Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2357-S2372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 699. A bill to prevent the fraudulent use of social security
account numbers by allowing the sharing of social security data among
agencies of the United States for identity theft prevention and
immigration enforcement purposes, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will be introducing a piece of
legislation today which is a bill to cut at the heart of a rampant
problem in this country; that is, identity theft.
Last month, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary
Chertoff on this very issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that under
current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information
with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft.
My bill tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing
information among Government agencies. It permits the Commissioner of
Social Security to secure information with the Secretary of Homeland
Security where such information is likely to assist in discovering
identity theft, Social Security number misuse, or violations of
immigration law.
Specifically, it requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of
Homeland Security upon discovery of a Social Security account number
being used with multiple names or where an individual has more than one
person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year. It
seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not. In
the meantime, identity theft is plaguing innocent victims all across
the country. We were reminded of the pervasiveness of this problem by
the recent ICE raids of six Swift and Company meat-packing plants
across the country last December. In total, agents apprehended 1,282
illegal alien workers on administrative immigration violations. Of
these, 65 have also been charged with criminal violations related to
identity theft or other violations.
Unfortunately, for the victims of identity theft, by the time the
identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Ranked
fifth in the Nation for identity theft, citizens of Colorado are no
strangers to identity theft. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand
Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance
because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs
in Denver, making her income too high to qualify. A 10-year-old child
in Douglas County had his identity stolen, and his Social Security
number was being used at 17 different jobs. Others get stuck with big
tax bills for wages they never earned.
Clearly, identity theft is an issue that affects people of all ages
and walks of life. Yet when the Social Security Administration has
reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used
fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of
Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables
thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against
innocent victims. By simply sharing this information, cases of identity
theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft
deserve to have this existing information acted on, and my bill allows
for this to happen. I urge colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation.
Later on, when we are on S. 4, called Improving America's Security
Act, which deals with implementation of more of the 9/11 Commission
recommendations, I plan on offering an amendment that has similar
language to this bill. This is an issue which is extremely important to
victims. It is something we should address. I will give the Senate
plenty of opportunity to deal with this issue.
______

By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Allard, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. 700. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax
credit to individuals who enter into agreements to protect the habitats
of endangered and threatened species, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 16
bipartisan

[[Page S2358]]

cosponsors, to introduce the S. 700. Approximately 1 year ago, Senator
Lincoln and I introduced the Collaboration for the Recovery of the
Endangered Species Act, or CRESA, an earlier bill to amend the
Endangered Species Act or ESA. S. 700 is an updated version of the
Endangered Species Recovery Act or ESRA, which we introduced on
December 6, 2006. Like ESRA, S. 700 does not amend the current ESA, but
builds on ideas set forth in the original CRESA. It creates policies
that finance the recovery of endangered species by private landowners.
S. 700 makes it simpler for landowners to get involved in conservation
and reduces the conflict that often emanates from the ESA. It will be
an important codification of much-needed incentives to help recover
endangered species. And, since the introduction of CRESA 1 year ago,
I'm proud to count over 100 different species and landowner
organizations and advocates that have partnered with us in support of
this important tax legislation.
Over 80 percent of endangered species live on private property. Under
the current law, however, there are too few incentives and too many
obstacles for private landowners to participate in conservation
agreements to help recover species. S. 700, like the voluntary farm
bill conservation programs that inspired its creation, will make it
more attractive for private landowners to contribute to the recovery of
species under the ESA.
This bill resulted from effective and inclusive collaboration among
key stakeholders most affected by the implementation of the ESA.
Landowner interests include farmers, ranchers, and those from the
natural resource-using communities. For example, some current
supporters of S. 700 who contributed invaluable advice are the American
Farm Bureau and the Society of American Foresters. This could not
rightly be called a collaborative project without the vital and
necessary input received from the Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental
Defense and the National Wildlife Federation--key environmental groups
that made significant contributions. They understand that landowner
must be treated as allies to ensure success in the long-run for the
conservation of habitat and species. Finally, while the genesis of this
bill has many roots, a passionate catalyst was James Cummins of
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation, whose great concern for the
outdoors provided inspiration to move these ideas forward.
These experts worked together to craft S. 700, which provides new tax
incentives for private landowners who voluntarily contribute to the
recovery of endangered species. The tax credits will reimburse
landowners for property rights affected by agreements that include
conservation easements and costs incurred by species management plans.
For landowners who limit their property rights through conservation
easements, there will be 100 percent compensation of all costs. That
percentage declines to 75 percent for 30-year easements and 50 percent
for cost-share agreements.
It is worth noting that this is the same formula that works
successfully for farm bill programs such as the Wetlands Reserve
Program. Private property owners are appropriately rewarded for crucial
ecological services that they provide on their property. The public
benefits from these services, which ensure biodiversity. While the
primary returns from this investment are protection and recovery of
endangered species, the public will also undoubtedly gain additional
benefits such as aesthetically pleasing open space, a reduction in the
number of invasive species and enhanced water quality.
The legislation provides a list of options that give landowners a
choice--a crucial element for the success of this proposal. For some
landowners, a conservation easement will be the most attractive option.
Easements are flexible tools that can be tailored to each landowner and
species' interests. An easement restricts certain activities, but it
still works well with traditional rural activities such as ranching and
farming. For agreements without easements, there is flexibility to do
what is necessary for the concerned species without the need to
sacrifice property rights into perpetuity.
The tax credits provide essential funding that is necessary to
respect private property rights. Wildlife should be an asset rather
than a liability, which is how it has sometimes been viewed under the
ESA. With wildlife becoming valuable to a landowner, those who may have
been reluctant to participate in recovery efforts in the past will be
more likely to contribute with these new incentives. When people want
to take part in the process and do not fear it, the likelihood of
conflict and litigation is reduced. For years, this type of conflict
has proven costly not only financially to individuals and the
government, but also in terms of relationships between people who share
the land and natural resources. With a new trust and new model for
finding conservation solutions, we can improve and expand our
conservation work.
Provisions have been made to accommodate landowners whose taxes may
be less than the tax credit provides. Partnerships in the agreements
will allow any party to an agreement to receive a credit as long as
they pay or incur costs as a result of the agreement. This language
will allow creative collaboration among governments, landowners,
taxpayers and environmentalists, further increasing the number of
people involved in finding new solutions for conservation.
Furthermore, this bill also expands tax deductions for any landowner
who takes part in the recovery plans approved under the ESA, and allows
landowners to exclude from taxable income certain Federal payments
under conservation cost-share programs. This will allow both
individuals and businesses to deduct the cost of recovery work without
bureaucratic obstacles.

This bill not only sets forth the financing for private landowners,
but it also makes it easier to implement the agreements. Landowners
will receive technical assistance to implement the agreements. Also, to
remove some legal disincentives to recover species, liability
protection may be provided to protect the landowners from penalties
under the ESA. This removes the fear of trying to help endangered
species. Currently, more species usually just means more liability for
a landowner.
As a result of these incentives, I expect to see a phenomenal
increase in the number of success stories. These stories will sound
familiar to those creative collaborators working on the ground now
where we have learned that the types of tools provided in this bill can
work if offered consistently.
The Endangered Species Recovery Act is very exciting to those of us
who value protecting our natural resources. It provides collaborative,
creative ways to balance conservation with economic uses of our natural
resources. It also preserves rural ways of life. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to move ahead with
this legislation which will provide a new model for conservation to do
better work. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate
and House to move ahead with this legislation.
I am deeply grateful to my colleagues from Arkansas, Iowa and Montana
for their essential expertise and support to create S. 700. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 702. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to award grants to
State courts to develop and implement State courts interpreter
programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and
Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program
Act of 2007. This legislation would create a modest grant program to
provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and
implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to
ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.
States are already legally required, under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful
access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English
proficiency. Unfortunately, however, court interpreting services vary
greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others
are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds.
Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that
we protect the

[[Page S2359]]

constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court
interpreter programs.
Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position.
Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to
find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal
terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ
significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators.
Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and
requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign
language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best
interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official
court interpreters.
Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as
the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore
the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According
to the most recent Census data, 19 percent of the population over age
five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number
of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was
more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was ten years
earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7
million. California had more than 6.2 million.
The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem,
and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a committee
established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program
``backward,'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters
``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts
accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are
unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the
fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation, and
because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes
often go unnoticed.
Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply
unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of
abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court.
In recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Kennedy
described a particularly alarming situation where bilingual jurors can
understand what the witness is saying and then interrupt the proceeding
when an interpreter has not accurately represented the witness's
testimony. Justice Kennedy agrees that the lack of qualified court
interpreters poses a significant threat to our judicial system and
emphasized the importance of addressing the issue.
This legislation does just that by authorizing $15 million per year,
over five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those
States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant
allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for states that
demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be
distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons
in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than
English at home.
Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a
difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a perfect example
of that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using
State money and a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were
scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters.
Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the
State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The
list of provisional interpreters-- those who have received training and
passed written tests--is much longer and includes individuals trained
in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in
only two years, and with only $250,000 of federal assistance.
This legislation has the strong support of state court administrators
and state supreme court justices around the country.
Our States are facing this difficult challenge, and Federal law
requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them
have been unable to keep up with the demand. It is time we lend them a
helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied
justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier,
so I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 702

