning the impact on Native Hawaiian
health and well-being of--
``(I) cultural competency;
``(II) risk assessment data;
``(III) eligibility requirements and exemptions; and
``(IV) reimbursement policies and capitation rates in
effect as of the date of the report for service providers;
``(ii) such other similar information as may be important
to improving the health status of Native Hawaiians, as that
information relates to health care financing (including
barriers to health care); and
``(iii) recommendations for submission to the Secretary,
for review and consultation with the Native Hawaiian
community.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a).
``SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF PAPA OLA LOKAHI.
``(a) In General.--Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(1) shall be responsible for--
``(A) the coordination, implementation, and updating, as
appropriate, of the comprehensive health care master plan
under section 5;
``(B) the training and education of individuals providing
health services;
``(C) the identification of and research (including
behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health service
research) into the diseases that are most prevalent among
Native Hawaiians; and
``(D) the development and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all research
[[Page S1338]]
projects involving all aspects of Native Hawaiian health,
including behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health
service research;
``(2) may receive special project funds (including research
endowments under section 736 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 293)) made available for the purpose of--
``(A) research on the health status of Native Hawaiians; or
``(B) addressing the health care needs of Native Hawaiians;
and
``(3) shall serve as a clearinghouse for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians;
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(D) the collaboration of research in the area of Native
Hawaiian health; and
``(E) the timely dissemination of information pertinent to
the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
``(b) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of each
other Federal agency shall--
``(A) consult with Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(B) provide Papa Ola Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, at least once annually, an accounting of funds and
services provided by the Secretary to assist in accomplishing
the purposes described in section 4.
``(2) Components of accounting.--The accounting under
paragraph (1)(B) shall include an identification of--
``(A) the amount of funds expended explicitly for and
benefitting Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the number of Native Hawaiians affected by those
funds;
``(C) the collaborations between the applicable Federal
agency and Native Hawaiian groups and organizations in the
expenditure of those funds; and
``(D) the amount of funds used for--
``(i) Federal administrative purposes; and
``(ii) the provision of direct services to Native
Hawaiians.
``(c) Fiscal Allocation and Coordination of Programs and
Services.--
``(1) Recommendations.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
annual recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the
allocation of all amounts made available under this Act.
``(2) Coordination.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, coordinate and assist the health care
programs and services provided to Native Hawaiians under this
Act and other Federal laws.
``(3) Representation on commission.--The Secretary, in
consultation with Papa Ola Lokahi, shall make recommendations
for Native Hawaiian representation on the President's
Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
``(d) Technical Support.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
statewide infrastructure to provide technical support and
coordination of training and technical assistance to--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian health centers.
``(e) Relationships With Other Agencies.--
``(1) Authority.--Papa Ola Lokahi may enter into agreements
or memoranda of understanding with relevant institutions,
agencies, or organizations that are capable of providing--
``(A) health-related resources or services to Native
Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(B) resources or services for the implementation of the
national policy described in section 4.
``(2) Health care financing.--
``(A) Federal consultation.--
``(i) In general.--Before adopting any policy, rule, or
regulation that may affect the provision of services or
health insurance coverage for Native Hawaiians, a Federal
agency that provides health care financing and carries out
health care programs (including the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services) shall consult with representatives of--
``(I) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(II) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(III) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.
``(ii) Identification of effects.--Any consultation by a
Federal agency under clause (i) shall include an
identification of the effect of any policy, rule, or
regulation proposed by the Federal agency.
``(B) State consultation.--Before making any change in an
existing program or implementing any new program relating to
Native Hawaiian health, the State shall engage in meaningful
consultation with representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(ii) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(iii) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.
``(C) Consultation on federal health insurance programs.--
``(i) In general.--The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in
collaboration with Papa Ola Lokahi, may develop consultative,
contractual, or other arrangements, including memoranda of
understanding or agreement, with--
``(I) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
``(II) the agency of the State that administers or
supervises the administration of the State plan or waiver
approved under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for the payment of all
or a part of the health care services provided to Native
Hawaiians who are eligible for medical assistance under the
State plan or waiver; or
``(III) any other Federal agency providing full or partial
health insurance to Native Hawaiians.
``(ii) Contents of arrangements.--An arrangement under
clause (i) may address--
``(I) appropriate reimbursement for health care services,
including capitation rates and fee-for-service rates for
Native Hawaiians who are entitled to or eligible for
insurance;
``(II) the scope of services; or
``(III) other matters that would enable Native Hawaiians to
maximize health insurance benefits provided by Federal and
State health insurance programs.
``(3) Traditional healers.--
``(A) In general.--The provision of health services under
any program operated by the Department or another Federal
agency (including the Department of Veterans Affairs) may
include the services of--
``(i) traditional Native Hawaiian healers; or
``(ii) traditional healers providing traditional health
care practices (as those terms are defined in section 4 of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(B) Exemption.--Services described in subparagraph (A)
shall be exempt from national accreditation reviews,
including reviews conducted by--
``(i) the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations; and
``(ii) the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities.
``SEC. 7. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE.
``(a) Comprehensive Health Promotion, Disease Prevention,
and Other Health Services.--
``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary, in consultation
with Papa Ola Lokahi, may make grants to, or enter into
contracts with 1 or more Native Hawaiian health care systems
for the purpose of providing comprehensive health promotion
and disease prevention services, as well as other health
services, to Native Hawaiians who desire and are committed to
bettering their own health.
``(2) Limitation on number of entities.--The Secretary may
make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, not more than
8 Native Hawaiian health care systems under this subsection
for any fiscal year.
``(b) Planning Grant or Contract.--In addition to grants
and contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary may make a
grant to, or enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for
the purpose of planning Native Hawaiian health care systems
to serve the health needs of Native Hawaiian communities on
each of the islands of O`ahu, Moloka`i, Maui, Hawai`i,
Lana`i, Kaua`i, Kaho`lawe, and Ni`ihau in the State.
``(c) Health Services To Be Provided.--
``(1) In general.--Each recipient of funds under subsection
(a) may provide or arrange for--
``(A) outreach services to inform and assist Native
Hawaiians in accessing health services;
``(B) education in health promotion and disease prevention
for Native Hawaiians that, wherever practicable, is provided
by--
``(i) Native Hawaiian health care practitioners;
``(ii) community outreach workers;
``(iii) counselors;
``(iv) cultural educators; and
``(v) other disease prevention providers;
``(C) services of individuals providing health services;
``(D) collection of data relating to the prevention of
diseases and illnesses among Native Hawaiians; and
``(E) support of culturally appropriate activities that
enhance health and wellness, including land-based, water-
based, ocean-based, and spiritually-based projects and
programs.
``(2) Traditional healers.--The health care services
referred to in paragraph (1) that are provided under grants
or contracts under subsection (a) may be provided by
traditional Native Hawaiian healers, as appropriate.
``(d) Federal Tort Claims Act.--An individual who provides
a medical, dental, or other service referred to in subsection
(a)(1) for a Native Hawaiian health care system, including a
provider of a traditional Native Hawaiian healing service,
shall be--
``(1) treated as if the individual were a member of the
Public Health Service; and
``(2) subject to section 224 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 233).
``(e) Site for Other Federal Payments.--
``(1) In general.--A Native Hawaiian health care system
that receives funds under subsection (a) may serve as a
Federal loan repayment facility.
``(2) Remission of payments.--A facility described in
paragraph (1) shall be designed to enable health and allied-
health professionals to remit payments with respect to loans
provided to the professionals under any Federal loan program.
``(f) Restriction on Use of Grant and Contract Funds.--The
Secretary shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract
with, an entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees
that amounts received under the grant or contract will not,
directly or through contract, be expended--
[[Page S1339]]
``(1) for any service other than a service described in
subsection (c)(1);
``(2) to purchase or improve real property (other than
minor remodeling of existing improvements to real property);
or
``(3) to purchase major medical equipment.
``(g) Limitation on Charges for Services.--The Secretary
shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an
entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees that,
whether health services are provided directly or under a
contract--
``(1) any health service under the grant or contract will
be provided without regard to the ability of an individual
receiving the health service to pay for the health service;
and
``(2) the entity will impose for the delivery of such a
health service a charge that is--
``(A) made according to a schedule of charges that is made
available to the public; and
``(B) adjusted to reflect the income of the individual
involved.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) General grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
``(2) Planning grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (b) for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
``(3) Health services.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (c) for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
``SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT FOR PAPA OLA LOKAHI.
``(a) In General.--In addition to any other grant or
contract under this Act, the Secretary may make grants to, or
enter into contracts with, Papa Ola Lokahi for--
``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating (as
appropriate) of the comprehensive health care master plan
developed under section 5;
``(2) training and education for providers of health
services;
``(3) identification of and research (including behavioral,
biomedical, epidemiologic, and health service research) into
the diseases that are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians;
``(4) a clearinghouse function for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians; and
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(5) the establishment and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all health-related research involving Native
Hawaiians;
``(6) the coordination of the health care programs and
services provided to Native Hawaiians; and
``(7) the administration of special project funds.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2007
through 2012.
``SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
``(a) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any grant made or contract entered into under this Act such
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or
appropriate to ensure that the objectives of the grant or
contract are achieved.
``(b) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically
evaluate the performance of, and compliance with, grants and
contracts under this Act.
``(c) Administrative Requirements.--The Secretary shall not
make a grant or enter into a contract under this Act with an
entity unless the entity--
``(1) agrees to establish such procedures for fiscal
control and fund accounting as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure proper disbursement and accounting with
respect to the grant or contract;
``(2) agrees to ensure the confidentiality of records
maintained on individuals receiving health services under the
grant or contract;
``(3) with respect to providing health services to any
population of Native Hawaiians, a substantial portion of
which has a limited ability to speak the English language--
``(A) has developed and has the ability to carry out a
reasonable plan to provide health services under the grant or
contract through individuals who are able to communicate with
the population involved in the language and cultural context
that is most appropriate; and
``(B) has designated at least 1 individual who is fluent in
English and the appropriate language to assist in carrying
out the plan;
``(4) with respect to health services that are covered
under a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) (including any State
plan), or under any other Federal health insurance plan--
``(A) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services directly--
``(i) has entered into a participation agreement under each
such plan; and
``(ii) is qualified to receive payments under the plan; and
``(B) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services through a contract with
an organization--
``(i) ensures that the organization has entered into a
participation agreement under each such plan; and
``(ii) ensures that the organization is qualified to
receive payments under the plan; and
``(5) agrees to submit to the Secretary and Papa Ola Lokahi
an annual report that--
``(A) describes the use and costs of health services
provided under the grant or contract (including the average
cost of health services per user); and
``(B) provides such other information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(d) Contract Evaluation.--
``(1) Determination of noncompliance.--If, as a result of
evaluations conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary
determines that an entity has not complied with or
satisfactorily performed a contract entered into under
section 7, the Secretary shall, before renewing the
contract--
``(A) attempt to resolve the areas of noncompliance or
unsatisfactory performance; and
``(B) modify the contract to prevent future occurrences of
the noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance.
