[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.

                          ____________________