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 ``State Court Interpreter
Grant Program Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the fair administration of justice depends on the
ability of all participants in a courtroom proceeding to
understand that proceeding, regardless of their English
proficiency;
(2) 19 percent of the population of the United States over
5 years of age speaks a language other than English at home;
(3) only qualified court interpreters can ensure that
persons with limited English proficiency comprehend judicial
proceedings in which they are a party;
(4) the knowledge and skills required of a qualified court
interpreter differ substantially from those required in other
interpretation settings, such as social service, medical,
diplomatic, and conference interpreting;
(5) the Federal Government has demonstrated its commitment
to equal administration of justice regardless of English
proficiency;
(6) regulations implementing title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as well as the guidance issued by the Department
of Justice pursuant to Executive Order 13166, issued August
11, 2000, clarify that all recipients of Federal financial
assistance, including State courts, are required to take
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their
proceedings for persons with limited English proficiency;
(7) 36 States have developed, or are developing, qualified
court interpreting programs;
(8) robust, effective court interpreter programs--
(A) actively recruit skilled individuals to be court
interpreters;
(B) train those individuals in the interpretation of court
proceedings;
(C) develop and use a thorough, systematic certification
process for court interpreters; and
(D) have sufficient funding to ensure that a qualified
interpreter will be available to the court whenever
necessary; and
(9) Federal funding is necessary to--
(A) encourage State courts that do not have court
interpreter programs to develop them;
(B) assist State courts with nascent court interpreter
programs to implement them;
(C) assist State courts with limited court interpreter
programs to enhance them; and
(D) assist State courts with robust court interpreter
programs to make further improvements and share successful
programs with other States.

SEC. 3. STATE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM.

(a) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice (referred to in this
section as the ``Administrator'') shall make grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to State courts to develop and implement programs
to assist individuals with limited English proficiency to
access and understand State court proceedings in which they
are a party.
(2) Technical assistance.--The Administrator shall
allocate, for each fiscal year, $500,000 of the amount
appropriated pursuant to section 4 to be used to establish a
court interpreter technical assistance program to assist
State courts receiving grants under this Act.
(b) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (a) may
be used by State courts to--
(1) assess regional language demands;
(2) develop a court interpreter program for the State
courts;
(3) develop, institute, and administer language
certification examinations;
(4) recruit, train, and certify qualified court
interpreters;
(5) pay for salaries, transportation, and technology
necessary to implement the court interpreter program
developed under paragraph (2); and
(6) engage in other related activities, as prescribed by
the Attorney General.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--The highest State court of each State
desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Administrator at such time, in such
manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.
(2) State courts.--The highest State court of each State
submitting an application under paragraph (1) shall include
in the application--
(A) an identification of each State court in that State
which would receive funds from the grant;
(B) the amount of funds each State court identified under
subparagraph (A) would receive from the grant; and

[[Page S2360]]

(C) the procedures the highest State court would use to
directly distribute grant funds to State courts identified
under subparagraph (A).
(d) State Court Allotments.--
(1) Base allotment.--From amounts appropriated for each
fiscal year pursuant to section 4, the Administrator shall
allocate $100,000 to each of the highest State court of each
State, which has an application approved under subsection
(c).
(2) Discretionary allotment.--From amounts appropriated for
each fiscal year pursuant to section 4, the Administrator
shall allocate a total of $5,000,000 to the highest State
court of States that have extraordinary needs that are
required to be addressed in order to develop, implement, or
expand a State court interpreter program.
(3) Additional allotment.--In addition to the allocations
made under paragraphs (1) and (2), the Administrator shall
allocate to each of the highest State court of each State,
which has an application approved under subsection (c), an
amount equal to the product reached by multiplying--
(A) the unallocated balance of the amount appropriated for
each fiscal year pursuant to section 4; and
(B) the ratio between the number of people over 5 years of
age who speak a language other than English at home in the
State and the number of people over 5 years of age who speak
a language other than English at home in all the States that
receive an allocation under paragraph (1), as those numbers
are determined by the Bureau of the Census.
(4) Treatment of district of columbia.--For purposes of
this section--
(A) the District of Columbia shall be treated as a State;
and
(B) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall act as
the highest State court for the District of Columbia.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this
Act.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 703. A bill to expand the definition of immediate relative for
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to
introduce the Family Reunification Act, a measure designed to remedy a
regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the
law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence.
Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as
legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor
children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will
close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in
the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will
ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most
important policy goals behind them--the goal of strengthening the
family unit.
Congress took an important first step in promoting family
reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By
qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers
parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain an
immigrant visas to enter the country.
We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately,
an oversight in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the
important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of
families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they
cannot take advantage of this family reunification provision.
Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted
to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that
is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that
simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises when these
U.S. citizens have minor siblings. Since they do not qualify as an
``immediate relative,'' the minor siblings are denied admission. So, a
young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his
or her five year old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable
to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member
who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose
between their children--are effectively prevented from coming to this
country as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping
families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of
immediate relative.
For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a
textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekom Okon,
both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were
living in Nigeria, be admitted to as ``immediate relatives.'' The law
clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in
Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready
to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her
husband and sons in the United States because their six-year-old
daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.''
Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child,
Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of
her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.
It is difficult to determine the full extent of this problem. Because
minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not keep track of how many families have been
adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my
home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large,
DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the
number reaching into the hundreds each year. So, this change will not
lead to an influx of many immigrants, but it will reunite a number of
families who have unnecessarily been kept apart.
If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest
that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous
cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue
now.
Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of
repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different.
Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to
obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the
unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has
interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The
legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate
relative'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so,
we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite
with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an
unfortunate problem that too many families have already had to face. I
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 703

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVE.

Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``For
purposes of this subsection, a child of a parent of a citizen
of the United States shall be considered an immediate
relative if the child is accompanying or following to join
the parent.'' after ``at least 21 years of age.''.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 704. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
manipulation of caller identification information; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, American consumers and public
safety officials increasingly find themselves confronted by scams in
the digital age. The latest scam is known as caller I.D. ``spoofing.''
Today, I am introducing a bipartisan bill with Senator Snowe--The Truth
in Caller I.D. Act of 2007--to put an end to fraudulent caller I.D.
spoofing.
It seems like every week we hear of new threats to our privacy and
new ways to use telecommunications networks to endanger consumers'
financial security and physical safety. For several years now, I have
been fighting back against these threats, pushing legislation to combat
frauds such as identity theft, the unauthorized sale of consumer
telephone records and spyware. It's now time to put an end to the
practice of caller I.D. spoofing.
What is caller I.D. spoofing? It's a technique that allows a
telephone caller to alter the phone number that appears on the
recipient's caller I.D. system. In other words, spoofing allows

[[Page S2361]]

someone to hide behind a misleading telephone number to try to scam
consumers or trick law enforcement officers.
Let me give you a few shocking examples of how caller I.D. spoofing
has been exploited during the past two years:
In one very dangerous hoax, a sharp-shooting SWAT team was forced to
shut down a neighborhood in New Brunswick, NJ, after receiving what
they believed was a legitimate distress call. But what really happened
was a caller used spoofing to trick law enforcement into thinking that
the emergency call was coming from a certain apartment in that
neighborhood. It was all a cruel trick perpetrated with a deceptive
telephone number.
In another example, identity thieves bought a number of stolen credit
card numbers. They then called Western Union, set up caller I.D.
information to make it look like the call originated from the credit
card holder's phone line, and used the credit card numbers to order
cash transfers, which the thieves then picked up.
In other instances, callers have used spoofing to pose as government
officials. In recent months, there have been numerous instances of
fraudsters using caller I.D. fraud to pose as court officers calling to
say that a person has missed jury duty. The caller then says that a
warrant will be issued for their arrest, unless a fine is paid during
the call. The victim is then induced to provide credit card or bank
information over the phone to pay the ``fine.''
Furthermore, while these examples are serious enough, think about
what would happen if a stalker used caller I.D. spoofing to trick his
victim into answering the telephone, giving out personal information,
or telling the person on the other end of the line about their current
whereabouts. The results could be tragic.
According to experts, there are a number of Internet websites--with
names like Tricktel.com and Spooftel.com--that sell their services to
criminal and identity thieves. Any person can go to one of these
websites, pay money to order a spoofed telephone number, tell the
website which phone number to reach, and then place the call through a
toll-free line. The recipient is then tricked when he or she sees the
misleading phone number on his or her caller I.D. screen.
In essence, these websites provide the high-tech tools that identity
thieves need to do their dirty work. Armed with a misleading phone
number, an identity thief can call a consumer pretending to be a
representative of the consumer's credit card company or bank. The thief
can then ask the consumer to authenticate a request for personal
account information. Once a thief gets hold of this sensitive personal
information, he can access a consumer's bank account, credit card
account, health information, and who knows what else.
Furthermore, even if a consumer does not become a victim of stalking
or identity theft, there is a simple concept at work here. Consumers
pay money for their caller I.D. service. Consumers expect caller I.D.
to be accurate because it helps them decide whether to answer a phone
call and trust the person on the other end of the line.
If the caller I.D. says that my wife is calling me, when I pick up
the phone I expect my wife to actually be on the other end of the line.
Instead, we have fraudsters and others who want to abuse the system and
disguise their true identities. That defeats the whole purpose of
caller I.D.
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal
Trade Commission have been slow to act on this latest scam. In the
meantime, many spoofing companies and the fraudsters that use them
believe their activities are, in fact, legal. Well, it's time to make
it crystal clear that spoofing is a scam and is not legal.
How does the bipartisan Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007 address the
problem of caller I.D. spoofing?
Quite simply, this bill plugs the hole in the current law and
prohibits fraudsters from using caller identification services to
transmit misleading or inaccurate caller I.D. information. This
prohibition covers both traditional telephone calls and calls made
using Voice-Over-Internet (VoIP) service.
Anyone who violates this anti-spoofing law would be subject to a
penalty of $10,000 per violation or up to one year in jail, as set out
in the Communications Act. Additionally, this bill empowers States to
help the Federal Government track down and punish these fraudsters.
I invite my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting
the Truth in Caller I.D. Act of 2007. We should waste no time in
protecting consumers and law enforcement authorities against caller
I.D. spoofing.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Truth in Caller I.D. Act
of 2007 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. 704