``(2) Nonrenewal.--If the Secretary determines that the
noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance described in
paragraph (1) with respect to an entity cannot be resolved
and prevented in the future, the Secretary--
``(A) shall not renew the contract with the entity; and
``(B) may enter into a contract under section 7 with
another entity referred to in section 7(a)(3) that provides
services to the same population of Native Hawaiians served by
the entity the contract with which was not renewed by reason
of this paragraph.
``(3) Consideration of results.--In determining whether to
renew a contract entered into with an entity under this Act,
the Secretary shall consider the results of the evaluations
conducted under this section.
``(4) Application of federal laws.--Each contract entered
into by the Secretary under this Act shall be in accordance
with all Federal contracting laws (including regulations),
except that, in the discretion of the Secretary, such a
contract may--
``(A) be negotiated without advertising; and
``(B) be exempted from subchapter III of chapter 31, United
States Code.
``(5) Payments.--A payment made under any contract entered
into under this Act--
``(A) may be made--
``(i) in advance;
``(ii) by means of reimbursement; or
``(iii) in installments; and
``(B) shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act.
``(e) Report.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year during which an
entity receives or expends funds under a grant or contract
under this Act, the entity shall submit to the Secretary and
to Papa Ola Lokahi an annual report that describes--
``(A) the activities conducted by the entity under the
grant or contract;
``(B) the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds were
expended; and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may request.
``(2) Audits.--The reports and records of any entity
concerning any grant or contract under this Act shall be
subject to audit by--
``(A) the Secretary;
``(B) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services; and
``(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
``(f) Annual Private Audit.--The Secretary shall allow as a
cost of any grant made or contract entered into under this
Act the cost of an annual private audit conducted by a
certified public accountant to carry out this section.
``SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with Papa Ola Lokahi or any of the Native Hawaiian
health care systems for the assignment of personnel of the
Department of Health and Human Services with relevant
expertise for the purpose of--
``(1) conducting research; or
``(2) providing comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services and health services to Native Hawaiians.
``(b) Applicable Federal Personnel Provisions.--Any
assignment of personnel made by the Secretary under any
agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall be treated
as an assignment of Federal personnel to a local government
that is made in accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33
of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 11. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS AND
FELLOWSHIPS.
``(a) Eligibility.--Subject to the availability of amounts
appropriated under subsection (c), the Secretary shall
provide to Papa Ola Lokahi, through a direct grant or a
cooperative agreement, funds for the purpose of providing
scholarship and fellowship assistance, counseling, and
placement service assistance to students who are Native
Hawaiians.
``(b) Priority.--A priority for scholarships under
subsection (a) may be provided to employees of--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian Health Centers.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) Scholarship assistance.--
[[Page S1340]]
``(A) In general.--The scholarship assistance under
subsection (a) shall be provided in accordance with
subparagraphs (B) through (G).
``(B) Need.--The provision of scholarships in each type of
health profession training shall correspond to the need for
each type of health professional to serve the Native Hawaiian
community in providing health services, as identified by Papa
Ola Lokahi.
``(C) Eligible applicants.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary shall select scholarship
recipients from a list of eligible applicants submitted by
Papa Ola Lokahi.
``(D) Obligated service requirement.--
``(i) In general.--An obligated service requirement for
each scholarship recipient (except for a recipient receiving
assistance under paragraph (2)) shall be fulfilled through
service, in order of priority, in--
``(I) any of the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(II) any of the Native Hawaiian health centers;
``(III) 1 or more health professions shortage areas,
medically underserved areas, or geographic areas or
facilities similarly designated by the Public Health Service
in the State;
``(IV) a Native Hawaiian organization that serves a
geographical area, facility, or organization that serves a
significant Native Hawaiian population;
``(V) any public agency or nonprofit organization providing
services to Native Hawaiians; or
``(VI) any of the uniformed services of the United States.
``(ii) Assignment.--The placement service for a scholarship
shall assign each Native Hawaiian scholarship recipient to 1
or more appropriate sites for service in accordance with
clause (i).
``(E) Counseling, retention, and support services.--The
provision of academic and personal counseling, retention and
other support services--
``(i) shall not be limited to scholarship recipients under
this section; and
``(ii) shall be made available to recipients of other
scholarship and financial aid programs enrolled in
appropriate health professions training programs.
``(F) Financial assistance.--After consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, financial assistance may be provided to a
scholarship recipient during the period that the recipient is
fulfilling the service requirement of the recipient in any
of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(ii) the Native Hawaiians health centers.
``(G) Distance learning recipients.--A scholarship may be
provided to a Native Hawaiian who is enrolled in an
appropriate distance learning program offered by an
accredited educational institution.
``(2) Fellowships.--
``(A) In general.--Papa Ola Lokahi may provide financial
assistance in the form of a fellowship to a Native Hawaiian
health professional who is--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian community health representative,
outreach worker, or health program administrator in a
professional training program;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian providing health services; or
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian enrolled in a certificated
program provided by traditional Native Hawaiian healers in
any of the traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices
(including lomi-lomi, la`au lapa`au, and ho`oponopono).
``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance under subparagraph
(A) may include a stipend for, or reimbursement for costs
associated with, participation in a program described in that
paragraph.
``(3) Rights and benefits.--An individual who is a health
professional designated in section 338A of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) who receives a scholarship under
this subsection while fulfilling a service requirement under
that Act shall retain the same rights and benefits as members
of the National Health Service Corps during the period of
service.
``(4) No inclusion of assistance in gross income.--
Financial assistance provided under this section shall be
considered to be qualified scholarships for the purpose of
section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsections (a) and (c)(2) for each of fiscal years
2007 through 2012.
``SEC. 12. REPORT.
``For each fiscal year, the President shall, at the time at
which the budget of the United States is submitted under
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, submit to
Congress a report on the progress made in meeting the
purposes of this Act, including--
``(1) a review of programs established or assisted in
accordance with this Act; and
``(2) an assessment of and recommendations for additional
programs or additional assistance necessary to provide, at a
minimum, health services to Native Hawaiians, and ensure a
health status for Native Hawaiians, that are at a parity with
the health services available to, and the health status of,
the general population.
``SEC. 13. USE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND SOURCES
OF SUPPLY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall permit an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act to use in carrying out projects or activities
under the contract or grant all existing facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary (including all equipment of the
facilities), in accordance with such terms and conditions as
may be agreed on for the use and maintenance of the
facilities or equipment.
``(b) Donation of Property.--The Secretary may donate to an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act, for use in carrying out a project or activity
under the contract or grant, any personal or real property
determined to be in excess of the needs of the Department or
the General Services Administration.
``(c) Acquisition of Surplus Property.--The Secretary may
acquire excess or surplus Federal Government personal or real
property for donation to an organization under subsection (b)
if the Secretary determines that the property is appropriate
for use by the organization for the purpose for which a
contract entered into or grant received by the organization
is authorized under this Act.
``SEC. 14. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.
``(a) Authority and Areas of Interest.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, may allocate amounts made available under this
Act, or any other Act, to carry out Native Hawaiian
demonstration projects of national significance.
``(2) Areas of interest.--A demonstration project described
in paragraph (1) may relate to such areas of interest as--
``(A) the development of a centralized database and
information system relating to the health care status, health
care needs, and wellness of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the education of health professionals, and other
individuals in institutions of higher learning, in health and
allied health programs in healing practices, including Native
Hawaiian healing practices;
``(C) the integration of Western medicine with
complementary healing practices, including traditional Native
Hawaiian healing practices;
``(D) the use of telehealth and telecommunications in--
``(i) chronic and infectious disease management; and
``(ii) health promotion and disease prevention;
``(E) the development of appropriate models of health care
for Native Hawaiians and other indigenous people, including--
``(i) the provision of culturally competent health
services;
``(ii) related activities focusing on wellness concepts;
``(iii) the development of appropriate kupuna care
programs; and
``(iv) the development of financial mechanisms and
collaborative relationships leading to universal access to
health care; and
``(F) the establishment of--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Nursing at
the University of Hawai`i at Hilo;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Mental
Health at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa;
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Maternal
Health and Nutrition at the Waimanalo Health Center;
``(iv) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Research,
Training, Integrated Medicine at Molokai General Hospital;
and
``(v) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for
Complementary Health and Health Education and Training at the
Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center.
``(3) Centers of excellence.--Papa Ola Lokahi, and any
centers established under paragraph (2)(F), shall be
considered to be qualified as Centers of Excellence under
sections 485F and 903(b)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 287c-32, 299a-1).
``(b) Nonreduction in Other Funding.--The allocation of
funds for demonstration projects under subsection (a) shall
not result in any reduction in funds required by the Native
Hawaiian health care systems, the Native Hawaiian Health
Centers, the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program, or
Papa Ola Lokahi to carry out the respective responsibilities
of those entities under this Act.
``SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
``Nothing in this Act restricts the authority of the State
to require licensing of, and issue licenses to, health
practitioners.
``SEC. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET ACT.
``Any new spending authority described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2)) that is provided under this Act
shall be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided for in Acts of appropriation.
``SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.
``If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
such provision to any person or circumstance, is determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
remainder of this Act, and the application of the provision
to a person or circumstance other than that to which the
provision is held invalid, shall not be affected by that
holding.''.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and
Ms. Snowe):
S. 430. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
national defense through empowerment
[[Page S1341]]
of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the
functions of the National Guard Bureau, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation about the
National Guard with Senator Kit Bond, my fellow co-chair of the
Senate's National Guard Caucus, and Senator Ben Nelson, a longtime
caucus member and a subcommittee chair of the Senate Armed Services
Committee. The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 would improve the
management of the National Guard, and it will give the Guard more
responsibility in improving our defense arrangements at home, where the
Guard works in tandem with the Nation's governors to help keep our
communities safe. This legislation will strengthen the National Guard,
the military, and our Nation, and I believe it is something that
deserves our attention and approval.
As Senators, we know all too well the many ways in which our
communities rely on the National Guard. The soldiers of the National
Guard, like their active duty counterparts, have expended an
extraordinary amount of will and sacrifice in the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq. The National Guard comprised almost 50 percent of the forces
on the ground in Iraq less than 2 years ago, and now, as the Pentagon
plans to implement the President's plans for a troop escalation, the
percentage of Guard troops on the ground is set to rise once again.
At the same time, we are constantly witness to the equally heralded
work that the National Guard has done to increase security at home.
Along with efforts to increase security along both the northern and
southern borders, the Guard has bolstered security at special events
across the country, including the Olympics, the national political
party conventions, and events here in our Nation's capital. Most
importantly, the National Guard provided the best--the very best--
response of any agency, Federal, State or local, in the disastrous
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sending tens of thousands of troops to
the hardest-hit communities in relatively short order.
