[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 40 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2900-S2927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr. Obama, 
        and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 808. A bill to provide grants to recruit new teachers, principals, 
and other school leaders to, and retain and support current and 
returning teachers, principals, and other school leaders employed in, 
public elementary and public secondary schools, and to help higher 
education, in areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as my State and the rest of the Gulf 
Coast work to get back on their feet and rebuild their lives and their 
communities, we look to the future. We look forward to stronger levees, 
a more responsive FEMA, a better medical system, and a better school 
system. We look to our children--because they are the future--and we 
are striving to build the best school system in the country. We are in 
the middle of a remarkable period in Louisiana--and our schools are at 
the center. Our schools are re-opening and developing in new and 
innovative ways. There is a wonderful partnership with our institutions 
of higher learning, who are throwing themselves into not only 
rebuilding themselves but into standing up this new school system.
  But key to this new school system are the people who make it work day 
after day--our teachers, our principals, our aides--and it is vital 
that we recruit, retain, and maintain all of the excellent individuals 
who are dedicated to our children and the future.
  That is why, today, I am so very proud to introduce the Landrieu-
Kennedy-Reid RENEWAAL Act of 2007.
  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita not only damaged or destroyed 840 schools 
in Louisiana, but dozens more throughout the Gulf Coast. As the 176,000 
displaced elementary and secondary school students and their families 
begin to return, what was a need to rebuild these schools and bring in 
new teachers has become an emergency. The RENEWAAL Act will help solve 
a significant crisis in New Orleans--there are simply not enough 
talented teachers in the city to educate the 29,000 children the system 
must serve. In January, the New Orleans Recovery School District was 
forced to ``wait-list'' 300 students, in large part because they simply 
could not find or encourage enough teachers to come to the region to 
teach them.
  As the region continues to struggle and to grow, so will the need to 
bring more teachers to the Gulf Coast. The Louisiana Recovery Authority 
estimates that 12,000 teachers were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. 
Public

[[Page S2901]]

schools in New Orleans will need an additional 750 teachers by fall 
2007 to accommodate the daily surge in enrollment. Some of the 
district's high schools have student-to-teacher ratios surpassing 36 to 
1. Jefferson Parish currently has a shortage of about 60 teachers. 
Parishes like St. Bernard and Cameron have managed to hold down 
student-to-teacher ratios only because they've increased the local tax 
burden on an already stretched population to the breaking point, even 
though just a small portion of their schools have reopened. The future 
of the Gulf Coast lies in the rebuilding of its middle class; the 
future of the middle class in any community is in its schools.
  The RENEWAAL Act provides up to $254 million over 5 years in salary 
supplements, housing assistance and loan forgiveness for certified 
elementary and secondary school teachers and leaders who commit to 
serving the Hurricane Katrina and Rita affected areas for a minimum of 
3 years. The Act provides annual salary bonuses starting at $7,000 per 
year for teachers and leaders, increasing with experience, a proven 
track record of success in an urban district or use the opportunity to 
return to their home district to help. RENEWAAL also provides student 
loan forgiveness of up to $7000 per year and housing assistance of up 
to $750 per month.

  These incentives are necessary to help offset the dramatic cost of 
living increases that are a reality in the Gulf region right now. The 
starting salary for a Recovery School District teacher is $35,400 per 
year, slightly below the state's median income of $37,400. The average 
rent in New Orleans parish has increased more than 40 percent in 1 
year--so much so that, currently, a Recovery School District teacher in 
New Orleans would spend 40-50 percent of his or her monthly pre-tax 
income on rent. The average student loan debt of the 60 percent of 
Louisiana students who graduate with student loan debt is over $17,000. 
The combination of these financial burdens and the increased cost of 
living make it impossible for some young people to put their 
considerable time and energy into rebuilding the Gulf Coast, even if 
they once called it home. The incentives provided in the RENEWAAL Act 
would give them the support they need to serve.
  The bill also recognizes the unique role and the unique challenges 
Hurricane Katrina and Rita impacted colleges and universities have in 
rebuilding our Gulf communities. Over 84,000 students were displaced in 
Louisiana as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. RENEWAAL provides 
$500 million of funds to attract additional students to and retain 
faculty at Louisiana's institutions of higher education. Colleges and 
universities suffering significant revenue gaps from decreased 
enrollment and repair costs would receive the help they need continue 
their missions. Our higher education system has long been the creative 
and professional life blood of New Orleans and the region, as the 
institutions directly impacted by the storms have trained hundreds of 
thousands of young professionals and entrepreneurs who use their skills 
to strengthen cities and towns along the Gulf Coast and nationwide.
  I'd like to thank Congressman Charles Melancon and Congressman George 
Miller and their staffs for their hard work with us on this bill, 
culminating in its introduction as companion legislation in the House 
of Representatives. This bill is the latest example of their tireless 
dedication to supporting the children, families and students of the 
Gulf Coast as we continue to work together to bring the people of 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas home.
  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. 808

       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 ``Revitalizing New Orleans by 
     Attracting America's Leaders Act of 2007'' or the ``RENEWAAL 
     Act of 2007''.

              TITLE I--ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

     SEC. 101. GRANTS TO STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AFFECTED BY 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE RITA; SUBGRANTS 
                   TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and section 
     102(d), from amounts appropriated under section 105, the 
     Secretary of Education shall award grants to each of the 
     States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The Secretary 
     shall base allocations for States that submit an application 
     under subsection (b)(1) on the number of schools in each 
     State that were closed for 60 days or more during the period 
     beginning on August 29, 2005, and ending on December 31, 
     2005, due to Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (b) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--For a State to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under subsection (a), the State educational agency for 
     the State shall submit an application to the Secretary, at 
     such time as the Secretary may require, that contains such 
     information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Specific assurances.--The assurances under paragraph 
     (1) shall include an assurance that--
       (A) subject to subsection (d), the State educational agency 
     will distribute the funds received under the grant as 
     subgrants to local educational agencies;
       (B) the State educational agency, in consultation with 
     local education agencies, local teachers and their union, the 
     State's board of education, and the local organization 
     representing charter schools, will establish and implement a 
     plan to strengthen the recruitment, retention, professional 
     development, and success of teachers and school leaders in 
     schools that are served under the grant; and
       (C) funds provided shall be used at schools that are--
       (i) open to all eligible students, including students with 
     disabilities and English language learners; and
       (ii) in compliance with all applicable Federal laws, 
     including civil rights laws, and State and local health and 
     safety laws.
       (3) Oversight.--The Secretary shall, on a semi-annual 
     basis--
       (A) review the State educational agencies receiving funds 
     under this title to determine whether each such agency is in 
     compliance with the assurances referred to in paragraph (2); 
     and
       (B) submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report on the 
     results of such review, the first of which reports shall be 
     made not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), from amounts 
     made available to a State educational agency under this 
     title, the agency shall make subgrants, on a competitive 
     basis, to local educational agencies in the State that serve 
     an area with respect to which a major disaster was declared 
     under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S. C. 5170) by reason of 
     Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. Funds received under the 
     subgrant shall be used to carry out the authorized activities 
     described in sections 102 and 103.
       (2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a subgrant 
     under this subsection, a local educational agency shall 
     submit an application to the State educational agency at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     State educational agency may reasonably require.
       (3) Timing.--Subgrants under this subsection shall be made 
     not later than 60 days after the date on which the State 
     educational agency first receives funds from the Secretary 
     under this title.
       (4) Determination of allocations.--In allocating funds 
     among local educational agencies under this subsection, State 
     educational agencies shall give priority to local educational 
     agencies with the following:
       (A) The highest percentages of schools that are closed as a 
     result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) The highest percentages of schools with a student-
     teacher ratio of at least 25 to 1.
       (d) Management, Administration, and Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--A State educational agency that 
     distributes funds under this title may reserve up to one half 
     of one percent for management, administrative, and evaluation 
     purposes.
       (2) Charter school costs included.--Amounts reserved under 
     paragraph (1) shall include all management, administrative, 
     and evaluation costs related to charter schools.
       (3) Allocation to other local educational agencies.--Of the 
     amounts reserved by a State educational agency under 
     paragraph (1), any funds that remain after expenditure for 
     the costs described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be 
     allocated by the State educational agency to other local 
     educational agencies adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina 
     or Hurricane Rita.
       (e) Evaluation.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall review the implementation of section 102 and 
     shall provide the Committee on Education and Labor of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate with an analysis 
     of the effectiveness of the implementation of such section 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

[[Page S2902]]

     SEC. 102. ANNUAL BONUSES FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER SCHOOL 
                   LEADERS.