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 ``Truth in Caller ID Act of
2007''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING MANIPULATION OF CALLER
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.

Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
227) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as
subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Prohibition on Provision of Inaccurate Caller
Identification Information.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
within the United States, in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service, to
cause any caller identification service to transmit
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information,
unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to paragraph
(3)(B).
``(2) Protection for blocking caller identification
information.--Nothing in this subsection may be construed to
prevent or restrict any person from blocking the capability
of any caller identification service to transmit caller
identification information.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall prescribe
regulations to implement this subsection.
``(B) Content of regulations.--
``(i) In general.--The regulations required under
subparagraph (A) shall include such exemptions from the
prohibition under paragraph (1) as the Commission determines
appropriate.
``(ii) Specific exemption for law enforcement agencies or
court orders.--The regulations required under subparagraph
(A) shall exempt from the prohibition under paragraph (1)
transmissions in connection with--

``(I) any authorized activity of a law enforcement agency;
or
``(II) a court order that specifically authorizes the use
of caller identification manipulation.

``(4) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the enactment
of this subsection, the Commission shall report to Congress
whether additional legislation is necessary to prohibit the
provision of inaccurate caller identification information in
technologies that are successor or replacement technologies
to telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.
``(5) Penalties.--
``(A) Civil forfeiture.--
``(i) In general.--Any person that is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection shall be
liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty. A
forfeiture penalty under this paragraph shall be in addition
to any other penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of
the forfeiture penalty determined under this paragraph shall
not exceed $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that amount
for each day of a continuing violation, except that the
amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed
a total of $1,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.
``(ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under
clause (i) shall be recoverable pursuant to section 504(a).
``(iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
determined under clause (i) against any person unless such
person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or
section 503(b)(4).
``(iv) 2-year statute of limitations.--No forfeiture
penalty shall be determined or imposed against any person
under clause (i) if the violation charged occurred more than
2 years prior to the date of issuance of the required notice
or notice or apparent liability.
``(B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully and
knowingly violates this subsection shall upon conviction
thereof be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or
3 times that amount for each day of a continuing violation,
in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for such a
violation. This subparagraph does not supersede the
provisions of section 501 relating to imprisonment or the
imposition of a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
``(6) Enforcement by states.--

[[Page S2362]]

``(A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a State, or
any other State officer authorized by law to bring actions on
behalf of the residents of a State, may bring a civil action,
as parens patriae, on behalf of the residents of that State
in an appropriate district court of the United States to
enforce this subsection or to impose the civil penalties for
violation of this subsection, whenever the chief legal
officer or other State officer has reason to believe that the
interests of the residents of the State have been or are
being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this
subsection or a regulation under this subsection.
``(B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other State
officer shall serve written notice on the Commission of any
civil action under subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such
civil action. The notice shall include a copy of the
complaint to be filed to initiate such civil action, except
that if it is not feasible for the State to provide such
prior notice, the State shall provide such notice immediately
upon instituting such civil action.
``(C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving the notice
required by subparagraph (B), the Commission may intervene in
such civil action and upon intervening--
``(i) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action;
and
``(ii) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such
civil action.
``(D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph
shall prevent the chief legal officer or other State officer
from exercising the powers conferred on that officer by the
laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer
oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of
witnesses or the production of documentary and other
evidence.
``(E) Venue; service or process.--
``(i) Venue.--An action brought under subparagraph (A)
shall be brought in a district court of the United States
that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under
section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
``(ii) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subparagraph (A)--

``(I) process may be served without regard to the
territorial limits of the district or of the State in which
the action is instituted; and
``(II) a person who participated in an alleged violation
that is being litigated in the civil action may be joined in
the civil action without regard to the residence of the
person.

``(F) Limitation on state action while federal action is
pending.--If the Commission has instituted an enforcement
action or proceeding for violation of this subsection, the
chief legal officer or other State officer of the State in
which the violation occurred may not bring an action under
this section during the pendency of the proceeding against
any person with respect to whom the Commission has instituted
the proceeding.
``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Caller identification information.--The term `caller
identification information' means information provided by a
caller identification service regarding the telephone number
of, or other information regarding the origination of, a call
made using a telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice
service.
``(B) Caller identification service.--The term `caller
identification service' means any service or device designed
to provide the user of the service or device with the
telephone number of, or other information regarding the
origination of, a call made using a telecommunications
service or IP-enabled voice service. Such term includes
automatic number identification services.
``(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term `IP-enabled voice
service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice
communications offered to the public, or such classes of
users as to be effectively available to the public,
transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP
protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of
a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection
capability such that the service can originate traffic to, or
terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone
network.
``(8) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this
subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.''
______

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Grassley, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 705. A bill to amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
to establish a governmentwide policy requiring competition in certain
executive agency procurements, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig
Thomas, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin in introducing
the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill
is based on a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison
Industries to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to
compete for sales to their own government.
We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first
introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at
that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector
companies from competing for a Federal contract. Under the law
establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries
said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless
whether a company in the private sector could provide the product
better, cheaper, or faster.
Six years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this
inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly
on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted
into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision a year
later. In 2004, we took another important step, enacting an
appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to other Federal
agencies. This means that, for the first time, private sector companies
should be able to compete against for contracts awarded by all Federal
agencies.
Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports
from Federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI
continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that
protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading
statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so
hard for so long to establish.
In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate
commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison
labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and
work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of
foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a Nation that
prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages
of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector
competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services
should be treated any differently than the sale of products.
The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by
making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source
status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI must compete
for its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under
which prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important
issues.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 707. A bill to provide all low-income students with the same
opportunity to receive a Pell Grant by suspending the tuition
sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant program; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer as
a co-sponsor of the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007'' that would
provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a
Federal Pell Grant by eliminating the current tuition sensitivity
provision in the Pell Grant Program.
Federal Pell Grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial
aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.
However, the Pell Grant program's eligibility formula penalizes low-
income students who attend very low-cost colleges by reducing the
amount of the Pell Grant they can receive.
The formula bases eligibility for Pell Grant awards on the amount of
tuition charged by the college and provides a lower ``alternate''
amount for low tuition colleges, known as the ``tuition sensitivity''
provision.
Community college students are significantly impacted by the tuition
sensitivity provision because of low student tuition fees.
In California, due to a drop in tuition fees from $26 per unit to $20
unit, community college students enrolling this spring will otherwise
be penalized with a $56 reduction in their 2007 Pell Grants and will
endure another $112 hit in the 2007-2008 academic year if the tuition
sensitivity provision is not eliminated.
Community college students represent approximately 46 percent of
higher education students in California

[[Page S2363]]

receiving Pell Grants and are the only ones negatively impacted by this
provision.
Any reduction of these vital grants to our lowest income students
would have a major impact in their ability to afford college and
continue their education, and we cannot allow this to happen.
This bill would ensure that our nation's community college students
are not unduly penalized for receiving an affordable education at a
low-cost college.
We must continue to do all we can to make a college education more
accessible and affordable for all of our Nation's students.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Boxer and I in supporting this
important legislation.
______

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 710. A bill to reauthorize the programs for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native
Hawaiians; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize
Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the
construction of low-income housing for Native Hawaiians and further
provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the
construction of housing to serve Native Hawaiians.
Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of Native
Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and
homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that
inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest
in the Nation.
The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of
efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have
access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now
enjoyed by other Americans.
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. 710

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 ``Hawaiian Homeownership
Opportunity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUSING
ASSISTANCE.

Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243), as added by
section 513 of Public Law 106-569 (114 Stat. 2969), is
amended by striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, and 2012.''.

SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

Section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13b), as added by section 514 of
Public Law 106-569 (114 Stat. 2989), is amended as follows:
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--In subsection (j)(7),
by striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and
inserting the following: ``fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, and 2012.''.
(2) Authority.--In subsection (b), by striking ``or as a
result of a lack of access to private financial markets''.
(3) Eligible housing.--In subsection (c), by striking
paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
``(2) Eligible housing.--The loan will be used to
construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 1- to 4-family
dwellings that are standard housing and are located on
Hawaiian Home Lands.''.

SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS FOR
TITLE VI LOAN GUARANTEES.

Title VI of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191 et seq.) is
amended as follows:
(1) Heading.--In the heading for the title, by inserting
``AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN'' after ``TRIBAL''.
(2) Authority and requirements.--In section 601 (25 U.S.C.
4191)----
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``or by the Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands,'' after ``tribal approval,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or 810, as applicable,'' after
``section 202'' ; and
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or VIII, as
applicable'' before the period at the end.
(3) Security and repayment.--In section 602 (25 U.S.C.
4192)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or
housing entity'' and inserting ``, housing entity, or
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by inserting ``or Department'' after ``tribe'';
(II) by inserting ``or VIII, as applicable,'' after ``title
I''; and
(III) by inserting ``or 811(b), as applicable'' before the
semicolon; and

(B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``or housing entity''
and inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands''.
(4) Payment of interest.--In the first sentence of section
603 (25 U.S.C. 4193), by striking ``or housing entity'' and
inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands''.
(5) Authorization of appropriations for credit subsidy.--In
section 605(b) (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)), by striking ``1997
through 2007'' and inserting ``2008 through 2012''.
______

By Mr. OBAMA. (for himself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Ms.
Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Snowe, and Mr.
Conrad):
S. 713. A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed
Forces recovering from injuries; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity
for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator
McCaskill.
Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities
and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series
of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull,
wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to
face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.
These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those
who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops
returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get
home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the
transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill
expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical
exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life
easier for returning veterans.
However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my
conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek
from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted
the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can
heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls,
or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and
their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military
health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with
the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding
at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the
spotlight.
The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most
important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared
for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured
troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we
shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care
they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the
bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix
the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals
and facilities.
Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence
facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability.
Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First,
recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best
standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will
not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be
repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And
finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be
available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.

[[Page S2364]]

The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following
the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised
by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking
officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times
that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media.
Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the
Congress and the American people of the conditions at military
hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities
twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the
public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use
the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.
When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family
members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a
doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes
an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with
the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are
the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing
the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation
System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also
puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers
can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to
go to law school or business school online, without ever having to
touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be
that easy.
Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most
severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no
reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the
same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service-
related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time,
nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay
in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers
and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals,
and an ombudsman to help answer questions.
Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing
amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare
paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers
are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers
at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded
Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with
each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to
patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the
interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every
20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin
hiring and training caseworkers right away.
This legislation also provides important new support for family
members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to
accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the
currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees
and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and
mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at
military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training
services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan
legislation provides federal protections against a family member on
invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother
should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or
daughter and keeping her job.
Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts
and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model
by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the
Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be
appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of
veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military
medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure
the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering
troops.
We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are
getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the
Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the
adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military
hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is my honor to join my
distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in
introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to
better the experience so many recovering military servicemembers and
their families have in dealing with the military healthcare system and
its bureaucracy.
It is not often that you read something in the paper that makes you
sick, but this is precisely the feeling I had just over a week ago as I
read a Washington Post article that spoke of awful living conditions
and an interminable bureaucracy being experienced by our war wounded
who are receiving outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
I will not stand aside as those who have fought for our country come
home to fight new battles against a crippling bureaucracy just to get
the compensation they have more than earned. They shouldn't have to
live in substandard conditions while they are recovering from their
injuries.
Our legislation directly tackles these problems. The principle is
simple: our wounded and recovering servicemembers must receive the best
treatment. They can't live in substandard housing as they recover. And
they must have a user-friendly system to help them apply for the
appropriate disability and benefits compensation. It's the least we can
do for all they have done for us.
For example, each military department has a standard for their
dormitories and barracks. I know that not every dormitory or barracks
meets the highest standard that the service sets, but that each service
is steadily working to reach this standard across their facilities. It
is my belief, and this bill serves to establish, that the lowest
standard acceptable for a returning wounded servicemember should be the
highest existing standard in each military service. Facing the daunting
challenge of recovering from war wounds--both psychological and
physical--our returning servicemembers should not be living among
vermin and mold. They should not be placed in temporary, cramped,
makeshift, ancient or transient quarters. We're not demanding the Taj
Mahal. We are demanding decent living conditions to help these injured
men and women.
Further, when problems exist in the living quarters of our recovering
servicemembers, they should be identified and repaired quickly. This
bill establishes strict measures to facilitate reporting of
unsatisfactory living conditions and to mandate timely repair. It also
establishes measures to ensure that independent parties are inspecting
living quarters in order to prevent any syndrome whereby those closely
engaged in dealing with these facilities are overly focused on
completing the mission with what they have as opposed to what they
should have.
I was also appalled to learn of the extensive, confusing bureaucracy
that greeted our recovering servicemembers in the outpatient care
process. With numerous commands, organizations, advocates, doctors,
commanders and any number of others involved in the process, recovering
servicemembers found themselves navigating a complicated process and
often without a map. They also have to fill out numerous forms, request
records, check off bureaucratic blocks, get the right language in their
doctor's evaluations, document their illnesses, capture the symptoms
they are experiencing and more. It is safe to say that the process
poses a daunting challenge to even a fully healthy individual--but
imagine the challenge for someone far from home and facing the
realities of the wounds of war.
Complicating the challenges, those tasked to provide these
servicemembers and their families with assistance have been faced with
large caseloads and insufficient resources. This legislation requires
responsible caseloads for military leaders and caseworkers--and it
requires that those providing this assistance not just have

[[Page S2365]]

a caseload that guarantees a recovering servicemember the attention
they need and deserve, but that these caseworkers are well trained.
I also learned that those who come to military treatment facilities
like Walter Reed to help their loved ones often face uphill battles. I
am proud that this legislation reaches out to protect those loved ones
who risk their livelihood to care for our recovering servicemembers by
providing them medical care as well as protections to secure the jobs
they leave behind.
Today, I visited Walter Reed, talked with our recovering
servicemembers, toured the facilities and discussed these issues with
Walter Reed's leaders. I can confidently say that those treating our
servicemembers are with me--they want the very best for our recovering
servicemembers and for their families. I know that the quality of care
being provided at Walter Reed and at many other military hospitals is
exceptional and I applaud the caregivers.
But I also know that we have all failed to provide the best service
and support to many during the outpatient care process. Their living
quarters were not the best. The Physical Disability Evaluation System
they experience is too bureaucratic. It is time to deliver the best.
This legislation seeks to provide it.
This is fair legislation. It balances requiring immediate changes
with letting the Department of Defense study what is necessary and to
subsequently implement incremental change. It empowers our physicians
by not requiring random timelines for medical processing or medical
care, but it requires that care and processing happen with manageable,
understandable and streamlined procedures that equally empowers the
servicemember. And this bill requires that trained, professional and
caring providers be available to recovering servicemembers and their
families in sufficient numbers and in the appropriate places throughout
the care process.
In closing, I want to thank Senator Obama for his efforts in teaming
with me to produce this important legislation. But mostly I want to
thank all those serving our nation in uniform today. Their sense of
duty is remarkable. Their sacrifice is great. Their heroism unmatched.
They have given their best to our country and our country is committed
to giving them the best in return.
______