When you look at these examples, it is indisputable that the National
Guard is only limited in what it can do for us by the authorities,
policies, available equipment, responsibilities, and support that we
give them.
It is time to give the Guard more tools and support to effectively
carry out these responsibilities.
With the knowledge that the use of the National Guard is sure to
increase in the future, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs need unfettered and unmediated advice
about how to utilize the force, whether balancing both the domestic and
overseas missions of the National Guard or using the Guard to support
the Nation's governors in domestic emergencies. Given this need for
greater input on Guard matters, it is only logical that the leadership
within the National Guard should be the ones doing the advising. And,
as the Guard becomes more active within the military's total force, it
only makes sense to increase the number of Guard generals at the
highest reaches of the military command, where key force management
decisions are made.
At the same time, the National Guard is in a position to deal with
some of the basic missions at home that are simply not being address by
the Department of Defense. We have some real heroes at the recently
established Northern Command, which is working with various civilian
agencies to prevent another attack at home. Yet, the processes to deal
with the mission of having military support of civilian authorities in
domestic emergencies are as yet undefined.
Northern command, meanwhile, is taking only perfunctory input from
the nation's governors who, along with local officials, will bear much
of the responsibility in disaster situations. Five years after
September 11, we cannot wait to give more definition to how the
military will support civil authorities in an emergency, and we cannot
wait until an actual emergency to inform State governors about what
resources are available to them. With some new authorities, we can give
the Guard the mission of leading the effort to support civilian
authorities at home and in working with the States and governors to
plan for such disasters.
Elevating the National Guard bureaucratically, increasing the quality
advice on the Guard to the senior command, and improving response to
domestic emergencies are exactly what the provisions of the National
Guard Empowerment Act will accomplish.
First, the National Guard Empowerment Act elevates the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau from the rank of lieutenant general to general
with four-stars, with a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This move
will give the Nation's governors and adjutants general a straight line
of communication to the Joint Chiefs Chairman, the Secretary of
Defense, and the President. Having personnel with more knowledge and
experience with the Guard involved in key budget and policy
deliberations, the branches of the active duty services will be less
willing to try to balance budgets on the back of the reserve forces
like the Guard, which only goes against our overall ability to respond.
Second, the act gives the National Guard the responsibility of
working with the States to identify gaps in their response
capabilities, of setting equipment requirements, and procuring these
much needed items. The act will ensure that a National Guard commander
is the deputy commander of Northern Command and that the Guard--and
thus, in turn, the governors--work in tandem with the command to set
out specific plans to support our elected and civilian leaders in an
emergency.
Let me be clear about what this legislation does not do. The Guard
Empowerment Act does not make the National Guard a separate armed
service. The Guard will remain an integral partner of the Army and the
Air Force. Nor is the act some kind of wanton power grab. Instead, the
act would bring the National Guard's bureaucratic position in line with
what it is already doing and what we will expect of it in the future.
Passage of the act will, utmost, not disturb or undermine our defense
arrangements. Rather, it will empower the entire military to deal with
critically important problems that it is simply not addressing.
This legislation has been carefully crafted over the past year and a
half, and it incorporates the input we received from the adjutants
general, the National Guard leadership, the governors, and key officers
across the defense establishment. I would like to submit for the Record
letters of support from the National Guard Association of the United
States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States, and the Adjutants General Association of the United States.
This drive to empower the Guard is also gaining momentum in Congress.
Since 9/11 we have been asking the Guard to do more and more, and they
have superbly handled their dual role at home and abroad. But strains
are showing in the system. The Guard is a 21st century military
organization that has to operate under a 20th century bureaucracy. The
Guard's ability to help the Nation is limited only by the resources,
authorities, and responsibility we give it. Let us put the trust in the
men and women of the Guard that they have deserved and earned, by
giving them the seat at the table that they need.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Guard Association
of the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC, January 25, 2007.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: The National Guard Association of the
United States continues to support the critical changes that
were included in the National Defense Enhancement and
National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006. We appreciate your
efforts, along with Senator Bond, in introducing a new bill
in the Senate that incorporates these same areas of concern.
S. 2658 was a bold step in the last session to provide the
National Guard with an adequate voice in the deliberations of
the Department of Defense as together we meet the future
threats to the nation, both here at home and overseas.
As you know, NGAUS worked vigorously in 2006 to secure
passage of S. 2658 and we have continued that aggressive
support in hearings before the Commission on the National
Guard and Reserve. While we regret that their deliberations
have created some delay
[[Page S1342]]
in implementing these key solutions to National Guard issues
we remain hopeful that they too will recognize the wisdom
contained in the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007.
Thank you for your assistance on behalf of the National
Guard. Please let us know how we may be of further assistance
in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General (Ret),
President.
____
January 30, 2007.
Hon. Ben Nelson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kit Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Olympia Snowe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
As you are most certainly aware the Adjutants General of
the 54 states, territories, and District of Columbia have
provided trained and ready National Guard forces to protect
the nation inside and outside of its borders in unprecedented
numbers since 9/11. Since then we have sought reform within
the Department of Defense for the National Guard to fully
transform from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve.
We are united in support of the National Guard Empowerment
Act of 2007. The legislation contains key elements that will
enhance the ability of the National Guard to equip and train
for its dual role missions. Elevating the Chief, National
Guard Bureau to four-star rank is needed to ensure
representation at the highest levels when addressing homeland
security and National Guard usage. Making the National Guard
Bureau a joint activity in DoD responds directly to White
House recommendations contained in its report on Hurricane
Katrina. A greater National Guard presence is needed at
USNORTHCOM. Your legislation does this by requiring the
deputy commander to be a National Guard general. Other
provisions deal with expanding opportunities for National
Guard leaders to compete for top level assignments. Finally,
the legislation focuses on identifying and correcting
critical gaps in resources needed to protect U.S. citizens.
Recent events have demonstrated again what we all already
know that the National Guard will continue to be needed at
unprecedented levels for missions impossible to contemplate.
The National Guard will be part of the build up in Iraq to
finally defeat terrorist and sectarian elements which will
require extraordinary sacrifices by families and employers.
The National Guard continues to assist in securing the
nation's southwest border.
The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 is comprehensive
and visionary. It acknowledges how the nature of warfare and
national security has changed and offers bold changes to
reshape military leadership to meet new threats. Testimony
from DoD's highest leaders to the Commission on National
Guard and Reserve in December indicates that no other plan is
in work to strengthen the voice of the National Guard in the
halls of the Pentagon.
You can count on support from the Adjutants General
Association of the United States in seeking critical changes
that will assure a strong National Guard ready to serve this
great nation domestically and fighting terrorism.
Sincerely,
Roger P. Lempke,
Major General, President.
____
Eangus,
Alexandria, VA, January 25, 2007.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS) is the only military service
association that represents the interests of every enlisted
soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a
constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their
families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages
Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across
this nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, and the soldiers and airmen it
represents, I'd like to communicate our support for
legislation to elevate the position of Chief National Guard
Bureau to General, to place the Chief on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and to enhance the responsibilities of the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau and the functions of the National
Guard Bureau. For years, the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, and the National Guard as a whole, has deliberately
been in the shallow end of the resource pool, bearing the
brunt of budget cuts to the Army and Air Force, and having to
``take it out of hide'' to accomplish federal and state
missions that were required by statute but not fully funded
by the services or Department of Defense.
Our association stands firm in support of Congressional
action to remedy this long-endured and untenable situation.
The lack of trust and respect of the National Guard by DOD
political and military leaders, as well as the service
secretaries, the consistent under-funding of National Guard
appropriations accounts, and the intentional lack of
communication and coordination all have the probability of
being rectified by this legislation by making the National
Guard a full player in the decision-making and appropriations
process.
Thank you for taking legislative action that is not only
timely, but unfortunately necessary, and long overdue. We
look forward to working with your staff as this legislation
works its way into law.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret),
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 431. A bill to require convicted sex offenders to register online
identifiers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator
Schumer, in sponsoring the ``Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-
Predators Act of 2007,'' otherwise known as the KIDS Act. This bill
would require a convicted sex offender to register any e-mail address,
instant message address or other similar Internet identifying
information the sex offender uses or may use with the Department of
Justice's National Sex Offender Registry. This information would then
be made available to commercial social networking websites for the
purpose of screening the website's user database to ensure convicted
sex offenders are not using the website to prey on innocent children.
The Internet is likely the greatest invention of the 21st century;
however, it has also brought ready access to millions of children by
would be pedophiles. There are thousands of social networking websites
and chat rooms where children post personal information about
themselves hoping to connect with other children. Many children who
access the Internet in a safe environment, such as their home or
school, combined with the natural trust of a child, forget that they
are sharing personal information with complete strangers. This allows
strangers that a child would likely never speak with in the ``real
world'' to prey on children more easily.
In a Pew Internet and American Life survey released earlier this
month, 55 percent of adolescents polled said they have posted a profile
on a social networking website, and 48 percent of adolescents polled
say they visit a social networking website every day. These statistics
prove that the fight to protect our children from sexual predators has
moved from the playground to the Internet.
For this reason, Senator Schumer and I are introducing legislation
that would enable social networking websites to protect their young
users from convicted sex offenders. By requiring sex offenders to
register e-mail addresses and other Internet identifying information
with the Department of Justice, and allowing the Department to offer
this information to commercial social networking websites, Congress is
providing websites with the tools to come forth with innovative
solutions to protect children. A similar proposal was included in S.
4089, the Stop the Exploitation of Our Children Act of 2006, which I
introduced on December 6, 2006.
According to the same Pew Internet and American life survey, fully 85
percent of adolescents who have created an online profile say the
profile they use or update most often is on MySpace, while 7 percent
update a profile on Facebook. Consequently, I am pleased to report that
both MySpace and Facebook endorse the KIDS Act. I look forward to other
commercial social networking websites endorsing the bill and using the
registry information after the bill is signed into law. Additionally,
the bill is endorsed by the American Family Association. We all know
that engaged parents are the best deterrent against sexual predators
looking to prey on our children on the Internet. Parents that monitor
their children's access to the Internet or are present when the child
or adolescent is on-line are able to better ensure their children are
not drawn into inappropriate online conversations with sexual
predators.
Last week I received an e-mail from a police detective who
investigates Internet sex crimes in Ohio. The detective gave his full
endorsement for this legislation stating, ``What a great idea . . .
[Congress] continues to arm us with great legislation to help protect
our nation's children.'' I agree and
[[Page S1343]]
hope my colleagues will join with Senator Schumer and me in supporting
this bill to give websites and law enforcement this important tool in
their fight to protect our children.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 433. A bill to state United States policy for Iraq, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, there are countless reasons that the
American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy,
but chief among them has been the Administration's insistence on making
promises and assurances about progress and victory that have no basis
whatsoever in the reality of the facts on the ground.