       (a) Annual Bonuses for Teachers.--A local educational 
     agency that receives a subgrant under section 101 shall use a 
     portion of the subgrant funds specified by the Secretary to 
     provide annual pensionable bonuses, in addition to base 
     salary and benefits, to teachers in each of 3 consecutive 
     full school years (beginning with the first full school year 
     that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act), 
     calculated as follows:
       (1) $7,000 per year for all teachers employed by the local 
     educational agency during the school year in which this Act 
     is enacted, if the teacher commits to continue to work during 
     each of the 3 succeeding school years in a public elementary 
     or public secondary school served by the agency.
       (2) $10,000 per year for all teachers described in 
     paragraph (1) who also have a demonstrated track record of 
     success in improving student academic achievement, based on 
     an evaluation from the multiple measures of success rating 
     system described in subsection (d), except that such teachers 
     may not receive a bonus under paragraph (1).
       (3) $12,500 per year for all teachers described in 
     paragraph (1) who also have a demonstrated track record of 
     success in improving student academic achievement, based on 
     an evaluation from the multiple measures of success rating 
     system described in subsection (d), and who teach a subject 
     for which there is a documented teacher shortage, except that 
     such teachers may not receive a bonus under paragraph (1) or 
     (2).
       (b) Annual Bonuses for School Leaders.--A local educational 
     agency that receives a subgrant under section 101 shall use a 
     portion of the subgrant funds specified by the Secretary to 
     provide annual bonuses to school leaders in each of 3 
     consecutive full school years (beginning with the first full 
     school year that begins after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act), calculated as follows:
       (1) $7,000 per year for all school leaders employed by the 
     local educational agency during the school year in which this 
     Act is enacted, if the school leader commits to continue to 
     work during each of the 3 succeeding school years in a public 
     elementary or public secondary school served by the agency.
       (2) $15,000 per year for all school leaders described in 
     paragraph (1) who also are designated by the local 
     educational agency as outstanding or have a demonstrated 
     track record of success in improving student academic 
     achievement on a school-wide basis in a low-performing school 
     (as determined through a performance-based system that 
     includes analysis of academic achievement gains), except that 
     such school leaders may not receive a bonus under paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Supplements for Personnel Returning From 
     Displacement.--In the case of a teacher or school leader who 
     was displaced from, or lost employment in, a geographic area 
     described in section 101(a) by reason of Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita, and who returns to such an area following 
     such displacement and is rehired, the bonus described in 
     subsection (a) or (b) shall be increased by $1,500 in each of 
     the 3 years.
       (d) Multiple Measures of Success Rating System.--The 
     Secretary of Education may make a grant to a State under this 
     title only if the State educational agency, in its 
     application under section 101(b), agrees to use the following 
     process to develop a multiple measures of success rating 
     system:
       (1) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the State educational agency, in cooperation 
     with local educational agencies, the teachers unions, local 
     principals' organization, local parents' organizations, local 
     business organizations, and local charter schools 
     organizations, shall develop a plan for such a system.
       (2) If the State educational agency has failed to reach an 
     agreement pursuant to paragraph (1) that is satisfactory to 
     all consulting entities by such deadline, the State 
     educational agency shall immediately notify the Congress of 
     such failure and the reasons for it and shall, not later than 
     30 days after such notification, establish and implement a 
     rating system that shall be--
       (A) based on strong learning gains for students and growth 
     in student achievement;
       (B) based on classroom observation and feedback at least 4 
     times annually;
       (C) conducted by multiple sources, including principals and 
     master teachers; and
       (D) evaluated against research-validated rubrics that use 
     planning, instructional, and learning environment standards 
     to measure teaching performance.
       (e) Timing of Payment.--A local educational agency 
     providing an annual bonus to a teacher or school leader under 
     subsection (a) or (b) shall pay the bonus according to a 
     schedule that--
       (1) is designed to attract such educators;
       (2) commences payment of the first of such bonuses not 
     later than 60 days after the later of--
       (A) the first day of the first full school year that begins 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) the date on which the local educational agency first 
     receives funds from the State educational agency under this 
     title; and
       (3) only completes payment at the end of the period of 
     required service.
       (f) Grant Period.--Funds allocated by the Secretary for use 
     under this section may be expended by a State educational 
     agency or local educational agency over a 3-year period.

     SEC. 103. RELOCATION COSTS, HOUSING COSTS, EDUCATOR 
                   RECRUITMENT COSTS, AND PROMOTION OF BEST 
                   PRACTICES AND CAPACITY-BUILDING.

       (a) Relocation Costs.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a subgrant under section 101 shall use a portion of 
     the subgrant funds specified by the Secretary to provide one-
     time payments of up to $2,500 each to educators (including 
     teachers, school leaders, school guidance counselors, school 
     social workers, school nurses and other school-based health 
     personnel, and paraprofessionals) who commit to work in a 
     public elementary or public secondary school served by the 
     agency to assist such educators with costs associated with 
     relocation. In providing such payments, a local educational 
     agency shall give priority to teachers with a prior 
     connection to the State, either through previous employment 
     as a teacher in the State or graduation from a public or 
     private institution of higher education located in the State.
       (b) Housing Costs.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a subgrant under section 101 shall use a portion of 
     the subgrant funds specified by the Secretary to provide up 
     to 36 monthly payments of--
       (1) $700 each to educators (including teachers, school 
     leaders, school guidance counselors, school social workers, 
     school nurses and other school-based health personnel, and 
     paraprofessionals) who commit to work in a public elementary 
     or public secondary school served by the agency, and who 
     previously resided or worked in the geographical area served 
     by the agency, to assist such educators with housing costs; 
     and
       (2) $500 each to all other educators (including teachers, 
     school leaders, school guidance counselors, school social 
     workers, school nurses and other school-based health 
     personnel, and paraprofessionals) who commit to work in a 
     public elementary or public secondary school served by the 
     agency, to assist such educators with housing costs.
       (c) Educator Recruitment Costs.--A local educational agency 
     that receives a subgrant under section 101 shall use a 
     portion of the subgrant funds specified by the Secretary for 
     the purpose of establishing partnerships with non-profit 
     entities that have a demonstrated track record in recruiting 
     and retaining outstanding teachers and school leaders who 
     commit to teach or lead in schools where there is a 
     documented teacher shortage. These entities shall consult 
     with teachers and the local teachers' union in their work.
       (d) Promoting Best Practices and Capacity-Building.--
       (1) In general.--A local educational agency that receives a 
     subgrant under section 101 shall use a portion of the 
     subgrant funds specified by the Secretary for the purpose of 
     building the capacity and knowledge of principals and 
     teachers and providing teachers with paid release time to 
     collaborate with each other, to engage in classroom 
     observation, and to participate in professional development. 
     Such paid release time shall be used to facilitate the 
     identification and replication of best practices from the 
     highest-performing and fastest-improving schools, to bring in 
     outstanding educators to provide on-site professional 
     development and coaching, and to support the design, 
     adaptation, and implementation of high-quality formative 
     assessments aligned to the State's academic standards.
       (2) Administrative costs.--A local educational agency 
     receiving a subgrant under section 101 may use up to 5 
     percent of the portion of the subgrant funds specified by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1) for management and 
     administration related to carrying out activities under such 
     paragraph.

     SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``documented teacher shortage''--
       (A) means a shortage of teachers documented in the needs 
     assessment conducted under section 2122(c) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6622(c)) by 
     the local educational agency involved or some other official 
     demonstration of shortage by the local educational agency; 
     and
       (B) may include such a shortage in math, science, reading, 
     special education, a foreign language, high school core 
     subjects, instruction for limited English proficient 
     children, and other subjects, as designated by the local 
     educational agency.
       (2) The term ``elementary school'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (3) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) and shall 
     also include the Recovery School District in Louisiana and 
     New Orleans Public Schools.
       (4) The term ``public school'' means any public school that 
     is operated or chartered by a State educational agency or 
     local educational agency.
       (5) The term ``school leader'' means a school principal, 
     assistant principal, principal resident director, or 
     assistant director.
       (6) The term ``secondary school'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (7) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.
       (8) The term ``teacher'', when used with respect to an 
     individual teaching in a State, means that the individual has 
     obtained full State certification as a teacher or is 
     satisfactorily participating in an alternative

[[Page S2903]]

     route to certification program that leads to certification 
     within 3 years, except that--
       (A) an individual teaching in a public charter school is 
     included in this definition if the individual satisfies the 
     requirements set forth in the State's public charter school 
     law with respect to State certification; and
       (B) a special education teacher is included in this 
     definition only if fully certified by the State.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this title $45,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $45,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $46,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
       (b) Annual Bonuses for Teachers.--Of the total amounts 
     authorized under subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2011 to carry out section 102(a).
       (c) Annual Bonuses for School Leaders.--Of the total 
     amounts authorized under subsection (a), the following 
     amounts are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     section 102(b):
       (1) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
       (2) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 
     2011.
       (d) Relocation Costs.--Of the total amounts authorized 
     under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 
     carry out section 103(a).
       (e) Housing Costs.--Of the total amounts authorized under 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 
     carry out section 103(b).
       (f) Educator Recruitment Costs.--Of the total amounts 
     authorized under subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2011 to carry out section 103(c).
       (g) Promoting Best Practices and Capacity-Building.--Of the 
     total amounts authorized under subsection (a), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011 to carry out section 103(d).
       (h) Availability.--Any funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under this section are authorized to be available for fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011.

     SEC. 106. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to alter or 
     otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and procedures 
     afforded school or local educational agency employees under 
     Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable 
     regulations or court orders) or under the terms of collective 
     bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other 
     agreements between such employees and their employers.

                       TITLE II--HIGHER EDUCATION

     SEC. 201. HIGHER EDUCATION RECOVERY AND SUSTAINABILITY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Established.--Subject to the availability of 
     funds appropriated to carry out this section, the Secretary 
     shall provide funds made available under this section, in 
     accordance with subsection (b), to postsecondary educational 
     institutions--
       (1) that were closed on any of their physical campuses, or 
     that temporarily relocated their campus, as a result of the 
     impact of a Gulf hurricane disaster;
       (2) the enrollments of which have not recovered to the 
     level of enrollments that existed before a Gulf hurricane 
     disaster; and
       (3) that continue to sustain a loss of revenue as a result 
     of the impact of a Gulf hurricane disaster.
       (b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall use funds made 
     available to carry out this section to compensate the 
     institutions described in subsection (a) for direct or 
     indirect losses incurred by such institutions resulting from 
     the impact of a Gulf hurricane disaster, and for the recovery 
     initiatives of such institutions. Such funds may be used 
     for--
       (1) faculty salaries and incentives for retaining faculty;
       (2) costs associated with the loss of lost tuition, 
     revenue, and enrollment;
       (3) construction and maintenance needs;
       (4) grants to students to attend institutions described in 
     subsection (a) for academic years beginning on or after July 
     1, 2006, with priority given to students demonstrating 
     financial need; and
       (5) any recruitment activities related to increasing 
     enrollment to the level of enrollment that existed before a 
     Gulf hurricane disaster.
       (c) Application for Assistance.--A postsecondary 
     educational institution that desires to receive assistance 
     under this section shall--
       (1) submit a sworn financial statement and other 
     appropriate data, documentation, or other evidence requested 
     by the Secretary that indicates that the institution incurred 
     losses resulting from the impact of a Gulf hurricane 
     disaster, and the monetary amount of such losses;
       (2) demonstrate that the institution attempted to minimize 
     the cost of any losses by pursuing collateral source 
     compensation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     the Small Business Administration, any other relevant 
     government agencies, and insurance prior to seeking 
     assistance under this section;
       (3) demonstrate that the institution has not been able to 
     fully operate at the level of operation that existed before a 
     Gulf hurricane disaster; and
       (4) provide an assurance that, with respect to any funds 
     provided under this section for construction, the institution 
     will only use such funds for construction that has been or 
     will be conducted in compliance with the wage requirements 
     under section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1232b).
       (d) Regulations Required.--Within a reasonable time after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     issue regulations setting forth--
       (1) procedures for an application for assistance under this 
     section; and
       (2) minimum requirements for receiving assistance under 
     this section, including the following:
       (A) Online forms to be used in submitting request for 
     assistance.
       (B) Information to be included in such forms.
       (C) Procedures to assist in filing and pursing assistance.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``postsecondary 
     educational institution'' means--
       (1) an institution of higher education, as such term is 
     defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001); or
       (2) a public or private teaching hospital wholly or partly 
     owned or operated by such an institution of higher education.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for 
     the period beginning in fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 
     2011.