By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 714. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pet
Protection Act of 2007. In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act
to prevent the abuse and mistreatment of animals and to provide
assurance that family pets would not be sold for laboratory
experiments. Although the Animal Welfare Act provides a solid
foundation to stop the mistreatment of animals, more needs to be done
to protect pets and pet owners from the actions of Class B animal
dealers, also known as ``random source'' dealers.
Across the Nation, random source animal dealers acquire tens of
thousands of dogs and cats, many of them family pets, through deceit
and fraud. Some of their tactics include tricking animals owners into
giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone interested in pet
adoption and the outright theft of family pets left unattended. The
treatment of the animals captured and sold by random source dealers is
often shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in squalid
conditions with just enough food and water to keep them alive until
sold.
This bill does not address the larger issue of whether animals should
or should not be used in research facilities. Medical research is one
of our primary weapons in the discovery of new drugs and surgical
techniques that help develop cures for life-threatening diseases and
animal research has been, and continues to be, a fundamental part of
scientific advances. Instead, this legislation targets the unethical
practice of selling stolen pets and stray animals to research
facilities. While I do not believe that research laboratories
intentionally seek out fraudulently obtained animals, it does happen.
And it does need to be stopped.
My bill will strengthen the Animal Welfare Act by prohibiting the use
of random source animal dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to
research laboratories by making funds unavailable to research
facilities that purchase animals from a dealer that holds a Class B
license under the Animal Welfare Act. In doing so, it also
simultaneously encourages the use of legitimate sources such as USDA-
licensed Class A dealers. I urge my colleagues to join me in my efforts
to curb the abusive practices of random source dealers by supporting
this bill.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, and Mr.
Vitter):
S. 715. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to provide expedited
disaster assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we all know, there was a tremendous
amount of criticism of the Federal Government's response to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita last year. Things are better now and the region is
slowly recovering. But, having luckily survived the 2006 hurricane
season with no major storms, and with the 2007 season a few months
away, we must be sure that if we have another disaster, the Federal
Government's response will be better this time around. Disaster
response agencies have to be better organized, more efficient, and more
responsive in order to avoid the problems, the delays, mismanagement,
and the seeming incompetence that occurred in 2005.
Today, I am proud to sponsor legislation to improve the disaster
response of one agency that had a great deal of problems last year, the
Small Business Administration (SBA). This bill, the ``Small Business
Disaster Recovery Improvement Act,'' makes a major improvement to the
SBA's disaster response and provides them with an essential tool to
ensure that they are more efficient and better prepared for future
disasters--big and small. I should note that this bill is a result of
intensive bipartisan work over the past couple of months on a larger
SBA Disaster Reforms bill, S. 137, the ``Small Business Disaster
Response and Loan Improvements Act,'' which was introduced early in the
110th Congress. I feel strongly that this provision, an Expedited
Disaster Assistance Loan Program for businesses, should be passed
during this session of Congress, therefore I wanted to also introduce
it in separate legislation for the 110th Congress. That said, I will
continue to work with my colleagues on the Small Business Committee,
Senators Kerry and Snowe, respectively Chair and Ranking Member of the
Senate Small Business Committee, as well as with my colleague Senator
Vitter to include this provision along with more comprehensive SBA
Disaster Assistance reforms that we hope to enact in the coming months.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit, our businesses and homeowners
had to wait months for loan approvals. I do not know how many
businesses we lost because help did not come in time. What these
businesses needed was immediate, short-term assistance to hold them
over until SBA was ready to process the tens of thousands of loan
applications it received.
That is why this legislation provides the SBA Administrator with the
ability to set up an expedited disaster assistance business loan
program to make short-term, low- interest loans to keep them afloat.
These loans will allow businesses to make payroll, begin making
repairs, and address other immediate needs while they are awaiting
insurance payouts or regular SBA Disaster Loans. However, I realize
that every disaster is different and could range from a disaster on the
scale of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita or 9-11, to an ice storm or
drought. This legislation gives the SBA additional options and
flexibility in the kinds of relief they can offer a community. When a
tornado destroys 20 businesses in a small town in the Midwest, SBA can
get the regular disaster program up and running fairly quickly. You may
not need short-term loans in this instance. But if you know that SBA's
resources would be overwhelmed by a storm--just as they were initially
with the storms of 2005--these expedited business loans would be very
helpful.
The Small Business Disaster Recovery Improvement Act will provide an

[[Page S2366]]

essential tool to make the SBA more proactive, flexible, and most
important, more efficient during future disasters. If SBA is not in the
business of short-term assistance for future disasters, I feel that we
will again see businesses fail while waiting for SBA to get its act
together. The agency has implemented some major changes to its Disaster
Assistance Program but, if the storms of 2005 taught us anything it was
that the best laid plans can fail. This Expedited Disaster Assistance
Loan Program would ensure that SBA has a backup tool to provide
immediate assistance to impacted businesses. Again, I look forward to
working with both Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry during the coming
weeks to ensure that the SBA has everything it needs to respond to
future disasters.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 715

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 ``Small Business Disaster
Recovery Assistance Improvement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. BUSINESS EXPEDITED DISASTER ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively;
(2) the term ``immediate disaster assistance'' means
assistance provided during the period beginning on the date
on which a disaster declaration is made and ending on the
date that an impacted small business concern is able to
secure funding through insurance claims, Federal assistance
programs, or other sources;
(3) the term ``program'' means the expedited disaster
assistance business loan program established under subsection
(b); and
(4) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
(b) Creation of Program.--The Administrator shall take such
administrative action as is necessary to establish and
implement an expedited disaster assistance business loan
program to provide small business concerns with immediate
disaster assistance under section 7(b) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)).
(c) Consultation Required.--In establishing the program,
the Administrator shall consult with--
(1) appropriate personnel of the Administration (including
District Office personnel of the Administration);
(2) appropriate technical assistance providers (including
small business development centers);
(3) appropriate lenders and credit unions;
(4) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate; and
(5) the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives.
(d) Rules.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate
rules establishing and implementing the program in accordance
with this section. Such rules shall apply as provided for in
this section, beginning 90 days after their issuance in final
form.
(2) Contents.--The rules promulgated under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) identify whether appropriate uses of funds under the
program may include--
(i) paying employees;
(ii) paying bills and other financial obligations;
(iii) making repairs;
(iv) purchasing inventory;
(v) restarting or operating a small business concern in the
community in which it was conducting operations prior to the
declared disaster, or to a neighboring area, county, or
parish in the disaster area; or
(vi) covering additional costs until the small business
concern is able to obtain funding through insurance claims,
Federal assistance programs, or other sources; and
(B) set the terms and conditions of any loan made under the
program, subject to paragraph (3).
(3) Terms and conditions.--A loan made by the
Administration under this section--
(A) shall be a short-term loan, not to exceed 180 days,
except that the Administrator may extend such term as the
Administrator determines necessary or appropriate on a case-
by-case basis;
(B) shall have an interest rate not to exceed 1 percentage
point above the prime rate of interest that a private lender
may charge;
(C) shall have no prepayment penalty;
(D) may be refinanced as part of any subsequent disaster
assistance provided under section 7(b) of the Small Business
Act; and
(E) shall be subject to such additional terms as the
Administrator determines necessary or appropriate.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 5 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report
to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of
the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House
of Representatives on the progress of the Administrator in
establishing the program.
(f) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Administrator such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
______

By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Smith,
and Mr. Kohl):
S. 716. A bill to establish a Consortium on the Impact of Technology
in Aging Health Services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
legislation, Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health
Services Act of 2007, 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. 716

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 ``Consortium on the Impact of
Technology in Aging Health Services Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSORTIUM.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a Consortium to be
known as the ``Consortium on the Impact of Technology in
Aging Health Services'' (referred to in this Act as the
``Consortium'').
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Consortium is to evaluate
the potential of new technologies to help the United States
prepare for the unprecedented demographic changes that will
occur during the next 10 years in the Nation's healthcare
system.
(c) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Consortium shall be composed of 17
members, of whom--
(A) 1 member shall be appointed by the President and
designated by the President as Chairperson of the Consortium;
(B) 4 members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of
the Senate;
(C) 4 members shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of
the Senate;
(D) 4 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives; and
(E) 4 members shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of
the House of Representatives.
(2) Qualifications.--
(A) In general.--Appointments to the Consortium shall be
made from individuals who are senior-level executives from
the Federal Government or the private-sector who have
demonstrated experience as--
(i) providers of senior, geriatric, and other assistive
services, including housing, nursing care, home-and-community
based services, and assisted living and caregiver
organizations;
(ii) technology developers or producers of products for
aged individuals;
(iii) Federal, State, or academic researchers that focus on
aging issues;
(iv) physicians and other health care providers;
(v) insurers and other payer organizations; and
(vi) representatives of the pharmaceutical industry.
(B) Inclusion of seniors and individuals with
disabilities.--At least 2 appointees shall be--
(i) age 65 or older; or
(ii) an individual with a disability.
(3) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Consortium shall be made not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Term; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the
Consortium.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Consortium--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Consortium; and
(B) shall be filled, not later than 30 days after the
Consortium is given notice of the vacancy, in the same manner
as the original appointment was made.
(e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Consortium have been appointed,
the Consortium shall hold the initial meeting of the
Consortium.
(f) Meetings.--The Consortium shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Consortium
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.