We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have
been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been
assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis
would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand
down. We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to
give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and
then six more months after that, and then six more months after that.
Despite all of this, a change of course still seemed possible. Back
in November, the American people had voted for a new direction in Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way out at the Pentagon. The Iraq Study
Group was poised to offer a bipartisan consensus. The President was
conducting his own review. After years of missteps and mistakes, it was
time for a responsible policy grounded in reality, not ideology.
Instead, the President ignored the counsel of expert civilians and
experienced soldiers, the hard-won consensus of prominent Republicans
and Democrats, and the clear will of the American people.
The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway,
despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the
terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended
authority to wage this war in 2002. Over four years later, we cannot
revisit that decision or reverse its outcome, but we can do what we
didn't back then and refuse to give this President more open-ended
authority for this war.
The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq.
Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no
quantity of American soldiers can solve the political differences at
the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in
the hearts of the combatants.
I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. As the
President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents
the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It's
even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror, as some of the
extra soldiers could come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban
has become resurgent.
The course the President is pursuing fails to recognize the
fundamental reality that the solution to the violence in Iraq is
political, not military. He has offered no evidence that more U.S.
troops will be able to pressure Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds towards the
necessary political settlement, and he's attached no conditions or
consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress.
In fact, just a few weeks ago, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice
what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks
that the Administration has called for, she could not give me an
answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in
which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress
would mean the end of our military commitment, she still could not give
me an answer.
This is not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how
many more lives it will take to end a policy that everyone knows has
failed, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.
Over the past four years, we have given this Administration chance
after chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us so many
times. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more
mistakes. Today, I am introducing legislation that rejects this policy
of escalation, and implements a comprehensive approach that will
promote stability in Iraq, protect our interests in the region, and
bring this war to a responsible end.
My legislation essentially puts into law the speech I gave in
November, 2006, and is, I believe, the best strategy for going forward.
The bill implements--with the force of law--a responsible
redeployment of our forces out of Iraq, not a precipitous withdrawal.
It implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
It applies real leverage on the Iraqis to reach the political solution
necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart. It
holds the Iraqi government accountable, making continued U.S. support
conditional on concrete Iraqi progress. It respects the role of
military commanders, while fulfilling Congress's responsibility to
uphold the Constitution and heed the will of the American people.
First, this legislation caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the
number in Iraq on January 10, 2007--the day the President gave his
``surge speech'' to the nation. This cap could not be lifted without
explicit authorization by the Congress.
Yet our responsibilities to the American people and to our servicemen
and women go beyond opposing this ill-conceived escalation. We must
fashion a comprehensive strategy to accomplish what the President's
surge fails to do: pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political
settlement, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to
a responsible end.
That is why my legislation commences a phased redeployment of U.S.
troops to begin on May 1, 2007 with a goal of having all combat
brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with
the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. The legislation provides
exceptions for force protection, counterterrorism, and training of
Iraqi security forces.
To press the Iraqi government to act, this drawdown can be suspended
for 90-day periods if the President certifies and the Congress agrees
that the Iraqi government is meeting specific benchmarks and the
suspension is in the national security interests of the United States.
These benchmarks include: Meeting security responsibilities. The Iraqi
government must deploy brigades it promised to Baghdad, lift
restrictions on the operations of the U.S. military, and make
significant progress toward assuming full responsibility for the
security of Iraq's provinces. Cracking down on sectarian violence. The
Iraqi government must make significant progress toward reducing the
size and influence of sectarian militias, and the presence of militia
elements within the Iraqi Security Forces. Advancing national
reconciliation. The Iraqi government must pass legislation to share oil
revenues equitably; revise de-Baathification to enable more Iraqis to
return to government service; hold provisional elections by the end of
the year; and amend the Constitution in a manner that sustains
reconciliation. Making economic progress. The Iraqi government must
make available at least $10,000,000,000 for reconstruction, job
creation, and economic development as it has promised to do. The
allocation of these resources, the provision of services, and the
administration of Iraqi Ministries must not proceed on a sectarian
basis.
These benchmarks reflect actions proposed by the President and
promised by the Iraqi government. It is time to hold them accountable.
Recognizing that the President has not been straightforward with the
American people about the war in Iraq, my legislation allows the
Congress--under expedited procedures--to overrule a Presidential
certification and continue the redeployment.
Time and again, we have seen deadlines for Iraqi actions come and
go--with no consequences. Time and again we have heard pledges of
progress from the administration--followed by a descent into chaos. The
commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq represents our best leverage to press
the Iraqis to act. And the further commitment of U.S. economic
assistance to the Government of Iraq must be conditional on Iraqi
action.
As the U.S. drawdown proceeds, my legislation outlines how U.S.
troops
[[Page S1344]]
should be redeployed back to the United States and to other points in
the region. In the region, we need to maintain a substantial over-the-
horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider
war, to reassure our allies, and to protect our interests. And we
should redeploy forces to Afghanistan, so we not just echo--but
answer--NATO's call for more troops in this critical fight against
terrorism.
Within Iraq, we may need to maintain a residual troop presence to
protect U.S. personnel and facilities, go after international
terrorists, and continue training efforts. My legislation allows for
these critical but narrow exceptions as the redeployment proceeds and
is ultimately completed.
My legislation makes it U.S. policy to undertake a comprehensive
diplomatic strategy to promote a political solution within Iraq, and to
prevent wider regional strife. This diplomatic effort must include our
friends in the region, but it should also include Syria and Iran, who
need to be part of the conversation about stabilizing Iraq. Not talking
is getting us nowhere. Not talking is not making us more secure, nor is
it weakening our adversaries.
The President should appoint a special envoy with responsibility to
implement this regional engagement. And as we go forward, we must make
it clear that redeployment does not mean disengagement from the region.
On the contrary, it is time for a more comprehensive engagement that
skillfully uses all tools of American power.
Finally, my legislation compels the President to formulate a strategy
to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider conflagration.
Let me conclude by saying that there are no good options in Iraq. We
cannot undo the mistake of that congressional authorization, or the
tragedies of the last four years.
Just as I have been constant in my strong opposition to this war, I
have consistently believed that opposition must be responsible. As
reckless as we were in getting into Iraq, we have to be as careful
getting out. We have significant strategic interests in Iraq and the
region. We have a humanitarian responsibility to help the Iraqi people.
Above all, we have an obligation to support our courageous men and
women in uniform--and their families back home--who have sacrificed
beyond measure.
It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action--for the
United States, for Iraq, and for our troops--is to oppose this reckless
escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy is consistent with
what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the
recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the
American people demanded in November.
When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and
assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been
lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the
President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and
experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis
themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis
their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the
wider struggle against terror yet to be won.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Reed, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coleman, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 434. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
permit qualifying States to use a portion of their allotments under the
State children's health insurance program for any fiscal year for
certain Medicaid expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since the passage of the Children's
Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, in 1997, a group of States that
expanded coverage to children in Medicaid prior to the enactment of
CHIP has been unfairly penalized for that expansion. States are not
allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to other States for
children at similar levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a
child in the States of New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, because
they were grandfathered in the original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a
number of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an
enhanced matching rate in CHIP but that has not been the case for
States such as New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii,
and a number of others, including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Maryland.
As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association
reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative
states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before
the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these
goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding
flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage
of the majority of uninsured children in their states.''
For 6 years, our group of States have sought to have this inequity
addressed. Early in 2003, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity
of 2003'' with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and
we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in
S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller, and Chafee. This compromise extended
expiring CHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in
order to meet budgetary caps.
The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of
our State's CHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children about
150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions
prior,to the enactment of CHIP. That language was maintained in
conference and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President
as Public Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the
conference language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and
Rhode Island needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed,
H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17,
2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I
introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem
caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change.
Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it must
be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, this authority was renewed
through Fiscal Year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the National Institutes
of Health Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. No 109-482. Without future
authority, the inequity would continue with CHIP allotments.
This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all
future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use up to 20
percent of our CHIP allotments to pay for health care services of
children. In order to bring these requirements in-line with those of
other states, it also would lower the threshold at which New Mexico and
other effected states could utilize the funds from 150 percent of the
Federal poverty level to 125 percent.
This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in
States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the CHIP inequity, New
Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years
1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26
million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico
has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its federal CHIP
allocations.
This legislation would correct this problem.
The bill does not take money from other States's CHIP allotments. It
simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments
from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other
States across the country are doing.
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. 434
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 ``Children's Health Equity
Technical Amendments Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO USE PORTION OF
SCHIP ALLOTMENT FOR ANY FISCAL YEAR FOR CERTAIN
MEDICAID EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Section 2105(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C.
[[Page S1345]]
1397ee(g)(1)(A)), as amended by section 201(b) of the
National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-482) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007'' and inserting ``a
fiscal year''.
(b) Modification of Allowable Expenditures.--Section
2105(g)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(g)(1)(B)(ii))
is amended by striking ``150'' and inserting ``125''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2007, and shall apply to
expenditures made on or after that date.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Specter, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 435. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the
essential air service program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 12 other senators to
introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of
2007. I am pleased again to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the
principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time
champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her
continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Dorgan,
Enzi, Collins, Hagel, Harkin, Schumer, Leahy, Levin, Specter, Ben
Nelson, and Sanders are also cosponsors of the bill.
Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to
ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline
deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS,
many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.
Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the
Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA
reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities
to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed
mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air
service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of
the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I
believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to
receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in
the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural
communities.
In response, every year since mandatory cost sharing was enacted
Congress has blocked it from being implemented. Since 2003, a
bipartisan group of senators have included language in each of the
Department of Transportation's appropriations acts that bars the use of
funds to implement the mandatory cost sharing program. Our bill would
simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.
All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to
promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural
areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads
or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas
frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For
small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to
the national and international transportation system.
The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air
service to over 100 communities in thirty-five States. EAS supports an
additional 39 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and
the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry,
particularly among commuter airlines, about 40 additional communities
have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in
2001.
In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for
their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs,
Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case
commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's business
center and largest city.
I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to
continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time
for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining
tax revenues.
As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements could
affect communities in as many as 22 states. These communities could be
forced to pay as much s $130,000 per year to maintain their current air
service. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that
could be affected are as follows:
Alabama, Muscle Shoals; Arizona, Prescott, Kingman;
Arkansas, Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; California,
Merced, Visalia; Colorado, Pueblo; Georgia, Athens; Iowa,
Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas, Salina; Kentucky, Owensboro;
Maine, Augusta, Rockland; Maryland, Hagerstown; Michigan,
Iron Mt.; Mississippi, Laurel; Missouri, Joplin, Ft. Leonard
Wood; New Hampshire, Lebanon; New Mexico, Hobbs, Alamogordo,
Clovis; New York, Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh;
Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona,
Lancaster; South Dakota, Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee,
Jackson; Vermont, Rutland; West Virginia, Clarksburg/
Fairmont, Morgantown.
