[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.''.

                          ____________________