     SEC. 202. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (e), the Secretary shall carry out a program of 
     providing loan forgiveness to qualifying teachers. To provide 
     such loan forgiveness, the Secretary is authorized to carry 
     out a program--
       (A) through the holder of the loan, to assume the 
     obligation to repay a qualified loan amount for a loan made 
     under part B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.); and
       (B) to cancel a qualified loan amount (as so determined) 
     for a loan made under part D of such title (20 U.S.C. 1087a 
     et seq.).
       (2) Treatment of consolidation loans.--A loan amount for a 
     loan made under section 428C of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3) or a Federal Direct Consolidation 
     Loan may be a qualified loan amount for the purposes of this 
     subsection only to the extent that such loan amount was used 
     to repay a Federal Direct Stafford Loan, a Federal Direct 
     Unsubsidized Stafford Loan, or a loan made under section 428 
     or 428H of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1078 or 1078-8, respectively), 
     as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary.
       (b) Qualifying Teachers.--For the purposes of this section, 
     a qualifying teacher is an individual who is not in default 
     on a loan for which the individual seeks forgiveness and--
       (1) who--
       (A) first commenced employment as a full-time teacher in a 
     public or private elementary or secondary school in an area 
     affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster after such disaster; 
     and
       (B) is not described in paragraph (2);
       (2) who graduated from a public or private institution of 
     higher education located in an area affected by a Gulf 
     hurricane disaster and first commenced employment as a full-
     time teacher in a public or private elementary or secondary 
     school in such area after such disaster; or
       (3) who returned to employment as a full-time teacher in a 
     public or private elementary or secondary school in an area 
     affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster such after such 
     disaster.
       (c) Qualifying Amounts.--The Secretary shall forgive not 
     more than the following amount for a qualifying teacher:
       (1) $5,000 per year for a qualifying teacher described in 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (b), for each year of service 
     described in such paragraph.
       (2) $7,000 per year for a qualifying teacher described in 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (b), for each year of 
     service described in such paragraph.
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
       (e) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2011.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title:
       (1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'' means the 
     State of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, or Texas.
       (2) Area affected by a gulf hurricane disaster.--The term 
     ``area affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster'' means a county 
     or parish, in an affected State, that has been designated by 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster 
     assistance for individuals and households as a result of 
     Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (3) Gulf hurricane disaster.--The term ``Gulf hurricane 
     disaster'' means a major disaster that the President declared 
     to exist, in accordance 6 with section 401 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and 
     that was caused by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.

[[Page S2904]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MENENDEZ:
  S. 810. A bill to establish a laboratory science pilot program at the 
National Science Foundation; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
designed to improve the science learning experience for students in 
low-income and rural school across the country. Investing in education 
is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a 
new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally 
integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human 
capital so that our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be 
analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this 
country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive 
future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation 
of Americans.
  In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure 
that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, 
engineering, mathematics, and technology. The America COMPETES Act, S. 
761, which I was proud to join with my colleagues in introducing 
earlier this week, helps provide these tools at all levels of our 
educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and 
beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough 
attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of 
not reaping the full benefits of America's innovation future, such as 
minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools.
  For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 
percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African-American, 
or Native-American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of 
the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to 
achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's 
schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be 
African-American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and 
we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about 
improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford 
to leave 40 percent of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the 
United States.
  That's why I offered an amendment during last year's Energy Committee 
markup of science and technology competitiveness legislation--an 
amendment that has made it into the America COMPETES Act--which will 
create a series of outreach programs designed to get more minority 
elementary and secondary students excited about science, to increase 
their interest in entering these fields that will be such a crucial 
part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic 
Engineering Science and Technology Week (HESTEC) has been operating 
very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan 
American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the 
nation.
  But these types of programs are only one part of getting students 
hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling 
students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually 
let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the 
joy of scientific discovery first-hand-we will still lose them. And 
that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well-
equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly 
invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach 
them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a 
book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill 
of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean 
the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an 
engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in 
science forever.
  Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, 
called America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, 
made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who 
want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in 
science and technology. It found that schools that have high 
percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to 
have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets 
for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study 
also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in 
laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools 
had some of the same problems.
  We can not expect our country to be adequately prepared for the 
future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the 
future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience 
for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be 
prepared. That's why I am proud to re-introduce the Partnerships for 
Access to Laboratory Science bill, originally championed by Congressman 
Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural 
school districts, higher education institutions, and the private 
sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in 
those schools. The bill creates a pilot program, authorized at $5 
million per year, to help schools purchase scientific equipment, 
renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of 
integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide 
professional development for high school science lab teachers. This 
last one is particularly important, because one of the key conclusions 
from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school 
science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively 
is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.'' 
This bill is strongly supported by a number of scientific and 
educational organizations, including the American Chemical Society, the 
American Council on Education, the National Science Teachers 
Association, and more.
  We need to do a lot to ensure that our nation stays competitive 
throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But 
it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need 
our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this 
bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of this 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. 810

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) To remain competitive in science and technology in the 
     global economy, the United States must increase the number of 
     students graduating from high school prepared to pursue 
     postsecondary education in science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics.
       (2) There is broad agreement in the scientific community 
     that learning science requires direct involvement by students 
     in scientific inquiry and that laboratory experience is so 
     integral to the nature of science that it must be included in 
     every science program for every science student.
       (3) In America's Lab Report, the National Research Council 
     concluded that the current quality of laboratory experiences 
     is poor for most students and that educators and researchers 
     do not agree on how to define high school science 
     laboratories or on their purpose, hampering the accumulation 
     of research on how to improve labs.
       (4) The National Research Council found that schools with 
     higher concentrations of non-Asian minorities and schools 
     with higher concentrations of poor students are less likely 
     to have adequate laboratory facilities than other schools.
       (5) The Government Accountability Office reported that 49.1 
     percent of schools where the minority student population is 
     greater than 50.5 percent reported not meeting functional 
     requirements for laboratory science well or at all.
       (6) 40 percent of those college students who left the 
     science fields reported some problems related to high school 
     science preparation, including lack of laboratory experience 
     and no introduction to theoretical or to analytical modes of 
     thought.
       (7) It is the national interest for the Federal Government 
     to invest in research and demonstration projects to improve 
     the teaching of laboratory science in the Nation's high 
     schools.

     SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 8(8) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as 
     clauses (i) through (vi), respectively, and indenting 
     appropriately;
       (2) by moving the flush language at the end 2 ems to the 
     right;

[[Page S2905]]

       (3) in the flush language at the end, by striking 
     ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subparagraph'';
       (4) by striking ``Initiative.--A program of'' and inserting 
     ``initiative.--
       ``(A) In general.--A program of''; and
       (5) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(B) Pilot program.--
       ``(i) In general.--In accordance with subparagraph (A)(v), 
     the Director shall establish a pilot program designated as 
     `Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science' to award 
     grants to partnerships to improve laboratories and provide 
     instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance 
     the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and 
     technology instruction at the secondary school level. Grants 
     under this subparagraph may be used for--

       ``(I) purchase, rental, or leasing of equipment, 
     instrumentation, and other scientific educational materials;
       ``(II) maintenance, renovation, and improvement of 
     laboratory facilities;
       ``(III) professional development and training for teachers;
       ``(IV) development of instructional programs designed to 
     integrate the laboratory experience with classroom 
     instruction and to be consistent with State mathematics and 
     science academic achievement standards;
       ``(V) training in laboratory safety for school personnel;
       ``(VI) design and implementation of hands-on laboratory 
     experiences to encourage the interest of individuals 
     identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in 
     mathematics, science, engineering, and technology and help 
     prepare such individuals to pursue postsecondary studies in 
     these fields; and
       ``(VII) assessment of the activities funded under this 
     subparagraph.

       ``(ii) Partnership.--Grants awarded under clause (i) shall 
     be to a partnership that--

       ``(I) includes an institution of higher education or a 
     community college;
       ``(II) includes a high-need local educational agency;
       ``(III) includes a business or eligible nonprofit 
     organization; and
       ``(IV) may include a State educational agency, other public 
     agency, National Laboratory, or community-based organization.