This year the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee
will be taking up the reauthorization of aviation programs. I look
forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller
and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service
programs for rural areas. I do believe our bill is one important step
in that process.
As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the
Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all
commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital
resources that help link rural communities to the national and global
aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service
program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service
remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record
opposing any mandatory cost sharing. I hope all senators will once
again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator
Bingaman, to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service
Preservation Act. I am proud to join with Senator Bingaman, who has
been a steadfast and resolute guardian of commercial aviation service
to all communities, particularly rural areas that would otherwise be
deprived of any air service.
I have always believed that reliable air service in our Nation's
rural areas is not simply a luxury or a convenience. It is an
imperative. It is a critical element of economic development, vital to
move people and goods to and from areas that may otherwise have
dramatically limited transportation options. Quite frankly, I have long
held serious concerns about the impact deregulation of the airline
industry has had on small- and medium-size cities in rural areas, like
Maine. That fact is, since deregulation, many small- and medium-size
communities, in Maine and elsewhere, have experienced a decrease in
flights and size of aircraft while seeing an increase in fares. More
than 300 have lost air service altogether.
This legislation will strike a detrimental provision in the 2003
Federal Aviation Reauthorization. This provision, which would require
communities to actually pay to continue to participate in a program
that already acknowledges their economic hardship, is patently unfair.
Ignoring the promise of the EAS, to protect these communities after
deregulating the airlines in 1978, is not an option. Our colleagues
have clearly greed with our position, as this provision has been struck
down in every appropriations bill since the passage of the 2003
reauthorization. Our bill would make this prohibition permanent.
EAS-eligible communities typically have financial problems of their
own and rely heavily on the program for economic development purposes.
It is obvious to me, Senator Bingaman, and many of my colleagues, that
if the 2003 proposal were enacted, it would mean the end of EAS service
in dozens of cities and towns across the country. In Maine, which has
four participants in the integral EAS program, we would suffer the
possible loss of half of our EAS airports. In a small, rural State like
Maine, such a reduction would be disastrous to our economy. That is why
[[Page S1346]]
I feel compelled to reintroduce this legislation.
In closing, the truth is, everyone benefits when our Nation is at its
strongest economically. Most importantly in this case, greater
prosperity everywhere, including in rural America, will, in the long
run, mean more passengers for the airlines. Therefore, it is very much
in our national interests to ensure that every region has reasonable
access to air service. And that's why I strongly believe the Federal
Government has an obligation to fulfill the commitment it made to these
communities in 1978 to safeguard their ability to continue commercial
air service.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 435
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 ``Essential Air Service
Preservation Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking section 41747, and
such title shall be applied as if such section 41747 had not
been enacted.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item
relating to section 41747.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 436. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform
the system of public financing for Presidential elections, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair
and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The
Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system will
continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take
effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential
election.
The presidential public financing system was put into place in the
wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in
Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme
Court required in Buckley. Every major party nominee for President
since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and,
prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system
for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and
two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John
Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries.
President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded
grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the
system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general
election grant.
It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries
has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the
electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns
without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has
worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work
in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to
opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.
This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election
public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that
have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the
presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is
increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and
most important, it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the
current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from
the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of
which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election
year. This should make the system much more viable for serious
candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums
outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more
public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of
small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.
One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and
general election systems together and requires candidates to make a
single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of
the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot
return to the system for the general election. And candidates must
commit to participate in the system in the general election if they
want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also
increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the
primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises
more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some
protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent.
Additional grants of public money are also available to participating
candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially
more than the spending limit.
The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100
million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate
does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more
than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a
participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general
election spending limit.
This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between
the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential
nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the
public financing system. This has led to some nominees being
essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the
nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and
become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft
money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole.
This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of
April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill
allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1
and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25
million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over
three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any
gap to be more than adequately filled.
Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the
bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be
eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in
matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20
States. That is five times the threshold under current law.
The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the
changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For
one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before
the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months
earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date
for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday
before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system,
under which the general election grants are released after each
nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.
The bill also prohibits federal elected officials and candidates from
soliciting soft money for use in funding the party and requires
presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional
provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are
explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I ask
unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, following my statement.
I will also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill itself be
printed in the Record.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system,
not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent
time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The
2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly
be the most expensive in history. It is likely that a number of
candidates from both parties will once again opt out of the primary
matching funds system, and some experts predict that one or both major
party nominees will even refuse public grants for the
[[Page S1347]]
general election period. It is too late to make the changes needed to
repair the system for the 2008 election. But if we act now, we can make
sure that an updated and revised system is in place for the 2012
election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008 campaign cycle will
confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will continue and
accelerate the slide of the current system into irrelevancy.
Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money, but
our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to
the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax
check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost
of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is
projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To
offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for
promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by
limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.
Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small
investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity
of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a
return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential
elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must
act now to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of
our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the
Watergate reforms.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Presidential Funding Act of 2006--Section by Section Analysis
SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE
SECTION 2: REVISIONS TO SYSTEM OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING
PAYMENTS
(a) Matching Funds: Current law provides for a 1-to-1
match, where up to $250 of each individual's contributions
for the primaries is matched with $250 in public funds. Under
the new matching system, individual contributions of up to
$200 from each individual will be matched at a 4-to-l ratio,
so $200 in individual contributions can be matched with $800
from public funds.
Candidates who remain in the primary race can also receive
an additional 1-to-1 match of up to $200 of contributions
received after March 31 of a presidential election year. This
additional match applies both to an initial contribution made
after March 31 and to contributions from individuals who
already gave $200 or more prior to April 1.
The bill defines ``contribution'' as ``a gift of money made
by a written instrument which identifies the person making
the contribution by full name and mailing address.''
(b) Eligibility for matching funds: Current law requires
candidates to raise $5,000 in matchable contributions
(currently $250 or less) in 20 states. To be eligible for
matching funds under this bill, a candidate must raise
$25,000 of matchable contributions (up to $200 per individual
donor) in at least 20 states.
In addition, to receive matching funds in the primary,
candidates must pledge to apply for public money in the
general election if nominated and to not exceed the general
election spending limits.
(c) Timing of payments: Current law makes matching funds
available on January 1 of a presidential election year. The
bill makes such funds available six months prior to the first
state caucus or primary.
SECTION 3: REQUIRING PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY PAYMENT SYSTEM AS
CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS PAYMENTS
Currently, candidates can participate in either the primary
or the general election public financing system, or both.
Under the bill, a candidate must participate in the primary
matching system in order to be eligible to receive public
funds in the general election.
SECTION 4: REVISIONS TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS
(a) Spending limits for candidates: In 2004, under current
law, candidates participating in the public funding system
had to abide by a primary election spending limit of about
$45 million and a general election spending limit of about
$75 million (all of which was public money). The bill sets a
total primary spending ceiling for participating candidates
in 2008 of $150 million, of which only $100 million can be
spent before April 1. State by state spending limits are
eliminated. The general election limit, which the major party
candidates will receive in public funds, will be $100
million.
(b) Spending limit for parties: Current law provides a
single coordinated spending limit for national party
committees based on population. In 2004 that limit was about
$15 million. The bill provides two limits of $25 million. The
first applies after April 1 until a candidate is nominated.
The second limit kicks in after the nomination. Any part of
the limit not spent before the nomination can be spent after.
In addition, the party coordinated spending limit is
eliminated entirely until the general election public funds
are released if there is an active candidate from the
opposing party who has exceeded the primary spending limits
by more than 20 percent.
This will allow the party to support the presumptive
nominee during the so-called ``gap'' between the end of the
primaries and the conventions. The entire cost of a
coordinated party communication is subject to the limit if
any portion of that communication has to do with the
presidential election.
(c) Inflation adjustment: Party and candidate spending
limits will be indexed for inflation, with 2008 as the base
year.
(d) Fundraising expenses: Under the bill, all the costs of
fundraising by candidates are subject to their spending
limits.
SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND INCREASED EXPENDITURES LIMITS FOR
CANDIDATES PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC FINANCING WHO FACE CERTAIN
NONPARTICIPATING OPPONENTS
(a) Primary candidates: When a participating candidate is
opposed in a primary by a nonparticipating candidate who
spends more than 120 percent of the primary spending limit
($100 million prior to April 1 and $150 million after April
1), the participating candidate will receive a 5-to-1 match,
instead of a 4-to-1 match for contributions of less than $200
per donor. That additional match applies to all contributions
received by the participating candidate both before and after
the nonparticipating candidate crosses the 120 percent
threshold. In addition, the participating candidate's primary
spending limit is raised by $50 million when a
nonparticipating candidate raise spends more than the 120
percent of either the $100 million (before April 1) or $150
million (after April 1) limit. The limit is raised by another
$50 million if the nonparticipating candidate spends more
than 120 percent of the increased limit. Thus, the maximum
spending limit in the primary would be $250 million if an
opposing candidate has spent more than $240 million.
(b) General election candidates: When a participating
candidate is opposed in a general election by a
nonparticipating candidate who spends more than 120 percent
of the combined primary and general election spending limits,
the participating candidate shall receive an additional
grant of public money equal to the amount provided for
that election--$100 million in 2008. Minor party
candidates are also eligible for an additional grant equal
to the amount they otherwise receive (which is based on
the performance of that party in the previous presidential
election).
(c) Reporting and Certification: In order to provide for
timely determination of a participating candidate's
eligibility for increased spending limits, matching funds,
and/or general election grants, non-participating candidates
must notify the FEC within 24 hours after receiving
contributions or making expenditures of greater than the
applicable 120 percent threshold. Within 24 hours of
receiving such a notice, the FEC will inform candidates
participating in the system of their increased expenditure
limits and will certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that
participating candidates are eligible to receive additional
payments.
SECTION 6: ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM DATE FOR RELEASE OF PAYMENTS FROM
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES
Under current law, candidates participating in the system
for the general election receive their grants of public money
immediately after receiving the nomination of their party,
meaning that the two major parties receive their grants on
different dates. Under the bill, all candidates eligible to
receive public money in the general election would receive
that money on the Friday before Labor Day, unless a
candidate's formal nomination occurs later.
SECTION 7: REVISIONS TO DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS BY
INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS
The tax check-off is increased from $3 (individual) and $6
(couple) to $10 and $20. The amount will be adjusted for
inflation, and rounded to the nearest dollar, beginning in
2009.
The IRS shall require by regulation that electronic tax
preparation software does not automatically accept or decline
the tax checkoff. The FEC is required to inform and educate
the public about the purpose of the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund (``PECF'') and how to make a contribution.