SEC. 3. DUTIES.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Consortium shall conduct a study of
all matters relating to the potential use of new technology
to assist older adults and their caregivers throughout the
aging process.
(2) Matters to be studied.--The matters to be studied by
the Consortium shall include--
(A) methods for identifying technology that can be adapted
to meet the needs of seniors, individuals with disabilities,
and the caregivers of such seniors and individuals across all
aging services settings;

[[Page S2367]]

(B) methods for fostering scientific innovation with
respect to aging services technology within the business and
academic communities;
(C) identifying barriers to innovation in aging services
technology and devising strategies for removing such barriers
;
(D) developments in aging services technology in other
countries that may be applied in the United States;
(E) methods for ensuring that businesses in the United
States have a leadership role in the rapidly expanding global
market of aging services technology; and
(F) identifying barriers to the adoption of aging services
technology by health care providers and consumers and
devising strategies to removing such barriers.
(b) Recommendations.--The Consortium shall develop
recommendations with respect to the following:
(1) Identification of developments in current aging
services technologies that may result in increased efficiency
and cost savings to the healthcare system.
(2) Opportunities for ongoing research and development by
the public and private sectors to accelerate the development
and adoption of aging services technology in order to--
(A) promote the independence of seniors and individuals
with disabilities;
(B) facilitate early disease detection;
(C) delay the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional
decline resulting from disease and the aging process;
(D) support wellness activities and preventive behaviors;
(E) promote greater support to community- and facility-
based caregivers;
(F) develop systems that improve the quality and efficiency
of facility-based care, such as pharmacy distribution
programs and secure electronic clinical records;
(G) enhance the utilization of technology by caregivers to
reduce the burden of paperwork ;
(H) minimize caregiver burnout; and
(I) reduce medication errors and improve overall
compliance.
(3) Identification of methods to ensure that necessary
technology infrastructure is in place to deliver aging
services to rural and urban areas.
(4) Whether to establish--
(A) a permanent Federal interagency task force that will
facilitate the development and distribution of aging services
technology; and
(B) a National Resource Center that would stimulate
research, oversee demonstration projects, and provide
training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and
private sector organizations and entities that provide aging
services.
(5) Assignment of responsibilities for aging services with
respect to jurisdiction, funding, and reporting
relationships.
(c) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Consortium shall submit to the
President and the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that contains the recommendations of the Consortium with
respect to the following:
(1) Development of national policy.--The development of a
national policy to address issues with respect to technology
and assistive health services for seniors, including the
appropriate roles and responsibilities for the Federal
Government, State and local governments, and the private
sector.
(2) Legislative and program changes.--The specific
legislative and regulatory changes with respect to Federal
laws and programs that would support and encourage the
private sector to develop and make widely available consumer-
empowered technology solutions.
(3) Establishment of national resource center.--The
establishment of a National Resource Center on Aging Services
Technologies to offer training and assistance to the Federal
Government, State and local governments, and the private
sector in the application of technology in pilots and trials
with respect to assistive health services for seniors.

SEC. 4. POWERS.

(a) Hearings.--The Consortium may hold such hearings, meet
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Consortium considers advisable
to carry out this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Consortium may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Consortium considers
necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) Provision of information.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, on request of the Chairperson of the Consortium, the
head of the agency shall provide the information to the
Consortium.
(c) Postal Services.--The Consortium may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Contract Authority.--The Consortium may contract with
and compensate government and private agencies or persons for
services, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised
Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
(e) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Consortium may, if authorized by the Consortium, take any
action which the Consortium is authorized to take by this
section.
(f) Gifts.--The Consortium may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(g) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing
and binding, including the costs of personnel detailed from
the Government Printing Office, the Consortium shall be
deemed to be a committee of Congress.

SEC. 5. CONSORTIUM PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Members of the Consortium
shall receive no additional pay, allowances, or benefits by
reason of their service on the Consortium.
(b) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Consortium shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Consortium.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Consortium may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Consortium to perform the duties of the Consortium.
(2) Compensation.--
(A) Executive director.--The executive director shall be
paid the rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(B) Other staff.--The staff shall be appointed subject to
the provisions of title 5, United States Code, government
appointments in the competitive service, and shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification
and General Schedule pay rates.
(d) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
(1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Consortium without reimbursement.
(2) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Consortium may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of
basic pay payable for the General Schedule.
(f) Physical Facilities.--The Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall locate suitable office space
for the operation of the Consortium. The facilities shall
serve as the headquarters of the Consortium and shall include
all necessary equipment and incidentals required for the
proper functioning of the Consortium.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $1,500,000, for the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2011, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF CONSORTIUM.

The Consortium shall terminate 180 days after the date on
which the Consortium submits the report required under
section 3(c).
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator
Coleman, and Representatives Eshoo and Ramstad, in reintroducing the
Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act.
We face a challenging and exciting time in the evolution of America's
health care system. Today, roughly 45 million men and women are over
age 65. A full doubling of the elderly population is predicted to occur
by the year 2030--with the first of the baby boom generation turning 65
in the year 2011--only four years from now.
Nowhere is the aging of the population more apparent than in my home
State of Rhode Island. We exceed the national average in terms of
citizens over the age of 65 as well as those over the age of 85. In a
State of slightly more than a million people, almost 15 percent of the
population is over the age of 65 today. According to Census Bureau
estimates, the number of elderly is expected to increase to 18.8
percent of Rhode Island's population by 2025.
Dramatic increases in life expectancy over the last century can be
attributed to tremendous advances in health and medical research. These
demographic changes also pose new challenges to our health care system
that require creative and innovative solutions.
In addition to Americans living longer, keeping up with advancements
in medical science poses unique burdens and challenges for our health
care system. We are facing shortages in a number of critical health
care fields--nurses, primary care physicians, and geriatricians--to
name a few. These workforce issues further hinder our ability to keep
up with the health care needs of aging Americans.
Greater use of technology has the potential to enhance the quality of
care to our aging population and enable seniors to remain healthy and
live independently longer. The overwhelming

[[Page S2368]]

majority of seniors in my State and across the Nation want to ``age in
place''--in their homes--close to their loved ones. Indeed, a growing
number of the baby boom generation support funding aging services
technology research, and believe technology will allow them to live
longer and more independently.
The application of technology in the aging health care services field
would also help mitigate the burden on providers, by allowing
physicians, home health care workers, and family members to keep in
regular contact with patients and loved ones. Better monitoring of
elderly patients would also serve to identify changes in their health
condition before a serious problem arises.
The bill we are introducing today would build on groundbreaking
research and public-private partnerships to find evidence-based
approaches to behavioral assessment and non-intrusive health
monitoring. Improving in-home monitoring technologies and remote
diagnostics will provide seniors and their caregivers with greater
independence and flexibility. A recent study found that Americans,
particularly those with chronic conditions, are already utilizing the
Internet and online tools to better manage their health. Using
technology to enhance health care professionals ability to access vital
health information will not only improve diagnosis and treatment, but
it will also inform the health decisions of seniors and their families.
Smarter applications of technology in caring for the aged could also
address some of the growing concerns with skyrocketing budget deficits.
As we grapple with Medicare and Medicaid taking up a growing proportion
of overall federal spending, we need to carefully balance health care
expenditures while also improving the quality of care. We need to use
precious health care dollars wisely and prudently as we seek creative
ways to continue to provide quality health services to the elderly.
The Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Health Services Act
will bring together experts from the medical, aging, and technology
fields to build a vision and a framework for the development and
implementation of a 21st century health care system able to meet the
needs of our burgeoning aging population.
We need to change the way we think about health care for our Nation's
seniors. We need a model that is oriented toward health promotion and
disease prevention. This legislation gives us a jumpstart on developing
and implementing the tools and strategies to serve the senior
population of America more effectively and with greater cost savings.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues in introducing this important
initiative and hope the Senate will give it careful consideration.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Leahy, and Mr.
Tester):
S. 717. A bill to repeal title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005, to
restore section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, which provides States additional regulatory
flexibility and funding authorization to more rapidly produce tamper-
and counterfeit-resistant driver's licenses, and to protect privacy and
civil liberties by providing interested stakeholders on a negotiated
rulemaking with guidance to achieve improved 21st century licenses to
improve national security; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New
Hampshire, Vermont, and Montana, Senators Sununu, Leahy and Tester, to
reintroduce legislation to address problems with the REAL ID Act of
2005.
Last year, Senator Sununu and I introduced S. 4117, the Identity
Security Enhancement Act, which would repeal the REAL ID Act and
reinstitute the shared rulemaking process and more reasonable
guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004. We joined together to convey our concerns with
REAL ID to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and to urge the
Department to ensure that the forthcoming regulations implementing REAL
ID addressed our concerns. Now, on the eve of DHS releasing the
proposed REAL ID regulations, we once again introduce our legislation
as a placeholder as Congress and the American people review how DHS
proposes to implement this costly and controversial law.
I plan to hold a hearing on the REAL ID regulations in the Oversight
of Government Management Subcommittee shortly, and I will develop
comprehensive legislation to address any privacy and civil liberties
issues arising under the Act and any unrealistic burdens placed on the
states.
From the time the REAL ID Act became law nearly two years ago,
hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's
Association (NGA) to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--have
voice their strong opposition to REAL ID. None of these groups were
heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005 as there were
no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping
legislation.
Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief Act (P.L. 109-13) in Conference. It was wrong to include the
legislation that has such a massive impact on State and local
governments without their input. Not having a full debate on the
measure to determine its impact has led an increasing number of State
legislatures to introduce and pass legislation to condemn REAL ID and,
in some cases, prohibit the state from spending money to implement the
Act.
My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law places an
unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments and erodes
Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.
There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. The extremely costly and
complex set of electronic systems that will be required to connect the
thousands of local Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) to one another
and to a host of Federal agencies as required under REAL ID may not be
practical. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006
report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA). In addition, the costs to re-issue every current driver's
license under the new screening process is estimated to cost
approximately $8 billion over five years. Combined with the other
requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design
requirements for the ID cards and on-site security, REAL ID will cost
over $11 billion. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL
ID implementation, which leaves a hefty price tag for the states,
especially for legislation that was passed with no review.
In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on states, REAL
ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties.
As I said last year, the REAL ID Act will require every driver's
licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records
containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable
information, including one's social security number, proof of
residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and
signature. If the state databases are compromised, they will provide
one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit
identity theft.
Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable
information of licensees between and amongst various government
agencies and employees at the federal, state, and local level, as
contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of
individuals access to that information without protections or
safeguards.
Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act
fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor
does it provide states with the means to implement data security and
anti-hacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new
databases mandated by the Act.
REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our
security by giving us a false sense of security.
Unfunded mandates and the lack of privacy and security requirements
are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions.
Congress