       ``(iii) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out using amounts from a grant under 
     clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       The Director of the National Science Foundation shall 
     evaluate the effectiveness of activities carried out under 
     the pilot projects funded by the grant program established 
     pursuant to the amendment made by section 2 in improving 
     student performance in mathematics, science, engineering, and 
     technology. A report documenting the results of that 
     evaluation shall be submitted to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. The report shall identify best 
     practices and materials developed and demonstrated by grant 
     awardees.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Science Foundation to carry out this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the 3 succeeding fiscal 
     years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Harkin).
  S. 812. A bill to prohibit human cloning and protect stem cell 
research; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein, 
Specter, Kennedy, and Harkin in introducing the Human Cloning Ban and 
Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2007.
  It is hard to imagine how far medical science has advanced in only 60 
years. Penicillin was made available just in time for D-Day and saved 
thousands of lives in the Second World War. Before that time, pneumonia 
or an infected wound was a death sentence. Now, doctors replace damaged 
organs with heart, liver, kidney, and lung transplants. Cancers that 
were once fatal can be cured. Lives that were once forfeit to injuries 
are now saved by medical science. But there is no shortage of diseases 
that still ravage humanity.
  Many scientists believe that we are on the verge of a new revolution 
in medicine created by human stem cells. The reason stem cells are 
important to medicine is that many organs cannot make a sufficient 
number of new cells to replace damaged or lost ones. Stem cells are the 
only way currently known that has the potential to replace damaged 
cells in organs such as the pancreas, kidney, heart, brain, and spinal 
cord.
  Two common diseases may be treatable by stem cells sooner rather than 
later. Diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions in the United States. 
Diabetes results when pancreatic cells cannot create enough insulin 
which is needed for the body to use glucose. Human embryonic stem cells 
can now be coaxed into differentiating into functioning insulin-
producing cells and scientists at the NIH have concluded that creation 
of cells that could be transplantable may soon be possible.
  Heart failure is one of the commonest chronic conditions of the 
elderly. The heart fails when it does not have enough functioning heart 
muscle. Clinical trials of injection of stem cells into failing hearts 
to create new muscle tissue are going on around the world as we speak.
  And treatment of other common diseases with stem cells is on the 
horizon. In December of 1999 a group of investigators at Washington 
University School of Medicine implanted embryonic stem cells in rats 
with spinal cord injuries. The stem cells became nerve cells and the 
rats walked. I know families in Utah with spinal cord injured children 
who pray for such a result in humans. Like the Utah family, the 
Schmanskis, who flew their daughter Tori to China for stem cell 
transplantation. And like seventeen-year-old Travis Ashton from 
Highland, UT, who is raising money for the same procedure to treat his 
head injury.
  Another example of how stem cells may treat common diseases is renal 
failure which occurs in an estimated 40 percent of critical care 
patients. Dr. Christof Westenfelder, professor of medicine and 
physiology at the University of Utah has found that injecting stem 
cells into failing kidneys improves kidney function, prevents tissue 
injury, and accelerates regeneration. These few examples of early stage 
research presage advances that we could only dream of before science 
knew of the possibilities of stem cells.
  But with the promise of stem cells comes responsibility. Scientists 
are now working with stem cells created by a technique called somatic 
cell nuclear transfer. In this laboratory procedure, the DNA from the 
cell of one adult is inserted into an empty egg that has been donated 
from another adult. The result, if the science develops further, is a 
collection of stem cells that could become a kidney or liver that is 
identical to a missing or diseased organ of the donor of the DNA. 
However, this same collection of stem cells if implanted into a woman's 
uterus could possibly become a human being identical to the donor of 
the DNA.
  Let me be absolutely clear: I support the use of such stem cells to 
treat human disease but abhor the possibility of their use for human 
cloning.
  Our bill prohibits human reproductive cloning and imposes criminal 
penalties for attempting to do so. It provides a firm ethical framework 
for somatic cell nuclear transfer for therapeutic purposes and 
establishes stiff civil penalties for not following them.
  It specifies that research in somatic cell nuclear transfer must 
comply with NIH regulations.
  It prohibits the use of fertilized eggs for somatic cell nuclear 
transfer.
  It limits maintenance of eggs receiving somatic cell nuclear material 
to 14 days.
  It specifies that the egg must be voluntarily donated and not 
purchased.
  It prohibits purchase or sale of eggs to which DNA has been 
transferred.
  It is our responsibility to promote stem cell research to treat human 
diseases. It is equally our responsibility to be certain that such 
research is conducted in accordance with the best ethical standards and 
that the technology can never be used to clone a human being in the 
United States.
  The majority of the US public supports stem cell research and opposes 
human reproductive cloning. If we do not act soon to set ethical 
guidelines for legitimate research and to prohibit research that no one 
wants to see, then we may lose the chance. We may also lose the 
opportunity for America to lead the way in the treatment of diseases 
that are the scourge of mankind.
  I urge the Senate to take up this bill and to pass it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S2906]]

                                 S. 812

       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 ``Human Cloning Ban and Stem 
     Cell Research Protection Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this Act to prohibit human cloning and 
     to protect important areas of medical research, including 
     stem cell research.

                 TITLE I--PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING

     SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 15, the following:

               ``CHAPTER 16--PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING

``301. Prohibition on human cloning.

     ``Sec. 301. Prohibition on human cloning

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Human cloning.--The term `human cloning' means 
     implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear 
     transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of 
     a uterus.
       ``(2) Human somatic cell.--The term `human somatic cell' 
     means any human cell other than a haploid germ cell.
       ``(3) Nuclear transplantation.--The term `nuclear 
     transplantation' means transferring the nucleus of a human 
     somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus or all 
     chromosomes have been or will be removed or rendered inert.
       ``(4) Nucleus.--The term `nucleus' means the cell structure 
     that houses the chromosomes.
       ``(5) Oocyte.--The term `oocyte' means the female germ 
     cell, the egg.
       ``(6) Unfertilized blastocyst.--The term `unfertilized 
     blastocyst' means an intact cellular structure that is the 
     product of nuclear transplantation. Such term shall not 
     include stem cells, other cells, cellular structures, or 
     biological products derived from an intact cellular structure 
     that is the product of nuclear transplantation.
       ``(b) Prohibitions on Human Cloning.--It shall be unlawful 
     for any person or other legal entity, public or private--
       ``(1) to conduct or attempt to conduct human cloning;
       ``(2) to ship the product of nuclear transplantation in 
     interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of human 
     cloning in the United States or elsewhere; or
       ``(3) to export to a foreign country an unfertilized 
     blastocyst if such country does not prohibit human cloning.
       ``(c) Protection of Research.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to restrict practices not expressly 
     prohibited in this section.
       ``(d) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Criminal penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) shall be fined 
     under this title and imprisoned not more than 10 years.
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) shall be subject 
     to a civil penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross 
     pecuniary gain resulting from the violation, whichever is 
     greater.
       ``(3) Forfeiture.--Any property, real or personal, derived 
     from or used to commit a violation or attempted violation of 
     the provisions of subsection (b), or any property traceable 
     to such property, shall be subject to forfeiture to the 
     United States in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
     chapter 46 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(e) Right of Action.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to give any individual or person a private right of 
     action.''.

     SEC. 102. OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON ACTIONS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN 
                   PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Report on Actions by Attorney General To Enforce 
     Chapter 16 of Title 18.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that--
       (1) describes the actions taken by the Attorney General to 
     enforce the provisions of chapter 16 of title 18, United 
     States Code (as added by section 101);
       (2) describes the personnel and resources the Attorney 
     General has utilized to enforce the provisions of such 
     chapter; and
       (3) contain a list of any violations, if any, of the 
     provisions of such chapter 16.
       (b) Report on Actions of State Attorneys General To Enforce 
     Similar State Laws.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection and subsection (c), the 
     term ``similar State law relating to human cloning'' means a 
     State or local law that provides for the imposition of 
     criminal penalties on individuals who are determined to be 
     conducting or attempting to conduct human cloning (as defined 
     in section 301 of title 18, United States Code (as added by 
     section 101)).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that--
       (A) describes any similar State law relating to human 
     cloning;
       (B) describes the actions taken by the State attorneys 
     general to enforce the provisions of any similar State law 
     relating to human cloning;
       (C) contains a list of violations, if any, of the 
     provisions of any similar State law relating to human 
     cloning; and
       (D) contains a list of any individual who, or organization 
     that, has violated, or has been charged with violating, any 
     similar State law relating to human cloning.
       (c) Report on Coordination of Enforcement Actions Among the 
     Federal and State and Local Governments With Respect to Human 
     Cloning.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--
       (1) describes how the Attorney General coordinates the 
     enforcement of violations of chapter 16 of title 18, United 
     States Code (as added by section 101), with enforcement 
     actions taken by State or local government law enforcement 
     officials with respect to similar State laws relating to 
     human cloning; and
       (2) describes the status and disposition of--
       (A) Federal appellate litigation with respect to such 
     chapter 16 and State appellate litigation with respect to 
     similar State laws relating to human cloning; and
       (B) civil litigation, including actions to appoint 
     guardians, related to human cloning.
       (d) Report on International Laws Relating to Human 
     Cloning.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--
       (1) describes the laws adopted by foreign countries related 
     to human cloning;
       (2) describes the actions taken by the chief law 
     enforcement officer in each foreign country that has enacted 
     a law described in paragraph (1) to enforce such law; and
       (3) describes the multilateral efforts of the United 
     Nations and elsewhere to ban human cloning.

  TITLE II--ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH

     SEC. 201. ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION 
                   RESEARCH.

       Title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

  ``PART J--ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH

     ``SEC. 499A. ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION 
                   RESEARCH, INCLUDING INFORMED CONSENT, 
                   INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD REVIEW, AND 
                   PROTECTION FOR SAFETY AND PRIVACY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The definitions contained in section 
     301(a) of title 18, United States Code, shall apply for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Other definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Donating.--The term `donating' means giving without 
     receiving valuable consideration.
       ``(B) Fertilization.--The term `fertilization' means the 
     fusion of an oocyte containing a haploid nucleus with a male 
     gamete (sperm cell).
       ``(C) Valuable consideration.--The term `valuable 
     consideration' does not include reasonable payments--
       ``(i) associated with the transportation, processing, 
     preservation, or storage of a human oocyte or of the product 
     of nuclear transplantation research; or
       ``(ii) to compensate a donor of one or more human oocytes 
     for the time or inconvenience associated with such donation.
       ``(b) Applicability of Federal Ethical Standards to Nuclear 
     Transplantation Research.--Research involving nuclear 
     transplantation shall be conducted in accordance with subpart 
     A of part 46 of title 45, or parts 50 and 56 of title 21, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research 
     Protection Act of 2007), as applicable.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Conducting Nuclear Transplantation on 
     Fertilized Eggs.--A somatic cell nucleus shall not be 
     transplanted into a human oocyte that has undergone or will 
     undergo fertilization.
       ``(d) Fourteen-Day Rule.--An unfertilized blastocyst shall 
     not be maintained after more than 14 days from its first cell 
     division, not counting any time during which it is stored at 
     temperatures less than zero degrees centigrade.
       ``(e) Voluntary Donation of Oocytes.--
       ``(1) Informed consent.--In accordance with subsection (b), 
     an oocyte may not be used in nuclear transplantation research 
     unless such oocyte shall have been donated voluntarily by and 
     with the informed consent of the woman donating the oocyte.
       ``(2) Prohibition on purchase or sale.--No human oocyte or 
     unfertilized blastocyst may be acquired, received, or 
     otherwise transferred for valuable consideration if the 
     transfer affects interstate commerce.
       ``(f) Separation of in Vitro Fertilization Laboratories 
     From Locations at Which Nuclear Transplantation Is 
     Conducted.--Nuclear transplantation may not be conducted in a 
     laboratory in which human oocytes are subject to assisted 
     reproductive technology treatments or procedures.
       ``(g) Civil Penalties.--Whoever intentionally violates any 
     provision of subsections (b) through (f) shall be subject to 
     a