Funding for this program of up to $10 million in a four year
presidential election cycle, will come from the PECF.
SECTION 8: AMOUNTS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND
Under current law, in January of an election year if the
Treasury Department determines that there are insufficient
funds in the PECF to make the required payments to
participating primary candidates, the party conventions, and
the general election candidates, it must reduce the payments
available to participating primary candidates and it cannot
make up the shortfall from any other source until those funds
come in. Under the bill, in making that determination the
Department can include an estimate of the amount that will be
received by the PECF during that election year, but the
estimate cannot exceed the past three years' average
contribution to the fund. This will allow primary candidates
to receive their
[[Page S1348]]
full payments as long as a reasonable estimate of the funds
that will come into the PECF that year will cover the general
election candidate payments. The bill allows the Secretary of
the Treasury to borrow the funds necessary to carry out the
purposes of the fund during the first campaign cycle in which
the bill is in effect.
SECTION 9: REPEAL OF PRIORITY IN USE OF FUNDS FOR POLITICAL CONVENTIONS
Current law gives the political parties priority on
receiving the funds they are entitled to from the PECF. This
means that parties get money for their conventions even if
adequate funds are not available for participating
candidates. This section would make funds available for the
conventions only if all participating candidates have
received the funds to which they are entitled.
SECTION 10: REGULATION OF CONVENTION FINANCING
Federal candidates and officeholders are prohibited from
raising or spending soft money in connection with a
nominating convention of any political party, including funds
for a host committee, civic committee, or municipality.
SECTION 11: DISCLOSURE OF BUNDLED CONTRIBUTIONS
(a) Disclosure requirement: The authorized committees of
presidential candidate committee must report the name,
address, and occupation of each person making a bundled
contribution and the aggregate amount of bundled
contributions made by that person.
(b) Definition of bundled contribution. A bundled
contribution is a series of contributions totaling $10,000 or
more that are (1) collected by one person and transferred to
the candidate; or (2) delivered directly to the candidate
from the donor but include a written or oral communication
that the funds were ``solicited, arranged, or directed'' by
someone other than the donor. This covers the two most common
bundling arrangements where fundraisers get ``credit'' for
collecting contributions for a candidate.
SECTION 12: OFFSET
This section provides an offset for the increased cost of
the presidential public funding system. It caps taxpayer
subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including
some brand-named goods, by limiting the Market Access Program
to $100 million per year.
SECTION 13: EFFECTIVE DATE
Provides that the amendments will apply to presidential
elections occurring after January 1, 2009.
____
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Presidential Funding Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Revisions to system of Presidential primary matching payments.
Sec. 3. Requiring participation in primary payment system as condition
of eligibility for general election payments.
Sec. 4. Revisions to expenditure limits.
Sec. 5. Additional payments and increased expenditure limits for
candidates participating in public financing who face
certain nonparticipating opponents.
Sec. 6. Establishment of uniform date for release of payments from
Presidential Election Campaign Fund to eligible
candidates.
Sec. 7. Revisions to designation of income tax payments by individual
taxpayers.
Sec. 8. Amounts in Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
Sec. 9. Repeal of priority in use of funds for political conventions.
Sec. 10. Regulation of convention financing.
Sec. 11. Disclosure of bundled contributions.
Sec. 12. Offset.
Sec. 13. Effective date.
SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO SYSTEM OF PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING
PAYMENTS.
(a) Increase in Matching Payments.--
(1) In general.--Section 9034(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``an amount equal to the amount'' and
inserting ``an amount equal to 400 percent of the amount'';
and
(B) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$200''.
(2) Additional matching payments for candidates after march
31 of the election year.--Section 9034(b) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Additional Payments for Candidates After March 31 of
the Election Year.--In addition to any payment under
subsection (a), an individual who is a candidate after March
31 of the calendar year in which the presidential election is
held and who is eligible to receive payments under section
9033 shall be entitled to payments under section 9037 in an
amount equal to the amount of each contribution received by
such individual after March 31 of the calendar year in which
such presidential election is held, disregarding any amount
of contributions from any person to the extent that the total
of the amounts contributed by such person after such date
exceeds $200.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 9034 of such Code, as
amended by paragraph (2), is amended--
(A) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Contribution Defined.--For purposes of this section
and section 9033(b), the term `contribution' means a gift of
money made by a written instrument which identifies the
person making the contribution by full name and mailing
address, but does not include a subscription, loan, advance,
or deposit of money, or anything of value or anything
described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of section
9032(4).''.
(b) Eligibility Requirements.--
(1) Amount of aggregate contributions per state.--Section
9033(b)(3) of such Code is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000''.
(2) Amount of individual contributions.--Section 9033(b)(4)
of such Code is amended by striking ``$250'' and inserting
``$200''.
(3) Participation in system for payments for general
election.--Section 9033(b) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) if the candidate is nominated by a political party
for election to the office of President, the candidate will
apply for and accept payments with respect to the general
election for such office in accordance with chapter 95,
including the requirement that the candidate and the
candidate's authorized committees will not incur qualified
campaign expenses in excess of the aggregate payments to
which they will be entitled under section 9004.''.
(c) Period of Availability of Payments.--Section 9032(6) of
such Code is amended by striking ``the beginning of the
calendar year in which a general election for the office of
President of the United States will be held'' and inserting
``the date that is 6 months prior to the date of the earliest
State primary election''.
SEC. 3. REQUIRING PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY PAYMENT SYSTEM AS
CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GENERAL ELECTION
PAYMENTS.
(a) Major Party Candidates.--Section 9003(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3); and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(1) the candidate received payments under chapter 96 for
the campaign for nomination;''.
(b) Minor Party Candidates.--Section 9003(c) of such Code
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3); and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph:
``(1) the candidate received payments under chapter 96 for
the campaign for nomination;''.
SEC. 4. REVISIONS TO EXPENDITURE LIMITS.
(a) Increase in Expenditure Limits for Participating
Candidates; Elimination of State-Specific Limits.--
(1) In general.--Section 315(b)(1) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``may make expenditures in excess of'' and all that
follows and inserting ``may make expenditures--
``(A) with respect to a campaign for nomination for
election to such office--
``(i) in excess of $100,000,000 before April 1 of the
calendar year in which the presidential election is held; and
``(ii) in excess of $150,000,000 before the date described
in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(B) with respect to a campaign for election to such
office, in excess of $100,000,000.''.
(2) Clerical correction.--Section 9004(a)(1) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``section 320(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971'' and inserting ``section 315(b)(1)(B) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971''.
(b) Increase in Limit on Coordinated Party Expenditures.--
Section 315(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2)(A) The national committee of a political party may
not make any expenditure in connection with the general
election campaign of any candidate for President of the
United States who is affiliated with such party which exceeds
$25,000,000.
``(B) Notwithstanding the limitation under subparagraph
(A), during the period beginning on April 1 of the year in
which a presidential election is held and ending on the date
described in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the national committee of a political party may make
additional expenditures in connection with the general
election campaign of a candidate for President of the United
States who is affiliated with such party in an amount not to
exceed $25,000,000.
``(C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) or the limitation
under subparagraph (A), if any nonparticipating primary
candidate (within the meaning of subsection (b)(3))
affiliated with the national committee of a political party
receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to
such candidate's campaign in an aggregate amount greater than
120 percent of the expenditure limitation in effect under
subsection
[[Page S1349]]
(b)(1)(A)(ii), then, during the period described in clause
(ii), the national committee of any other political party may
make expenditures in connection with the general election
campaign of a candidate for President of the United States
who is affiliated with such other party without limitation.
``(ii) The period described in this clause is the period--
``(I) beginning on the later of April 1 of the year in
which a presidential election is held or the date on which
such nonparticipating primary candidate first receives
contributions or makes expenditures in the aggregate amount
described in clause (i); and
``(II) ending on the earlier of the date such
nonparticipating primary candidate ceases to be a candidate
for nomination to the office of President of the United
States and is not a candidate for such office or the date
described in section 9006(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(iii) If the nonparticipating primary candidate described
in clause (i) ceases to be a candidate for nomination to the
office of President of the United States and is not a
candidate for such office, clause (i) shall not apply and the
limitations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply. It
shall not be considered to be a violation of this Act if the
application of the preceding sentence results in the national
committee of a political party violating the limitations
under subparagraphs (A) and (B) solely by reason of
expenditures made by such national committee during the
period in which clause (i) applied.
``(D) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) any expenditure made by or on behalf of a national
committee of a political party and in connection with a
presidential election shall be considered to be made in
connection with the general election campaign of a candidate
for President of the United States who is affiliated with
such party; and
``(ii) any communication made by or on behalf of such party
shall be considered to be made in connection with the general
election campaign of a candidate for President of the United
States who is affiliated with such party if any portion of
the communication is in connection with such election.
``(E) Any expenditure under this paragraph shall be in
addition to any expenditure by a national committee of a
political party serving as the principal campaign committee
of a candidate for the office of President of the United
States.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments Relating to Timing of Cost-of-
Living Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--Section 315(c)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
441a(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(b), (d),'' and
inserting ``(d)(3)''; and
(B) by inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) In any calendar year after 2008--
``(i) a limitation established by subsection (b) or (d)(2)
shall be increased by the percent difference determined under
subparagraph (A);
``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for
the calendar year; and
``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is
not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $100.''.
(2) Base year.--Section 315(c)(2)(B) of such Act (2 U.S.C.
441a(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``subsections (b) and (d)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)(3)''; and
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) for purposes of subsection (b) and (d)(2), calendar
year 2007.''.
(d) Repeal of Exclusion of Fundraising Costs From Treatment
as Expenditures.--Section 301(9)(B)(vi) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(vi)) is
amended by striking ``in excess of an amount equal to 20
percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to such
candidate under section 315(b)'' and inserting the following:
``who is seeking nomination for election or election to the
office of President or Vice President of the United States''.
SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND INCREASED EXPENDITURE LIMITS
FOR CANDIDATES PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC
FINANCING WHO FACE CERTAIN NONPARTICIPATING
OPPONENTS.
(a) Candidates in Primary Elections.--
(1) Additional payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 9034 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended by section 2, is amended by redesignating
subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after
subsection (b) the following new subsection:
``(c) Additional Payments for Candidates Facing
Nonparticipating Opponents.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any payments provided
under subsections (a) and (b), each candidate described in
paragraph (2) shall be entitled to--
``(A) a payment under section 9037 in an amount equal to
the amount of each contribution received by such candidate on
or after the beginning of the calendar year preceding the
calendar year of the presidential election with respect to
which such candidate is seeking nomination and before the
qualifying date, disregarding any amount of contributions
from any person to the extent that the total of the amounts
contributed by such person exceeds $200, and
``(B) payments under section 9037 in an amount equal to the
amount of each contribution received by such candidate on or
after the qualifying date, disregarding any amount of
contributions from any person to the extent that the total of
the amounts contributed by such person exceeds $200.