[[Page S2369]]

has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards
issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists
and identity thieves--affordable, and practical.
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. 717

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 ``Identification Security
Enhancement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

Title II of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (division B of Public
Law 109-13; 49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Driver's license.--The term ``driver's license'' means
a motor vehicle operator's license (as defined in section
30301(5) of title 49, United States Code).
(2) Personal identification card.--The term ``personal
identification card'' means an identification document (as
defined in section 1028(d)(3) of title 18, United States
Code) issued by a State.
(b) Standards for Acceptance by Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Limitation on acceptance.--No Federal agency may
accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or
personal identification card newly issued by a State more
than 2 years after the promulgation of the minimum standards
under paragraph (2) unless the driver's license or personal
identification card conforms to such minimum standards.
(B) Date for full conformance.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided under clause (ii),
beginning on the date that is 5 years after the promulgation
of minimum standards under paragraph (2), no Federal agency
may accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or
personal identification card issued by a State unless such
driver's license or personal identification card conforms to
such minimum standards.
(ii) Alternative date for full conformance.--If the
Secretary determines that it is impracticable for States to
replace all State-issued driver's licenses and personal
identification cards before the deadline set forth in clause
(i), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, may set a later, alternative deadline to the
extent necessary for States to complete such replacement with
reasonable efforts.
(C) State certification.--
(i) In general.--Each State shall certify to the Secretary
that the State is in compliance with the requirements of this
section.
(ii) Frequency.--Certifications under clause (i) shall be
made at such intervals and in such a manner as the Secretary,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation, may
prescribe by regulation.
(iii) Audits.--The Secretary may conduct periodic audits of
each State's compliance with the requirements of this
section.
(2) Minimum standards.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall by
regulation, establish by minimum standards for driver's
licenses or personal identification cards issued by a State
for use by Federal agencies for identification purposes that
shall include--
(A) standards for documentation required as proof of
identity of an applicant for a driver's license or personal
identification card;
(B) standards for the verifiability of documents used to
obtain a driver's license or personal identification card;
(C) standards for the processing of applications for
driver's licenses and personal identification cards to
prevent fraud;
(D) standards for information to be included on each
driver's license or personal identification card, including--
(i) the person's full legal name;
(ii) the person's date of birth;
(iii) the person's gender;
(iv) the person's driver's license or personal
identification card number;
(v) a photograph of the person;
(vi) the person's address of principal residence; and
(vii) the person's signature;
(E) standards for common machine-readable identity
information to be included on each driver's license or
personal identification card, including defined minimum data
elements;
(F) security standards to ensure that driver's licenses and
personal identification cards are--
(i) resistant to tampering, alteration, or counterfeiting;
and
(ii) capable of accommodating and ensuring the security of
a photograph or other unique identifier; and
(G) a requirement that a State confiscate a driver's
license or personal identification card if any component or
security feature of the license or identification card is
compromised.
(c) Negotiated Rulemaking.--
(1) In general.--Before publishing the proposed regulations
required by subsection (b)(2) to carry out this title, the
Secretary shall establish a negotiated rulemaking process
pursuant to subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.).
(2) Time requirement.--The process described in paragraph
(1) shall be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that--
(A) any recommendation for a proposed rule or report--
(i) is provided to the Secretary not later than 9 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) includes an assessment of the benefits and costs of
the recommendation; and
(B) a final rule is promulgated not later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Representation on negotiated rulemaking committee.--Any
negotiated rulemaking committee established by the Secretary
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include equal numbers of
representatives from--
(A) among State offices that issue driver's licenses or
personal identification cards;
(B) among State elected officials;
(C) the Department of Transportation; and
(D) among interested parties, including experts in privacy
protection, experts in civil liberties and protection of
constitutional rights, and experts in immigration law.
(4) Content of regulations.--The regulations required by
subsection (b)(2)--
(A) shall facilitate communication between the chief driver
licensing official of a State, an appropriate official of a
Federal agency and other relevant officials, to verify the
authenticity of documents, as appropriate, issued by such
Federal agency or entity and presented to prove the identity
of an individual;
(B) may not infringe on a State's power to set criteria
concerning what categories of individuals are eligible to
obtain a driver's license or personal identification card
from that State;
(C) may not require a State to comply with any such
regulation that conflicts with or otherwise interferes with
the full enforcement of State criteria concerning the
categories of individuals that are eligible to obtain a
driver's license or personal identification card from that
State;
(D) may not require a single design to which driver's
licenses or personal identification cards issued by all
States must conform; and
(E) shall include procedures and requirements to protect
the privacy rights of individuals who apply for and hold
driver's licenses and personal identification cards.
(F) shall include procedures and requirements to protect
the federal and state constitutional rights and civil
liberties of individuals who apply for and hold driver's
licenses and personal identification cards;
(G) shall not permit the transmission of any personally
identifiable information except for in encrypted format;
(H) shall provide individuals with procedural and
substantive due process, including promulgating rules and
rights of appeal, to challenge errors in data records
contained within the databases created to implement this Act;
(I) shall not permit private entities to scan the
information contained on the face of a license, or in the
machine readable component of the license, and resell, share
or trade that information with any other third parties, nor
shall private entities be permitted to store the information
collected for any other than fraud prevention purposes;
(J) shall not preempt state privacy laws that are more
protective of personal privacy than the standards, or
regulations promulgated to implement this Act; and
(K) shall neither permit nor require verification of birth
certificates until a nationwide system is designed to
facilitate such verification.
(d) Grants to States.--
(1) Assistance in meeting federal standards.--Beginning on
the date a final regulation is promulgated under subsection
(b)(2), the Secretary shall award grants to States to assist
them in conforming to the minimum standards for driver's
licenses and personal identification cards set forth in the
regulation.
(2) Allocation of grants.--The Secretary shall award grants
to States under this subsection based on the proportion that
the estimated average annual number of driver's licenses and
personal identification cards issued by a State applying for
a grant bears to the average annual number of such documents
issued by all States.
(3) Minimum allocation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2),
each State shall receive not less than 0.5 percent of the
grant funds made available under this subsection.
(4) Separate funding.--Funds appropriated for grants under
this section may not be commingled with other grant funds
administered by the Department and may not be used for any
purpose other than the purpose set forth in paragraph (1).
(e) Extension of Effective Date.--The Secretary may extend
the date specified under subsection (b)(1)(A) for not more
than 2 years for driver's licenses issued by a State if the
Secretary determines that the State made reasonable efforts
to comply with the date under such subsection but was unable
to do so.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$300,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2013
to carry out this Act.

[[Page S2370]]