[[Page S2907]]

     civil penalty in an amount that is appropriate for the 
     violation involved, but not more than $250,000.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hatch, Kennedy, 
Specter, Harkin and I are introducing legislation to ban human 
reproductive cloning, while ensuring that important medical research 
goes forward under strict oversight by the federal government.
  The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2007 
would create a straightforward ban on human reproductive cloning. 
Despite disagreements over various types of biomedical research, there 
is near unanimous agreement that scientists should not create human 
clones.
  At the same time, this legislation will enable research to be 
conducted that provides hope to millions of Americans suffering from 
paralysis and debilitating diseases including juvenile diabetes, 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease.
  The concerns with human reproductive cloning are many, and are both 
scientific and ethical in nature. The National Academy of Sciences 
explains that using cloning, or nuclear transfer to create a child 
could require hundreds of pregnancies and result in many abnormal late-
term fetuses. Some scientists question whether a human clone could ever 
be created without significant abnormalities.
  These concerns led the National Academy of Sciences to conclude that 
there is an ``ethical and scientific consensus that nuclear transfer 
for reproductive purposes has no place in legitimate research.''
  That's why this legislation will make it a crime to clone a human 
being, or attempt to clone a human being by implanting cells that 
result from nuclear transplantation into the uterus (there are no 
exceptions); prohibit the shipment of the product of nuclear 
transplantation in international or interstate commerce for the 
purposes of human cloning; prohibit the export of an unfertilized 
blastocyst, a form of an embryo 5 to 7 days after conception, to any 
foreign country that does not ban human cloning.
  These prohibitions ensure that valuable research undertaken in the 
United States will not be shipped abroad and used to create a human 
clone in a country without restrictions.
  These prohibitions are supported by strict penalties, including: A 
maximum ten-year prison term for cloning, or attempting to clone a 
human being; a fine of either $1 million, or three times any profits 
made for any human cloning attempt. A violator is subject to whichever 
fine is greater, and these financial penalties are in addition to 
prison time.
  Any real or personal property used to commit a violation of this ban, 
or derived from violation of this ban, will be subject to forfeiture.
  The time to pass a legal framework for addressing reproductive 
cloning is now, before any rogue scientist successfully creates a human 
clone.
  At the same time, this legislation does not prohibit scientists from 
working with embryonic stem cells in the hopes of discovering cures and 
treatments for dozens of catastrophic diseases.
  This legislation draws a bright line between human reproductive 
cloning and promising medical research using somatic cell nuclear 
transplantation for the sole purpose of deriving embryonic stem cells.
  Somatic cell nuclear transplantation is the process by which 
scientists derive embryonic stem cells that are an exact genetic match 
as the patient. Those embryonic stem cells will one day be used to 
correct defective cells such as non-insulin producing cells or 
cancerous cells. Then those patients will not be forced to take immuno-
suppressive drugs and risk the chances of rejection since the new cells 
will contain their own DNA.
  It is truly astonishing that somatic cell nuclear transplantation 
research may one day be used to regrow tissue or organs that could lead 
to treatments and cures for diseases that afflict up to 100 million 
Americans. What we are talking about here is research that does not 
even involve sperm and an egg.
  I believe it is essential that this research be conducted with 
federal government oversight and under strict ethical requirements.
  That is why the legislation mandates that eggs used in this research 
be unfertilized and--prohibits the purchase or sale of unfertilized 
eggs to prevent ``embryo farms'' or the possible exploitation of women 
by coercing them into egg sales.
  Imposes strong ethics rules on scientists, mandating informed consent 
by egg donors, and include safety and privacy protections;
  Prohibits any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days--
After 14 days, an unfertilized blastocyst begins differentiating into a 
specific type of cell such as a heart or brain cell and is no longer 
useful for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research;
  Requires that all egg donations be voluntary, and that there is no 
financial or other incentive for egg donations;
  Requires that nuclear transplantation occur in labs completely 
separate from labs that engage in in vitro fertilization.
  And for those who violate or attempt to violate the ethical 
requirements of the legislation, they will be subject to civil 
penalties of up to $250,000 per violation.
  To be clear, this is research that involves an unfertilized 
blastocyst. No sperm are involved. It is conducted in a petri dish and 
cannot occur beyond 14 days. It is also prohibited from ever being 
implanted into a woman to create a child.
  For those who believe that the clump of cells in a petri dish that we 
are talking about is a human life, that is a moral decision each person 
must make for himself, but to impose that view on the more than 100 
million of our parents, children and friends who suffer from 
Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer is immoral.
  The voters of Missouri affirmed this approach in 2006, approving a 
State ballot initiative banning reproductive cloning, while protecting 
important and potentially lifesaving medical research. In the absence 
of Federal guidance, many other states are taking action, sometimes 
contradictory.
  Sixteen States have passed laws pertaining to human cloning.
  Thirteen of these States prohibit reproductive cloning--Arkansas, 
California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, 
Virginia.
  Five States prohibit biomedical research like somatic nuclear 
transfer, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota.
  Six States explicitly permit it, New Jersey, California, Missouri, 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa.
  It is time to standardize these policies, under a common set of 
ethical guidelines. This patchwork of laws will result only in 
confusion, forbidding some researchers from conducting lifesaving 
research, while their colleagues in a neighboring state receive state 
funding to do the same work.
  Just like we have observed with the President's prohibition on 
embryonic stem cell research, this uncertainty is forcing our best and 
brightest researchers overseas, to countries that fully embrace the 
promise of embryonic stem cell research.
  They have a number of overseas options: The United Kingdom is 
providing at least $80 million to fund ongoing research, including 
somatic cell nuclear transfer research. This is helping to attract 
scientific talent from all over the world, including the United States.
  Roger Pedersen, a renowned scientist, left the University of 
California San Francisco in 2001, citing the unfriendly research 
climate in the United States. He is now conducting human stem cell 
research at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.
  He and his UK team are exploring the biology behind pluripotent, or 
multipurpose stem cells, and looking for ways to use them for 
treatments.
  The Australian Parliament lifted a ban on therapeutic cloning 
research in December 2006.
  It will allow Australian scientists to fully pursue important cures, 
and now provides an attractive alternative for American scientists who 
do not want to wait any longer for Federal guidance.
  It is time to provide some certainty and sanity in our national 
policy. We must stop unethical human reproductive cloning, while 
unleashing our scientists to develop cures for catastrophic diseases 
that impact millions.

[[Page S2908]]

  I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill and help turn the 
hopes of millions of Americans into reality.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 813. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an 
above-the-line deduction for attorney fees and costs in connection with 
civil claim awards; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the first bill which I am introducing, 
and that is to permit attorneys to deduct payment of litigation costs 
as ordinary and necessary business expenses. In litigation, 
illustratively on a personal injury claim, the plaintiff frequently is 
without funds and can only move forward with the litigation on a 
contingency fee basis. In these situations, it is customary for the 
attorney to advance the costs of filing fees, depositions, and other 
costs there may be. The Internal Revenue Service has taken the position 
that those are loans from the attorney to the client, so the attorney 
cannot immediately deduct litigation payments as ordinary business 
expenses. If the litigation costs are treated as ordinary business 
expenses, the attorney would be able to deduct the expenses as they are 
incurred.
  The Ninth Circuit has held that the Internal Revenue Service is 
wrong. As a result, attorneys in States within the Ninth Circuit can 
deduct as ordinary and necessary expenses advances on litigation. This 
legislation would make it explicit under the Internal Revenue Code that 
these advanced costs could be deducted by attorneys across the country.
  Again, I ask that the Record contain my extemporaneous comments and 
the explanation as to why there is some repetition in the formal 
statement which I now ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, 
as well as the two bills which follow these two pieces of legislation 
which I am introducing.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Senator Arlen Specter


   Statement on legislation to permit attorneys to deduct payment of 
      litigation costs as ordinary and necessary business expenses

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     introduce legislation amending the Internal Revenue Code to 
     permit attorneys to deduct payments of litigation expenses on 
     behalf of contingency fee clients as an ordinary and 
     necessary business expense. The IRS deems these advances to 
     be loans, so the attorney cannot immediately deduct 
     litigation related payments as ordinary expenses. If the 
     payments are treated as ordinary and necessary business 
     expenses, the attorney receives the benefit of being able to 
     deduct the expenses as they are incurred, and to recognize 
     the income associated with those expenses if and when damages 
     are recovered, which may be years later.
       In part because the IRS deems these payments to be loans, 
     and State canons of legal ethics--based on common law of 
     medieval England--prohibited loans to clients, contingency 
     fee lawyers for many years were not able to pay these 
     expenses. In the latter part of the 1800s States began 
     permitting attorneys to advance client expenses as long as 
     the client remained obligated to repay the advances. Even for 
     their indigent clients, if there ultimately was not an award, 
     attorneys were required to seek repayment. The ABA Model Rule 
     has been updated to state that ``a lawyer may advance court 
     costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may 
     be contingent on the outcome of the matter.'' Many States 
     model their rules on these Model Rules, and their ethics 
     rules have been updated, but the Internal Revenue Code has 
     not. Because my bill appropriately treats payments of costs 
     under contingency fee arrangements as ordinary business 
     expenses, attorneys may structure their fee contracts in ways 
     that do not run afoul of State ethics rules.
       In addition, I note that tax treatment of these payments is 
     not consistent across all jurisdictions. In Boccardo v. 
     Commissioner, 56 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) the Ninth Circuit 
     disagreed with the IRS and held that advances on behalf of 
     clients were ``ordinary and necessary expenses'' in 
     contingency cases with ``gross fee'' contracts. So the rule 
     is different in States in the Ninth Circuit; the IRS 
     continues to take the position that expense advances are not 
     deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses in 
     other jurisdictions. This different treatment is neither 
     logical nor equitable.
       This change will encourage lawyers to represent those who 
     may not otherwise be able to pay an attorney for his work. 
     This is good policy and common sense.
                                  ____