``(2) Candidates to whom this subsection applies.--A
candidate is described in this paragraph if such candidate--
``(A) is eligible to receive payments under section 9033,
and
``(B) is opposed by a nonparticipating primary candidate of
the same political party who receives contributions or makes
expenditures with respect to the campaign--
``(i) before April 1 of the year in which the presidential
election is held, in an aggregate amount greater than 120
percent of the expenditure limitation under section
315(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,
or
``(ii) before the date described in section 9006(b), in an
aggregate amount greater than 120 percent of the expenditure
limitation under section 315(b)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act.
``(3) Nonparticipating primary candidate.--In this
subsection, the term `nonparticipating primary candidate'
means a candidate for nomination for election for the office
of President who is not eligible under section 9033 to
receive payments from the Secretary under this chapter.
``(4) Qualifying date.--In this subsection, the term
`qualifying date' means the first date on which the
contributions received or expenditures made by the
nonparticipating primary candidate described in paragraph
(2)(B) exceed the amount described under either clause (i) or
clause (ii) of such paragraph.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 9034(b) of such Code, as
amended by section 2, is amended by striking ``subsection
(a)'' and inserting ``subsections (a) and (c)''.
(2) Increase in expenditure limit.--Section 315(b) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) In the case of an eligible candidate, each of the
limitations under clause (i) and (ii) of paragraph (1)(A)
shall be increased--
``(i) by $50,000,000, if any nonparticipating primary
candidate of the same political party as such candidate
receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to
the campaign in an aggregate amount greater than 120 percent
of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible
candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A)
(before the application of this clause), and
``(ii) by $100,000,000, if such nonparticipating primary
candidate receives contributions or makes expenditures with
respect to the campaign in an aggregate amount greater than
120 percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to
eligible candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph
(1)(A) after the application of clause (i).
``(B) Each dollar amount under subparagraph (A) shall be
considered a limitation under this subsection for purposes of
subsection (c).
``(C) In this paragraph, the term `eligible candidate'
means, with respect to any period, a candidate--
``(i) who is eligible to receive payments under section
9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(ii) who is opposed by a nonparticipating primary
candidate; and
``(iii) with respect to whom the Commission has given
notice under section 304(i)(1)(B)(i).
``(D) In this paragraph, the term `nonparticipating primary
candidate' means, with respect to any eligible candidate, a
candidate for nomination for election for the office of
President who is not eligible under section 9033 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to receive payments from the
Secretary of the Treasury under chapter 96 of such Code.''.
(b) Candidates in General Elections.--
(1) Additional payments.--
(A) In general.--Section 9004(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended--
(i) by striking ``(1) The eligible candidates'' and
inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the eligible candidates''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In addition to the payments described in subparagraph
(A), each eligible candidate of a major party in a
presidential election with an opponent in the election who is
not eligible to receive payments under section 9006 and who
receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to
the primary and general elections in an aggregate amount
greater than 120 percent of the combined expenditure
limitations applicable to eligible candidates under section
315(b)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shall
be entitled to an equal payment under section 9006 in an
amount equal to 100 percent of the expenditure limitation
applicable under such section with respect to a campaign for
election to the office of President.''.
(B) Special rule for minor party candidates.--Section
9004(a)(2)(A) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``(A) The eligible candidates'' and
inserting ``(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the
eligible candidates''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) In addition to the payments described in clause (i),
each eligible candidate of a minor party in a presidential
election with an opponent in the election who is not eligible
to receive payments under section 9006
[[Page S1350]]
and who receives contributions or makes expenditures with
respect to the primary and general elections in an aggregate
amount greater than 120 percent of the combined expenditure
limitations applicable to eligible candidates under section
315(b)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 shall
be entitled to an equal payment under section 9006 in an
amount equal to 100 percent of the payment to which such
candidate is entitled under clause (i).''.
(2) Exclusion of additional payment from determination of
expenditure limits.--Section 315(b) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)), as amended by
subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) In the case of a candidate who is eligible to receive
payments under section 9004(a)(1)(B) or 9004(a)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the limitation under
paragraph (1)(B) shall be increased by the amount of such
payments received by the candidate.''.
(c) Process for Determination of Eligibility for Additional
Payment and Increased Expenditure Limits.--Section 304 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Reporting and Certification for Additional Public
Financing Payments for Candidates.--
``(1) Primary candidates.--
``(A) Notification of expenditures by ineligible
candidates.--
``(i) Expenditures in excess of 120 percent of limit.--If a
candidate for a nomination for election for the office of
President who is not eligible to receive payments under
section 9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 receives
contributions or makes expenditures with respect to the
primary election in an aggregate amount greater than 120
percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible
candidates under clause (i) or (ii) of section 315(b)(1)(A),
the candidate shall notify the Commission in writing that the
candidate has received aggregate contributions or made
aggregate expenditures in such an amount not later than 24
hours after first receiving aggregate contributions or making
aggregate expenditures in such an amount.
``(ii) Expenditures in excess of 120 percent of increased
limit.--If a candidate for a nomination for election for the
office of President who is not eligible to receive payments
under section 9033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
receives contributions or makes expenditures with respect to
the primary election in an aggregate amount greater than 120
percent of the expenditure limitation applicable to eligible
candidates under section 315(b) after the application of
paragraph (3)(A)(i) thereof, the candidate shall notify the
Commission in writing that the candidate has received
aggregate contributions or made aggregate expenditures in
such an amount not later than 24 hours after first receiving
aggregate contributions or making aggregate expenditures in
such an amount.
``(B) Certification.--Not later than 24 hours after
receiving any written notice under subparagraph (A) from a
candidate, the Commission shall--
``(i) certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that
opponents of the candidate are eligible for additional
payments under section 9034(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986;
``(ii) notify each opponent of the candidate who is
eligible to receive payments under section 9033 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of the amount of the increased
limitation on expenditures which applies pursuant to section
315(b)(3); and
``(iii) in the case of a notice under subparagraph (A)(i),
notify the national committee of each political party (other
than the political party with which the candidate is
affiliated) of the inapplicability of expenditure limits
under section 315(d)(2) pursuant to subparagraph (C) thereof.
``(2) General election candidates.--
``(A) Notification of expenditures by ineligible
candidates.--If a candidate in a presidential election who is
not eligible to receive payments under section 9006 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 receives contributions or makes
expenditures with respect to the primary and general
elections in an aggregate amount greater than 120 percent of
the combined expenditure limitations applicable to eligible
candidates under section 315(b)(1), the candidate shall
notify the Commission in writing that the candidate has
received aggregate contributions or made aggregate
expenditures in such an amount not later than 24 hours after
first receiving aggregate contributions or making aggregate
expenditures in such an amount.
``(B) Certification.--Not later than 24 hours after
receiving a written notice under subparagraph (A), the
Commission shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for
payment to any eligible candidate who is entitled to an
additional payment under paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(A)(ii) of
section 9004(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that the
candidate is entitled to payment in full of the additional
payment under such section.''.
SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM DATE FOR RELEASE OF PAYMENTS
FROM PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND TO
ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
(a) In General.--The first sentence of section 9006(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as
follows: ``If the Secretary of the Treasury receives a
certification from the Commission under section 9005 for
payment to the eligible candidates of a political party, the
Secretary shall, on the last Friday occurring before the
first Monday in September, pay to such candidates of the fund
the amount certified by the Commission.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The first sentence of section
9006(c) of such Code is amended by striking ``the time of a
certification by the Comptroller General under section 9005
for payment'' and inserting ``the time of making a payment
under subsection (b)''.
SEC. 7. REVISIONS TO DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS BY
INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.
(a) Increase in Amount Designated.--Section 6096(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$3'' each place it
appears and inserting ``$10''; and
(2) in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``$6'' and inserting ``$20''; and
(B) by striking ``$3'' and inserting ``$10''.
(b) Indexing.--Section 6096 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Indexing of Amount Designated.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to each taxable year after
2008, each amount referred to in subsection (a) shall be
increased by the percent difference described in paragraph
(2), except that if any such amount after such an increase is
not a multiple of $1, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $1.
``(2) Percent difference described.--The percent difference
described in this paragraph with respect to a taxable year is
the percent difference determined under section 315(c)(1)(A)
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 with respect to
the calendar year during which the taxable year begins,
except that the base year involved shall be 2008.''.
(c) Ensuring Tax Preparation Software Does Not Provide
Automatic Response to Designation Question.--Section 6096 of
such Code, as amended by subsection (b), is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Ensuring Tax Preparation Software Does Not Provide
Automatic Response to Designation Question.--The Secretary
shall promulgate regulations to ensure that electronic
software used in the preparation or filing of individual
income tax returns does not automatically accept or decline a
designation of a payment under this section.''.
(d) Public Information Program on Designation.--Section
6096 of such Code, as amended by subsections (b) and (c), is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Public Information Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal Election Commission shall
conduct a program to inform and educate the public regarding
the purposes of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, the
procedures for the designation of payments under this
section, and the effect of such a designation on the income
tax liability of taxpayers.
``(2) Use of funds for program.--Amounts in the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund shall be made available
to the Federal Election Commission to carry out the program
under this subsection, except that the amount made available
for this purpose may not exceed $10,000,000 with respect to
any Presidential election cycle. In this paragraph, a
`Presidential election cycle' is the 4-year period beginning
with January of the year following a Presidential
election.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. AMOUNTS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND.
(a) Determination of Amounts in Fund.--Section 9006(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``In making a determination
of whether there are insufficient moneys in the fund for
purposes of the previous sentence, the Secretary shall take
into account in determining the balance of the fund for a
Presidential election year the Secretary's best estimate of
the amount of moneys which will be deposited into the fund
during the year, except that the amount of the estimate may
not exceed the average of the annual amounts deposited in the
fund during the previous 3 years.''.
(b) Special Rule for First Campaign Cycle Under This Act.--
(1) In general.--Section 9006 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Special Authority to Borrow.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), there
are authorized to be appropriated to the fund, as repayable
advances, such sums as are necessary to carry out the
purposes of the fund during the period ending on the first
presidential election occurring after the date of the
enactment of this subsection.
``(2) Repayment of advances.--
``(A) In general.--Advances made to the fund shall be
repaid, and interest on such advances shall be paid, to the
general fund of the Treasury when the Secretary determines
that moneys are available for such purposes in the fund.
``(B) Rate of interest.--Interest on advances made to the
fund shall be at a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury (as of the close of the calendar month preceding the
month in which the advance is made) to be equal to the
current average
[[Page S1351]]
market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the
United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable
to the anticipated period during which the advance will be
outstanding and shall be compounded annually.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9. REPEAL OF PRIORITY IN USE OF FUNDS FOR POLITICAL
CONVENTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 9008(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking the period at the end of
the second sentence and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``, except that the amount deposited may not
exceed the amount available after the Secretary determines
that amounts for payments under section 9006 and section 9037
are available for such payments.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``section 9006(c)
and for payments under section 9008(b)(3)'' and inserting
``section 9006''.