______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 718. A bill to optimize the delivery of critical care medicine and
expand the critical care workforce; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, why hold off for tomorrow what we can do
today? The current healthcare crisis in our Nation did not happen
overnight. It has been accumulating as a result of a lack of serious
attention to the most pressing healthcare issues, including healthcare
workforce shortages. As a husband and a parent, I pray every day that
my wife and children will have access to the quality healthcare they
deserve when they need it. As a public official, I believe that it is
my responsibility to help make that care available for not only my own
family, but also for the families in the State of Illinois and across
the Nation.
The growing shortage of critical care physicians undermines the
quality and availability of health care services in the United States.
This shortage can be expected to disproportionately impact rural and
other areas of the United States that already often suffer from a sub-
optimal level of critical care services. When a loved one needs a
critical care doctor, would we not want one to be available? If
research tells us that their recovery may be better and their recovery
time faster, would we not want our loved one to have access to a
critical care doctor?
The Leap Frog Group has clearly documented that significant
improvement in outcomes--in both quality and cost--result when a
critically ill or injured patient is seen by an intensivist. With a
greater use of intensivists, an estimated 54,000 deaths that currently
occur in ICUs could be avoided. Unfortunately, only one-third of our
critically ill citizens are treated by physicians and nurses
specifically trained to manage their complex health issues.
In June 2003, Congress asked the Health Resources and Services
Administration--HRSA--to examine the healthcare needs of a growing
population and the availability of pulmonary and critical care
physicians. In its May 2006 report to Congress entitled ``The Critical
Care Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Critical Care
Physicians,'' HRSA found that the country does not have enough
physicians trained in critical care medicine to treat all those in need
of the care. The report projected future demand for these services and
found that, as a result of having to staff ICUs with critical care
doctors, a total of 4,300 intensivist physicians will be needed when
only 2,800 are available. The HRSA report recognized that the demand in
the United States for critical care medical services is rising sharply
and will continue to do so.
To proactively address the healthcare needs of our nation, I am
pleased to join with my colleague Senator Crapo today to introduce
legislation to address the looming shortage of critical care providers.
Our bill, The Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act authorizes
a series of modest and sensible measures that--if enacted now instead
of waiting for this shortage to worsen--can help to obviate the
problem.
First, the Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act would direct
the Agency for Health Research and Quality to assess the current state
of and recommend ``best practices'' for critical care medicine. The
authorization of demonstration projects on innovations in ICU services
and on family-centered, multi-disciplinary approaches to critical care
services are important for determining how to improve the quality of
the care delivered and how to best make use of our existing resources
of critical care doctors.
Our bill would also expand telemedicine opportunities for critical
care physicians to promote efforts relating to critical care and ensure
that all communities have greater access to this important, lifesaving
care. For our rural communities and medically underserved areas, the
need for critical care doctors is exacerbated. This bill will hopefully
expand the effectiveness of existing critical care providers in
environments where intensivists are in short supply.
Finally, to address the supply problem, the bill would allow for the
National Health Service Corps to support and encourage critical care
providers to practice in medically underserved areas.
The Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement Act is strongly
endorsed by the key medical specialty societies and patient groups
involved in critical care medicine, including the American College of
Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, the Society for
Critical Care Medicine, the Association of Critical Care Nurses and the
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Foundation.
This multipronged approach is to look at both short term and long
term solutions to a growing concern. But in today's complex healthcare
situation, multiple solutions are a necessity. We do not want to face
this shortage in the future in a direr situation as the nursing
shortage currently is.
The answer to the opening question is simple. We must not hold off
for tomorrow what we can do today, and we must not wait for our
healthcare crisis to worsen. Our country will face a critical care
workforce shortage. I want my family to have access to the best quality
care when they need it, and this includes having access to a critical
care doctor. Passage of the Patient-Focused Critical Care Enhancement
Act is a step in that direction.
Mr. President, 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. 718

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 ``Patient-Focused Critical
Care Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to optimize the delivery of
critical care medicine and expand the critical care
workforce.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

Based on the Health Resources and Services Administration's
May 2006 Report to Congress, The Critical Care Workforce: A
Study of the Supply and Demand for Critical Care Physicians,
the Senate makes the following findings:
(1) In 2000, an estimated 18,000,000 inpatient days of ICU
care were provided in the United States through approximately
59,000 ICU beds in 3,200 hospitals.
(2) Patient outcomes and the quality of care in the ICU are
related to who delivers that care and how care is organized.
(3) The demand in the United States for critical care
medical services is rising sharply and will continue to rise
sharply largely as a result of the following 3 factors:
(A) There is strong evidence demonstrating improvements in
outcomes and efficiency when intensive care services are
provided by nurses and intensivist physicians who have
advanced specialty training in critical care medicine.
(B) The Leapfrog Group, health care payors, and providers
are encouraging greater use of such personnel in intensive
care settings.
(C) Critical care services are overwhelmingly consumed by
patients over the age of 65 and the aging of the United
States population is driving demand for these services.
(4) The future growth in the number of critical care
physicians in ICU settings will be insufficient to keep pace
with growing demand.
(5) This growing shortage of critical care physicians
presents a serious threat to the quality and availability of
health care services in the United States.
(6) This shortage will disproportionately impact rural and
other areas of the United States that already often suffer
from a suboptimal level of critical care services.

SEC. 4. RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, shall conduct research to assess--
(1) the standardization of critical care protocols,
intensive care unit layout, equipment interoperability, and
medical informatics;
(2) the impact of differences in staffing, organization,
size, and structure of intensive care units on access,
quality, and efficiency of care; and
(3) coordinated community and regional approaches to
providing critical care services, including approaches
whereby critical care patients are assessed and provided care
based upon intensity of services required.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality shall submit a report to Congress, that, based on the
review under subsection (a), evaluates and makes
recommendations regarding best practices in critical care
medicine.

SEC. 5. INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CRITICAL CARE SERVICES.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall undertake
the following demonstration projects:
(1) Optimization of critical care services.--

[[Page S2371]]

(A) In general.--The Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services shall solicit proposals
submitted by inpatient providers of critical care services
who propose to demonstrate methods to optimize the provision
of critical care services to Medicare beneficiaries through
innovations in such areas as staffing, ICU arrangement, and
utilization of technology.
(B) Funding of proposals.--The Administrator of the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services shall fund not more than 5
proposals, not less than 1 of which shall focus on the
training of hospital-based physicians in rural or community,
or both, hospital facilities in the provision of critical
care medicine. Such projects shall emphasize outcome measures
based on the Institute of Medicine's following 6 domains of
quality care:
(i) Care should be safe.
(ii) Care should be effective.
(iii) Care should be patient-centered.
(iv) Care should be timely.
(v) Care should be efficient.
(vi) Care should be equitable.
(2) Family assistance programs for the critically ill.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall solicit proposals and make an award to support a
consortium consisting of 1 or more providers of inpatient
critical care services and a medical specialty society
involved in the education and training of critical care
providers.
(B) Measurement and evaluation.--A provider that receives
support under subparagraph (A) shall measure and evaluate
outcomes derived from a ``family-centered'' approach to the
provision of inpatient critical care services that includes
direct and sustained communication and contact with
beneficiary family members, involvement of family members in
the critical care decisionmaking process, and responsiveness
of critical care providers to family requests. Such project
shall evaluate the impact of a family-centered,
multiprofessional team approach on, and the correlation
between--
(i) family satisfaction;
(ii) staff satisfaction;
(iii) length of patient stay in an intensive care unit; and
(iv) cost of care.
(C) Outcome measures.--A provider that receives support
under subparagraph (A) shall emphasize outcome measures based
on the Institute of Medicine's following 6 domains of quality
care:
(i) Care should be safe.
(ii) Care should be effective.
(iii) Care should be patient-centered.
(iv) Care should be timely.
(v) Care should be efficient.
(vi) Care should be equitable.

SEC. 6. USE OF TELEMEDICINE TO ENHANCE CRITICAL CARE SERVICES
IN RURAL AREAS.

(a) Amendment to Rural Utilities Service Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program.--Chapter 1 of subtitle D of title
XXIII of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 2335B. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
TELEMEDICINE CRITICAL CARE INITIATIVES.

``In addition to amounts authorized under section 2335A,
there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 in each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2013 to carry out telemedicine
initiatives under this chapter whereby 1 or more rural
providers of inpatient critical care services propose,
through collaboration with other providers, to augment the
delivery of critical care services in the rural inpatient
setting through the use of telecommunications systems that
allow for consultation with critical care providers not
located in the rural facility regarding the care of such
patients.''.
(b) Amendment to Telehealth Network Grant Program.--Section
330I(i)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254c-14(i)(1)(B)) is amended by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``, or that augment the delivery of
critical care services in rural inpatient settings through
consultation with providers located elsewhere.''.

SEC. 7. INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF CRITICAL CARE PROVIDERS.

Section 338B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
254l-1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Critical Care Initiative.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall undertake an
initiative that has as its goal the annual recruitment of not
less than 50 providers of critical care services into the
National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program.
Providers recruited pursuant to this initiative shall be
additional to, and not detract from, existing recruitment
activities otherwise authorized by this section.
``(2) Clarifying amendment.--The initiative described in
paragraph (1) shall be undertaken pursuant to the authority
of this section, and for purposes of the initiative--
``(A) the term `primary health services' as used in
subsection (a) shall be understood to include critical care
services; and
``(B) `an approved graduate training program' as that term
is used in subsection (b)(1)(B) shall be limited to pulmonary
fellowships or critical care fellowships, or both, for
physicians.''.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act--
(1) $5,000,000 for the research to be conducted under
section 4; and
(2) $4,000,000 for the demonstration projects authorized
under section 5.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Kennedy, and
Mr. Reed):
S. 719. A bill to amend section 10501 of title 49, United States
Code, to exclude solid waste disposal from the jurisdiction of the
Surface Transportation Board; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce
legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law.
Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities
operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any
minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards.
Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating
the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by
railroads.
In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge
declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of
New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this
ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated
facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the
Northeast United States.
These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public
health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007,
will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first
introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort
today.
This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of
current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the
federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board
charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several
opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on
this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as
the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated
facilities to operate.
Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution
to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that.
Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste
by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United
States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in
New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not
at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste
management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.
My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities.
If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail
property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is
not happening today.
The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities
operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great
that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector
entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank
these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be
looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be
permanently assuaged.
Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect
public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce
Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine
Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over
railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure
this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid
waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other
Americans.
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. 719

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 ``Clean Railroads Act of
2007''.

[[Page S2372]]

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FROM THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.

Section 10501 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``facilities,'' in subsection (b)(2) and
inserting ``facilities (except solid waste management
facilities (as defined in section 1004 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903))),''; and
(2) by striking ``over mass transportation provided by a
local governmental authority.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``over--
``(A) mass transportation provided by a local governmental
authority; or
``(B) the processing or sorting of solid waste.''.

____________________