                                 S. 813

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

     SECTION 1. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND 
                   COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH CIVIL CLAIM AWARDS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (20) of section 62(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(20) Costs involving civil cases.--Any deduction 
     allowable under this chapter for attorney fees and court 
     costs paid by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer in connection 
     with any action involving a civil claim. The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply to any deduction in excess of the 
     amount includible in the taxpayer's gross income for the 
     taxable year on account of a judgment or settlement (whether 
     by suit or agreement and whether as lump sum or periodic 
     payments) resulting from such claim.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 62 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fees and costs paid after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act with respect to any judgment or 
     settlement occurring after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER.
  S. 814. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the deduction of attorney-advanced expenses and court costs in 
contingency fee cases; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
two bills relating to tax deductibility which impact unfairly on 
claimants and plaintiffs in litigation and on attorneys. The second 
bill relates to permitting a taxpayer to deduct expenses for attorney's 
fees in contingency fee cases. For example, if a plaintiff secures 
punitive damages of $15,000 and the attorney collects one-third 
contingency, $5,000 goes to the attorney. Under current law, the 
plaintiff is required to pay taxes on the full $15,000 without an above 
the line deduction for the $5,000 paid on attorney's fees. This is a 
result of technicalities of the Internal Revenue Code. My bill would 
clarify the tax law and will ensure consistent and fair treatment of 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I have just made an extemporaneous statement on the 
essence of the floor statement, and I now ask unanimous consent that 
the full floor statement be printed in the Record and that there be 
included the segue of why there is some repetition of what I have just 
said and the written formal statement itself.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Senator Arlen Specter


 Statement on legislation to permit taxpayer deductions for attorneys' 
       fees in an award of damages or settlement of legal claims

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     introduce legislation that will allow taxpayers to subtract 
     from their gross income, in arriving at adjusted gross 
     income, the attorneys fees and court costs paid by, or on 
     behalf of, the taxpayer in connection with any income from 
     any settlement of legal claims or award of damages. This is 
     known as an ``above the line'' deduction.
       This change does not affect the requirement that attorneys 
     pay federal income tax on legal fees they receive. What it 
     does eliminate is the inequity of the client also paying tax 
     on those same fees, when the client not entitled to, and did 
     not receive that money under the terms of a contingency fee 
     contract.
       The tax treatment of these contingency fees is determined 
     through a patchwork of rules that are confusing and 
     inequitable. The legislation would ensure more uniform 
     treatment of contingency fees in all types of litigation and 
     across jurisdictions. In particular, it will eliminate 
     situations in which a plaintiff's recovery may be diminished, 
     primarily as a result of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), 
     by taxation at a rate of approximately 60 percent on the 
     taxpayer's net recovery, after contingency fee.
       This change is common sense and will ensure consistent and 
     fair treatment of taxpayers. Congress never intended that the 
     attorneys' portion of recoveries should be included in 
     taxable income--whether for regular income or alternative 
     minimum tax purposes.
       Section 61(a) of the Code requires taxpayers to include in 
     their gross income ``all income from whatever source 
     derived,'' absent a contrary provision in the Code. Awards 
     for physical personal injury, other than punitive damages, 
     are not taxable (26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2)). Awards of fees in 
     cases primarily related to employment may be deducted ``above 
     the line'' as a result of the American Jobs Creation Act.
       With these exceptions noted above, the Code treats 
     taxpayers as having received the entire amount of any award 
     or settlement (including any contingency fee portion). This 
     means that for awards based on certain claims or for punitive 
     damages, the taxpayer

[[Page S2909]]

     must include in adjusted gross income the entire award, even 
     though the true benefit or income to the taxpayer after 
     contingency fees and costs may be only 50 percent or 60 
     percent of the award. This ``net'' then is reduced by what 
     many believe are unfair taxes because, even though the fees 
     may be taken as a miscellaneous itemized deduction under 
     Section 212, which provides for deduction for expenses 
     incurred for the production of income, this category of 
     deductions is subject to disallowance under the AMT, and a 
     phase out of itemized deductions under the regular tax code.
       Accordingly, the current tax structure, when coupled with 
     the compensation arrangement found in contingency fee 
     contracts, generally (1) creates an enormous tax burden, 
     especially for lower income individuals who often have 
     contingency fees as their only avenue of obtaining legal 
     counsel; and (2) may drive up settlement costs as a result of 
     the serious diminution of the plaintiffs actual award after 
     taxes.
       An illustration of the tax inequities and inconsistencies 
     follows: an individual/client who obtains $500,000 in a legal 
     settlement on a fraud claim, who incurs $200,000 in legal 
     fees and costs, and nets only $300,000, still may owe AMT on 
     $500,000, and would have to pay approximately $160,000, or 
     about 60 percent of the damage award, in federal and state 
     taxes. This leaves the client with only $140,000 of an award 
     intended to compensate the client in the amount of $500,000.
       This clarification of tax law is common sense and will 
     ensure consistent and fair treatment of taxpayers, especially 
     those who can get representation only on a contingency fee 
     basis. I encourage my colleagues to consider this legislation 
     and join me in helping to correct this unfair situation.
                                  ____


                                 S. 814

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

     SECTION 1. DEDUCTION OF ATTORNEY-ADVANCED EXPENSES AND COURT 
                   COSTS IN CONTINGENCY FEE CASES.

       (a) In General.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to trade or business expenses) is amended 
     by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by 
     inserting after subsection (p) the following new subsection:
       ``(q) Attorney-Advanced Expenses and Court Costs in 
     Contingency Fee Cases.--There shall be allowed as a deduction 
     under this section any expenses and court costs paid or 
     incurred by an attorney the repayment of which is contingent 
     on a recovery by judgment or settlement in the action to 
     which such expenses and costs relate. Such deduction shall be 
     allowed in the taxable year in which such expenses and costs 
     are paid or incurred by the taxpayer.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses and costs paid or incurred after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years beginning 
     after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 815. A bill to provide health care benefits to veterans with a 
service-connected disability at non-Department of Veterans Affairs 
medical facilities that receive payments under the Medicare program or 
the TRICARE program; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about 
recent events reported in the media surrounding the care and housing 
provided to our returning, injured service members from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Walter Reed, of course, is an Army-run facility. As such, 
it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Committee, 
which I am proud to lead along with my Chairman, Senator Akaka.
  Never-the-less, the American public--rightly--does not care who runs 
the place or who oversees it in Congress. Collectively, VA and DOD make 
up a system of services provided to active and former members of our 
Armed Forces.
  Of course, we have all read about the poor conditions in Building 18 
at Walter Reed. I am not here on the floor today to defend poor 
physical infrastructure. It is bad, a free press reported it, senior 
officials were held accountable, and it is being fixed.
  I am here instead to talk about how the justified uproar over the 
conditions at Walter Reed seems to have provided an opportunity for 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hone in on new 
strategy for criticizing the war. The strategy appears to me to be one 
of ``questioning the competency'' of those who work in our Federal 
system caring for our wounded servicemembers.
  Now I don't want to accuse anyone of politicizing the care and 
treatment of our most deserving citizens. But, I have to wonder when I 
hear my friends on the other side of the aisle using a slight variation 
on one of their ``catch-phrases'' from the 2006 elections. I've heard 
one of my colleagues lament the ``culture of command'' in the military 
as the reason for poor conditions at Walter Reed.
  I don't really know what the ``culture of command'' means, other than 
it sounds a lot like phrases used during the last election. But this 
time they are using that playbook with the care provided by the 220,000 
dedicated employees of the VA health care system.
  Speaking of which, I want to caution my colleagues who have used the 
case of the young veteran from Minnesota who tragically took his own 
life a few weeks ago as an example of what is wrong with the VA health 
care system. Some of us on the Veterans' Committee have been briefed 
thoroughly about all of the facts in this case. And while HIPPA 
prevents VA from defending itself in this situation, I am not so 
constrained.
  That said, I do not intend to reveal at this time the facts 
surrounding this case. But, I believe all of my colleagues would tone 
down their rhetoric on this example if all of the facts known to me 
were known to them.

  Still, there is no question that every individual instance of poor 
care or treatment is a tragedy. And, every one of them should be 
investigated. There should be accountability at the highest levels. And 
there should be consequences if VA is found to have been responsible 
for inappropriate treatment.
  But I have to say that using anecdotes of horribly unfortunate 
situations, such as the Minneapolis tragedy to castigate an entire 
system of health care and the people who provide is not fair. It is 
simply not fair.
  But then again politics sometimes has no fairness.
  Over the past 2 weeks, more than one Member has come to the floor or 
spoken in the press about how the VA system is failing our wounded 
service men and women. Frankly perhaps we have failed them by not 
taking actions to make those wounded in service the priority that we 
say they are.
  Instead, all I hear from Members on the other side is: we haven't 
given VA enough money. In fact, I hear we are preparing to throw $5 
billion at the VA in the supplemental Appropriations bill.
  I find that to be very interesting especially when I consider that 
this Senate just 3 weeks ago passed an FY 2007 Joint Funding Resolution 
written wholly by the new majority.
  This is what some of my colleagues had to say about the money 
provided in that bill for VA's health care system. One Senator from the 
majority said: ``We have included an increase of $3.6 billion . . . so 
that the VA can continue to meet the growing demand for health care for 
our veterans.''
  Another said: ``If we do not pass this resolution, which includes 
needed funding for the veterans health care system, we will have no one 
to blame but ourselves.''
  And still another Senator from the majority had this to say arguing 
for passage of the FY 2007 Resolution: ``We need a VA budget for the 
current year that meets their needs.''
  Yet now I hear that the VA is chronically under funded. The first 
chance the new majority had to provide all of the funding they believed 
was needed was 3 weeks ago. That's right, just 3 weeks ago. And 
apparently they neglected to do so.
  Frankly, I think the budget for 2007 was an excellent budget. And I 
voted for it. So, I am not going to run away from that right now. And I 
certainly don't know if I can support throwing $5 billion at it because 
the media is watching. Instead, I have a different idea.
  I don't want to wait for a commission to report to me on the findings 
of their review of the VA health care system. Those findings will be 
important, of course. I thank Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala for 
their willingness to once again serve.
  But, I say that we already have our own commission and our own 
investigators on the ground every single day. They are the veterans who 
use the VA health care system. And overwhelmingly they are proud of 
their health care system.
  In fact, I am so confident that the vast majority of our veterans 
feel that way that I announce today that I will introduce legislation 
to give ANY service-connected disabled veteran the choice to go to any 
medical facility in the United States.