SEC. 10. REGULATION OF CONVENTION FINANCING.
Section 323 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441i) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(g) National Conventions.--Any person described in
subsection (e) shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer,
or spend any funds in connection with a presidential
nominating convention of any political party, including funds
for a host committee, civic committee, municipality, or any
other person or entity spending funds in connection with such
a convention, unless such funds--
``(1) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with
respect to contributions to the political committee
established and maintained by a national political party
committee under section 315; and
``(2) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from
making contributions in connection with an election for
Federal office.''.
SEC. 11. DISCLOSURE OF BUNDLED CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 304(b) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) in the case of an authorized committee of a candidate
for President, the name, address, occupation, and employer of
each person who makes a bundled contribution, and the
aggregate amount of the bundled contributions made by such
person during the reporting period.''.
(b) Bundled Contribution.--Section 301 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(27) Bundled contribution.--The term `bundled
contribution' means a series of contributions that are, in
the aggregate, $10,000 or more and--
``(A) are transferred to the candidate or the authorized
committee of the candidate by one person; or
``(B) include a written or oral notification that the
contribution was solicited, arranged, or directed by a person
other than the donor.''.
SEC. 12. OFFSET.
(a) In General.--Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by
striking ``and $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007'' and inserting ``$200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the amendments
made by this Act shall apply with respect to elections
occurring after January 1, 2009.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 437. A bill to provide for the conveyance of an A-12 Blackbird
aircraft to the Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to transfer
ownership of a 1960s A-12 Blackbird spy plane to the Minnesota Air
National Guard Historical Foundation.
The legislation will allow the A-12 to stay in the Minnesota Air
National Guard Museum and to be displayed for educational and other
appropriate public purposes.
The A-12 Blackbird planes were in many ways the apex of jet design.
No known jet is believed to have flown faster--three times the speed of
sound, or higher--above 90,000 feet. It is a landmark in the history of
aviation that will never be repeated again.
The Minnesota A-12, retired in 1968 and rescued by Minnesota
volunteers from a California scrap heap more than a decade ago, is
housed at the 133rd Airlift Wing of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport. Almost fifteen thousand Minnesotans contributed
to the restoration of the A-12 and the creation of the Blackbird
program. Ever since, it has been the centerpiece of the Minnesota Air
National Guard Museum. The aircraft is the only A-12 currently used as
a hands-on educational resource with a group of highly trained
instructors who provide meaningful insight for the general public into
the aircraft's history and meaning.
This aircraft is of great significance not only to the volunteers who
sacrificed time and resources to restore a great remnant of American
history, but also to the citizens of Minnesota and around the country
who have benefited greatly from this knowledge of our military history.
Unfortunately, the A-12 is considered to be ``on loan'' from the U.S.
Air Force, which recently has decided to transfer the plane to the CIA
Headquarters as part of the agency's 60th anniversary celebration. If
this plan goes ahead, the plane will no longer be available for public
viewing.
Over the years, volunteers throughout Minnesota have generously
devoted their time and resources to maintaining this plane. To transfer
the plane away from the very people whose hard work has made the
aircraft what it is today is simply unfair. It is necessary that we
retain this piece of Minnesota history, and keep the Blackbird in a
place where it will always be accessible to the public. I hope the
Senate will be able to act on this legislation and help to save a
significant piece of history.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill I introduce today, to provide
for the conveyance of an A-12 Blackbird aircraft to the Minnesota Air
National Guard Historical Foundation, 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. 437
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF A-12 BLACKBIRD AIRCRAFT TO THE
MINNESOTA AIR NATIONAL GUARD HISTORICAL
FOUNDATION.
(a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall convey, without consideration, to the Minnesota Air
National Guard Historical Foundation, Inc. (in this section
referred to as the ``Foundation''), a non-profit entity
located in the State of Minnesota, A-12 Blackbird aircraft
with tail number 60-6931 that is under the jurisdiction of
the National Museum of the United States Air Force and, as of
January 1, 2007, was on loan to the Foundation and display
with the 133rd Airlift Wing at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, Minnesota.
(b) Condition.--The conveyance required by subsection (a)
shall be subject to the requirement that Foundation utilize
and display the aircraft described in that subsection for
educational and other appropriate public purposes as jointly
agreed upon by the Secretary and the Foundation before the
conveyance.
(c) Relocation of Aircraft.--As part of the conveyance
required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall relocate the
aircraft described in that subsection to Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport and undertake any reassembly of the
aircraft required as part of the conveyance and relocation.
Any costs of the Secretary under this subsection shall be
borne by the Secretary.
(d) Maintenance Support.--The Secretary may authorize the
133rd Airlift Wing to provide support to the Foundation for
the maintenance of the aircraft relocated under subsection
(a) after its relocation under that subsection.
(e) Reversion of Aircraft.--
(1) Reversion.--In the event the Foundation ceases to
exist, all right, title, and interest in and to the aircraft
conveyed under subsection (a) shall revert to the United
States, and the United States shall have immediate right of
possession of the aircraft.
(2) Assumption of possession.--Possession under paragraph
(1) of the aircraft conveyed under subsection (a) shall be
assumed by the 133rd Airlift Wing.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance required by subsection (a) as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kohl, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 438. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Schumer,
[[Page S1352]]
Kohl and Leahy to reintroduce an important bill for all Americans. The
bill that we are reintroducing today would reduce barriers to
affordable prescription drugs by eliminating one of the prominent
loopholes brand name drug companies use to limit access to generic
drugs.
Our bill, the Fair Prescription Drug Competition Act of 2007, would
end the marketing of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the l80-
day period Congress created exclusively for true generics to enter the
market. I have spoken with my colleagues many times about this
important issue.
In an effort to balance the need for returns on research facilitated
by brand name prescription drug companies with the need for more
affordable prescription drug options for consumers, Congress passed the
Hatch-Waxman law in 1984. This law provided brand name companies with a
number of incentives for investing in the research and development of
new medications. These included a 20-year patent on drugs, 5 years of
data exclusivity, 3 years of exclusivity for clinical trials, up to 5
years of patent extension, 6 months exclusivity for conducting
pediatric testing, and a 30-month automatic stay against generic
competition if the generic challenges the brand patent. Generic
prescription drug manufacturers, on the other hand, received a l80-day
exclusivity period, awarded to the first company to successfully
challenge a brand name patent and enter the market.
This 6-month exclusivity period has been crucial to encouraging
generic drug companies to make existing drugs more affordable.
Challenging a brand name drug's patent takes time, money, and involves
absorbing a great deal of risk. Generic drug companies rely on the
added revenue provided by the 180-day exclusivity period to recoup
their costs, fund new patent challenges where appropriate, and
ultimately pass savings onto consumers.
Since 1984, there have been many attempts to exploit loopholes in the
law in order to delay generic entry to the market and extend brand
monopolies. The 2003 Medicare law addressed many of these loopholes.
However, brand name manufacturers have found another loophole in
current law, so-called ``authorized generics.''
An authorized generic drug is a brand name prescription drug produced
by the same brand manufacturer on the same manufacturing lines, yet
repackaged as a generic in order to confuse consumers and shut true
generics out of the market. Because it is not a true generic and does
not require an additional FDA approval, an authorized generic can be
marketed during the federally mandated 6-month exclusivity period for
generics. This discourages true generic companies from entering the
market and offering lower-priced prescription drugs.
As I have said many times, authorized generics are a sham. This
practice of re-labeling a brand product and placing it on the market to
undermine the 180-day exclusivity period will only serve to reduce
generic competition and lead to longer brand monopolies and higher
healthcare costs over the long-term.
Brand name drug companies are expected to lose as much as $75 billion
over the next 5 years as some of their best sellers go off-patent and
generic competition increases. So, not surprisingly, these big
pharmaceutical companies are desperately trying to protect their market
share and prevent consumers from cashing in on savings from generic
drugs,
Today, generic medications comprise more than 56 percent of all
prescriptions in this country, and yet they account for only 13 percent
of our nation's drug costs. In fact, generic drugs provide 50 to 80
percent cost-savings over brand name drugs. These savings make a big
difference in the lives of working families. That is why we must
protect the true intent of Hatch-Waxman.
The bill we are introducing today eliminates the authorized generic
loophole, protects the integrity of the 180 days, and improves consumer
access to lower-cost generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support
this timely and important piece of legislation.
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. 438
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 ``Fair Prescription Drug
Competition Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS.
Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Prohibition of Authorized Generic Drugs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no holder of a new drug application approved under
subsection (c) shall manufacture, market, sell, or distribute
an authorized generic drug, direct or indirectly, or
authorize any other person to manufacture, market, sell, or
distribute an authorized generic drug.
``(2) Authorized generic drug.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `authorized generic drug'--
``(A) means any version of a listed drug (as such term is
used in subsection (j)) that the holder of the new drug
application approved under subsection (c) for that listed
drug seeks to commence marketing, selling, or distributing,
directly or indirectly, after receipt of a notice sent
pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with respect to that listed
drug; and
``(B) does not include any drug to be marketed, sold, or
distributed--
``(i) by an entity eligible for exclusivity with respect to
such drug under subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv); or
``(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of any exclusivity
with respect to such drug under such subsection
(j)(5)(B)(iv).''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators
Rockefeller, Kohl and Schumer in introducing legislation to end the use
of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that
Congress intended for true generic market exclusivity. Authorized
generics are nothing more than repackaged brand name drugs purporting
to be a generic, but without the benefit of a true generic's lower
cost. This practice is anticompetitive and anti-consumer.
Amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, enacted as part of the
Medicare Modernization Act (Title XI, PL 108-173) in 2003, generally
grant a generic company that successfully challenges the patent of a
name brand pharmaceutical company 180 days of marketing exclusivity on
that generic drug. Having co-sponsored those amendments, I know that
they were designed to give greater incentives for generic manufacturers
to bring generic drugs quickly to the market, thus promoting
competition and lowering prices for consumers.
In 2005, Senators Grassley and Rockefeller and I raised concerns
about the practice of manufacturing authorized generics. We feared that
practice could have a negative impact on competition for both
blockbuster and smaller drugs, because the generic industry would be
less inclined to invest in their production. According to a recent
Generic Pharmaceutical Association study, our fears were well founded:
Authorized generics diminish Hatch-Waxman incentives for generic firms
to challenge brand name patents, resulting in higher consumer prices.
The legislation we introduce today bars brand name drug firms from
producing ``authorized generics.'' Slapping a different name on a
patented drug and calling it generic is not real competition, and it
saps incentives from real generic drug makers to compete by making
lower-cost generic drugs. Consumers deserve the lower costs and real
choices of truly generic medicines.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to make this good bill into a good law.
____________________