[[Page S2910]]

  I understand that it may sound like I am agreeing with my Democratic 
colleagues and that I have lost faith in the VA health care system. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I believe the 
vast majority of our veterans will choose to stay right where they 
are--in the VA.
  Our veterans know that VA is not a bunch of nameless, faceless 
bureaucrats who deserve to be vilified at the drop of a political hat. 
Instead our veterans see everyday the caring dedicated men and women 
who treat them as they should be treated--with respect and compassion.
  Veterans overwhelmingly will continue to come to the VA because of 
its people. They are some of the most caring individuals in government. 
And they provide some of the highest quality of care in the country. 
So, I believe in empowering our veterans with this selection because I 
believe our veterans will select VA.
  It's not just me who believes in VA. For the seventh year in a row 
VA's health care system outscored the private sector in the University 
of Michigan's Consumer Satisfaction Survey:
  Ninety-one percent of VA's patients rated VA as having good customer 
service;
  Eighty-four percent of VA's patients were satisfied with their 
inpatient care compared to the private sector average of just 73 
percent; and
  Eighty-two percent are satisfied with their outpatient care compared 
with just 71 percent on average in the private sector.
  You might say: ``Well, then 10 or 16 percent were not satisfied and 
that's a disgrace.'' I agree. We should strive for 100 percent 
satisfaction.
  But what we should not do is force our most deserving citizens to 
stay in a system for their health care while we talk about how to study 
it or while we throw money at it and declare we've done something.
  I want to be clear. I think the number of veterans who don't trust VA 
for their care is small. But I also think that if they've been injured 
while serving this Nation, then we should not force even a small number 
of them to keep coming to us if they don't trust us.
  We have all of the objective studies, articles, and reviews that say 
we're good. Now let's find out what our veterans think. If they leave 
in droves, then we'll learn something. But if they stay, as I think 
they will, then we'll learn something too.
  So I say to my colleagues if you don't believe that our doctors and 
nurses are providing the best care in the best facilities right now, 
then I invite you to join me in giving those with service-connected 
disabilities the option to pick up tomorrow and go to a facility they 
trust.
  Don't just stand up and throw money at it. Stand in the well of the 
Senate and vote to empower our heroes by providing them with immediate 
relief.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANDERS:
  S. 818. A bill to expand the middle class, reduce the gap between the 
rich and the poor, keep our promises to veterans, lower the poverty 
rate, and reduce the Federal deficit by repealing tax breaks for the 
wealthiest one percent and eliminating unnecessary Cold War era defense 
spending, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in several weeks, the Senate will begin 
its deliberations on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. It is my 
strong belief that the Senate must pass a budget that will expand the 
shrinking middle class, that will reduce the enormous and growing gap 
between the wealthy and the poor, that will keep our promises to our 
Nation's veterans, that will reduce our recordbreaking national debt 
and lower the poverty rate. That is what this Senate should be focusing 
on.
  Simply stated, in my opinion, the way for us to move in that 
direction is to repeal the President's tax breaks that have been given 
to the wealthiest 1 percent, the people who need it the least and, in 
addition, for us to take a hard look at the Pentagon, take a hard look 
at the waste and the fraud and the unnecessary weapons systems that are 
existing in the Pentagon right now. We don't need weapons systems that 
were designed to fight the Soviet Union; we need an approach to fight 
al-Qaida.
  I think we can find billions of dollars in savings when we look at 
the military budget as well. The bill I am introducing today, the 
National Priorities Act, will in fact accomplish these goals.
  A budget is more than a long list of numbers.
  A budget is a statement about our values, our priorities, and the 
time is long overdue for the United States Congress to get its 
priorities right, to begin to stand up for the middle class and working 
families of this country, rather than multinational corporations and 
the wealthiest people who, year after year after year, have so much 
power over this institution.
  Let me do what is too rarely done on the floor of this Senate, and 
that is take a hard and cold look at the reality facing the American 
middle class and working families of this country.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, every week we have somebody from 
the President's administration coming before us, and they tell us the 
economy is doing great; it is marvelous. The people of Vermont and the 
middle class of this country don't believe it because every single day 
they are seeing an economy which is forcing them, in many instances, to 
work longer hours for lower wages, an economy in which they wonder how 
their kids are going to get decent-paying jobs, an economy which 
suggests that for the first time in the modern history of our country, 
our children, if we do not change our direction, could have a lower 
standard of living than we do.
  What the American dream has been about is that our parents worked 
hard so that we could have a better life than they did, and that is 
what we want for our kids. But unless we make fundamental changes in 
the way this economy is working, the likelihood is that our kids, 
despite a huge increase in worker productivity, despite technology, 
will have a lower standard of living than we do, and we must not allow 
that to happen.
  Since President Bush has been in office, more than 5 million 
Americans have slipped into poverty. We are seeing an increase in the 
rate of poverty in the United States, including 1 million more 
children. Not only does the United States have the highest rate of 
poverty of any major country on Earth, we also, shamefully, have the 
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world.
  I know there is a whole lot of talk about moral values on the floors 
of the Senate and the House. To my mind, having the highest rate of 
childhood poverty in the industrialized world is not a moral value. It 
is a disgrace. It is a shame. It is time we in this country paid 
attention to the children rather than the wealthiest people.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the childhood poverty rate is 
nearly 18 percent. Other studies suggest that it might be higher.
  Some people say: Well, that's the way it goes. Well, that is not the 
way it goes among other major countries in the world. In Germany, the 
childhood poverty rate is 9 percent; in France, it is less than 8 
percent; in Sweden, it is less than 7 percent; in Norway, 4.2 percent; 
in Finland, 3.4 percent. If other countries can have childhood poverty 
rates of less than 5 percent, so can the United States of America.
  Just one example. Our allies in Great Britain made a commitment to 
end childhood poverty and they have reduced the childhood poverty rate 
by over 20 percent since 1999. At the same time, child poverty in the 
United States increased by 12 percent. If we make the commitment, we 
can do that.

  Let's take a look at our health care situation. The costs of health 
care, as everybody in this country knows, are soaring. The number of 
people without health insurance has risen to a record high of 46.4 
million in the year 2005. That is an increase of almost 7 million more 
Americans lacking health insurance since President Bush took office.
  While the President continues to cut taxes for millionaires and 
billionaires, the lack of health insurance kills many more Americans 
each year than September 11 and Katrina combined. In fact, the National 
Academy of Sciences estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year 
because they lack health insurance.
  In my view, the United States of America must join the rest of the 
industrialized world. We must guarantee health care to all of our 
people as a right of citizenship. While I know some

[[Page S2911]]

people say we can't afford to do it, I would argue that at a time when 
we are spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as 
any major nation on Earth, we can do that. We can provide quality 
health care to every man, woman, and child as a right of citizenship 
without spending a nickel more than we are presently spending. But to 
do that, we must be honest. We are going to have to take on the 
insurance companies. We are going to have to take on the drug 
companies. We are going to have to take on the multinational 
corporations that benefit out of our health care system and say that 
when we spend money for health care, it should go to health care not 
for profiteering.
  Health care is not just a human rights issue, it is not just a moral 
issue, it is an economic issue as well. Small businesses cannot survive 
if they are forced to pay huge increases in health care premiums each 
and every year. That is true in the State of Vermont. That is true all 
over America. More and more small businesses are simply saying: We 
can't do it; we can't provide health insurance to our workers--which is 
one of the reasons the number of uninsured is going up.
  In addition to the health care crisis, there is an area within health 
care that I want to focus a lot of attention on, and that is the crisis 
in dental care. In rural America, in rural Vermont it is becoming very 
difficult for people to find a dentist. The Surgeon General has 
reported that tooth decay has become the single most common chronic 
childhood disease, five times more common than asthma and seven times 
more common than hay fever.
  I will be introducing legislation to address the dental crisis in 
this country. I do not want to see kids in schools have teeth rotting 
in their mouths. We can do better than that.
  In terms of education, millions of middle-class American families are 
finding it increasingly difficult to afford the escalating cost of a 
college education with average tuition and other costs increasing by 
more than $4,300 at a 4-year public university and over $8,000 at a 4-
year private college since 2001.
  We all understand that young people are not going to make it into the 
middle class unless they get a college education. We all understand 
that our Nation is not going to be economically competitive if our 
young people do not get the best college education they possibly can. 
Yet all over our country, middle-class families are saying: How am I 
going to be able to afford to send my kids to college? And young people 
are graduating college on average about $20,000 in debt. If they are 
lower income, they may come out of college $30,000, $40,000 in debt.
  If we are serious in what we say about the importance of education, 
we have to make college education affordable to every family in this 
country. We don't want to lose the intellectual capital of millions of 
young people who are sitting there wondering: Can I afford to go to 
college? Do I want to come out of college deeply in debt?
  Last year, 35 million Americans in our country, the richest country 
in the history of the world, struggled to put food on the table--
struggled to put food on the table. The Agriculture Department recently 
reported that the number of the poorest, hungriest Americans keeps 
going up.
  What is going on in this great country when more and more of our 
fellow Americans are going hungry and are struggling to put food on the 
table? This should not be happening in America. But it is not only 
hunger, we have an affordable crisis in housing as well. Today millions 
of working Americans are paying 50 to 60 percent of their limited 
incomes to put a roof over their heads, and we have families in the 
United States of America--families--who are sleeping in their cars, 
children who are sleeping in cars, and we have people, as we all know, 
who continue to sleep out on the streets of cities and towns all over 
America.
  Last year, there were 1.2 million home foreclosures in this country, 
an increase of 42 percent since 2005.
  When we talk about the needs of the middle class, it is not just 
affordable housing. The issue of energy is a prominent issue that must 
be addressed. The cost of energy has risen rapidly. Since President 
Bush has been in office, oil prices have more than doubled and gasoline 
prices have gone up by 70 percent since January of 2001, and gas prices 
are soaring as I speak. In rural States, such as my State of Vermont, 
such as Minnesota, workers get into their cars, they fill up their gas 
tanks, and suddenly they are finding that increased cost is coming 
right out of their paycheck. They are not making much more money. The 
cost of gas is going up.

  In America today, the bottom line is that millions of American 
workers are working longer hours for lower wages. The median income for 
working-age families has declined 5 years in a row. Husbands are 
working long hours, wives are working long hours, kids in high school 
are working trying to make ends meet, and in many instances people are 
falling further and further behind.
  Today, incredible as it may sound, the personal savings rate in 
America is below zero, and that has not happened since the Great 
Depression of the 1930s. In other words, all over this country, working 
people and people in the middle class are purchasing groceries and 
other basic necessities with their credit cards and are going, in the 
process, deeper and deeper in debt.
  Over the past 6 years, when we talk about the economy and decent-
paying jobs, we should recognize that as a nation, we have lost 3 
million manufacturing jobs which often pay people good wages and good 
benefits. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 10,000 
manufacturing jobs in the last 6 years, which is 20 percent of the 
manufacturing jobs in our small State.
  The reality is that if somebody loses their manufacturing job and 
they are lucky enough to find another job, in most cases, that other 
job will pay substantially lower wages and have worse benefits than the 
manufacturing job they have lost.
  Today, 3 million fewer American workers have pension coverage than 
when President Bush took office, and half of private sector American 
workers have no pension coverage whatsoever. I have long been involved 
in the struggle to make sure that workers have been able to retain the 
pensions that were promised to them by their employers. But we are 
seeing more and more workers who have enormous pension anxiety: Is the 
pension that was promised to me 20 years ago when I began to work in 
this company going to be there when I need it, when I retire? More and 
more workers are finding that will not be the case.
  One thing we do not often talk about is just how hard the people in 
our country are working. We kind of forget about that. But the fact is, 
the people, working people in this country, now work the longest hours 
of any people in the industrialized world. In my State of Vermont, it 
is absolutely not uncommon to see people who are working not one job, 
not two jobs, but on occasion working three jobs trying to cobble 
together an income, trying to cobble together some health care for 
their families. People are working 50 hours, 60 hours, 70 hours.
  The New York Times reported a while back that the idea of the 2-week 
paid vacation is becoming something of history. So we have people who 
are working 51 weeks a year, and there are people working 52 weeks a 
year. That is what is going on in the middle class and working families 
of our country.
  The reason I raise these issues is that it is terribly important to 
bring a dose of reality to the floor of the Senate.
  When the President tells us the economy is doing great, the truth is 
that he is right, in one sense. The economy is not doing well for the 
middle class. It is not doing well for working families. Poverty is 
increasing. But the President is right when he says the economy is 
doing well for the wealthiest people in this country. That is true. The 
rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is 
increasing. That is the reality.
  The reality is that the upper 1 percent of the families in America 
today, that 1 percent has not had it so good since the 1920s. According 
to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 
Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. The 
400 wealthiest Americans are worth $1.25 trillion.
  Sadly, the United States today--and I know we don't talk about this 
too much, but it is important to bring it out on the table--the United 
States

[[Page S2912]]

today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth of any major 
country on Earth and the most unequal distribution of income of any 
major country on Earth, and that gap between the rich and everybody 
else is growing wider. Today, the wealthiest 13,000 families in America 
earn nearly as much income as the bottom 20 million, and the wealthiest 
1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Let me repeat 
that: 13,000 families earn almost as much income as the bottom 20 
million, and the richest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 
percent. That trend is very dangerous for our country. It suggests we 
are moving in the direction of an oligarchy, where a small number of 
people have incredible wealth and, with that wealth, incredible power, 
at the same time as the vast majority of our people are struggling just 
to keep their heads above water. We as a nation can do a lot better 
than that.
  According to a December 2006 report by the Congressional Budget 
Office, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 percent of 
households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004. After 
adjusting for inflation, that is a 1-year increase of nearly $146,000, 
or 20 percent. This represents the largest increase in 15 years 
measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.
  Now, what does that mean in English? What it means in English is that 
the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well, that 
is what it means, while a lot of other people are struggling very hard 
to keep their families afloat.
  Why have I given this overview of the state of the economy? I have 
given this overview because I believe we need a budget that begins to 
address the realities I have just discussed. We need a budget that says 
to the middle class and working families and low-income Americans: We 
know you are hurting; we are on your side. At the same time, we need a 
budget that says to the very wealthiest people in this country: You 
know what, you are part of America, too. Your incomes are soaring. If 
you are a CEO of a large corporation, you are making 400 times what the 
worker in your company is making. You know what, we want you to be part 
of America, and you have to make some sacrifices so the people in this 
country don't go hungry and so working-class kids can get a college 
education. Join America. Don't be separate with your huge incomes.
  The President has just, as you know, introduced his budget. He has 
told us that in his budget, the United States does not have enough 
money to meet the health care needs of this country. His response is to 
inadequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and to cut 
Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade.
  The President has told us we don't have enough money to take care of 
our veterans, and we all have seen recently what has been going on at 
Walter Reed Hospital. The President has said that despite the fact that 
we have 22,000 wounded in Iraq and that we have veterans on waiting 
lists all over this country, we just don't have the money to take care 
of our veterans.
  The President has told us we don't have enough money for childcare; 
we don't have enough money for dental care; we don't have enough money 
for special education; we don't have enough money to address the crisis 
in global warming; we don't have enough money to make sure qualified 
students have access to a quality education without going deeply into 
debt.
  The President has told us we don't have enough money to fully fund 
Head Start, that we don't have enough money to expand the earned income 
tax credit.
  That is what the President has told us.
  The President, in his budget, has also told us something else. The 
President has said we don't have enough money for the needs of the 
middle class and working families, but we do have enough money to 
provide $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent and that 
we really don't have to take a hard look at the Pentagon and all the 
waste, the fraud, and the unnecessary weapons systems that are in that 
institution.
  In my view, these upside-down priorities have to be changed, and that 
is the responsibility of this Senate. The bill I am introducing today 
will begin to turn our national priorities in a very different 
direction from that which the President is suggesting.
  The National Priorities Act will repeal tax breaks for the wealthiest 
1 percent in 2008 and eliminate $60 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse 
at the Pentagon and use that money to do the following. In other words, 
what we are doing is we are going to ask our wealthy friends who have 
received huge tax breaks to start paying a little bit more in taxes. We 
are going to ask the Pentagon to take a hard look at their huge budget 
and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We are going to be raising about 
$130 billion to do that.
  Now, let me tell you what we can do with that $130 billion. We can 
provide health care services for over 4 million Americans by increasing 
investments in federally qualified health centers and by raising funds 
substantially for the National Health Service Corps. In my State and 
all over America, federally qualified health centers are providing 
cost-effective quality health care to millions of people. By increasing 
funding and expanding these programs, putting more money into these 
programs, we can provide high-quality health care, dental care, mental 
health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs, and we can do it in 
a cost-effective way. We can make a serious effort to provide primary 
health care to every man, woman, and child in this country. That is 
what we can do.
  We can expand access to dental care. By providing $140 million more 
for workforce, capital, and equipment needed, we can address in a 
significant way the dental care crisis in this country.
  We can provide health insurance to over 8 million children not 
covered by expanding the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance 
Program, by over $15 billion. In my State of Vermont, almost all of our 
kids have health insurance. The rest of our country should move in that 
direction. It is not acceptable that children in America do not have 
health insurance. We can do that through this legislation.
  We can address the crisis in terms of inadequate funding in the VA 
and make sure that all of our veterans get the health care they were 
promised, the health care they deserve. That is what this budget does.
  We also, in this budget, ensure that working families with children 
have access to affordable childcare by increasing investments in the 
childcare development block grant by over $2 billion. It is a national 
outrage that all over this country working families cannot find good, 
quality affordable childcare. Single moms are going off to work, and 
they are worried. They worry deeply about the quality of care their 
children are receiving. It is a major crisis. This legislation provides 
the funds to address that crisis.
  Head Start has been a successful program. This legislation provides 
the funding to allow every qualified child in America to receive early 
education, nutrition, and health services by fully funding the Head 
Start Program.
  In my State of Vermont and, again, all over this country, higher and 
higher property taxes are causing very serious problems for middle-
class families, splitting communities apart. This legislation will 
lower property taxes by keeping the Federal commitment to provide 40 
percent of the cost of special education for about 7 million children 
with disabilities. Mainstreaming kids with disabilities is a good idea. 
It is the right thing to do. The Federal Government has not kept the 
promises it has made to school districts all over this country. We have 
to increase funding substantially for special education, not, as the 
President wants, cut funding for special education. This bill does 
that.
  This bill provides an additional 330,000 students with Pell grants 
and increases its purchasing power for over 5.4 million other students 
by doubling the maximum Pell grant. In other words, we want our young 
people to be able to go to college. We do not want them to come out in 
debt. This legislation does that.
  This legislation instills low-income high school students with the 
skills and opportunity they need to go to college by increasing the 
TRIO and GEAR UP education programs by 50 percent.
  This legislation creates more than 200,000 jobs by increasing 
investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient appliances, public 
transportation, and

[[Page S2913]]

high-speed rail. By making our environment cleaner, by attacking and 
reversing global warming, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs. 
That is what this legislation does.
  This legislation addresses the crisis in affordable housing by 
creating 180,000 jobs in constructing, preserving, and rehabilitating 
affordable housing rental units.
  This legislation reduces taxes by $400 to $1,134 per year for 10 
million American workers and families with children by expanding the 
earned-income tax credit.
  This legislation reduces the deficit by $30 billion.
  To be very honest, I do not expect this legislation to be passed 
tomorrow, probably not even the next day. What this legislation is 
doing, though, is providing the Congress with a blueprint, and it is a 
very simple blueprint. It says: Which side are you on? It says that 
when those people who come before us and say: Yes, we understand there 
is a health care crisis; we just can't afford to do anything about it; 
we understand there is a childcare crisis, there is a housing crisis, 
there is a crisis in terms of the affordability of higher education, 
but we just can't do anything about it. We just don't have the money. 
What this legislation does is say: Yes, we do have the money. We do 
have the money if we rescind the tax breaks that go to millionaires and 
billionaires, if we ask the Pentagon to preserve, to make sure we 
continue to have all the resources we need for our soldiers and the 
strongest military in the world but take a hard look at waste, fraud, 
abuse, and weapons systems we don't need. If you do those two things, 
we can come up with $130 billion. With that $130 billion, we can 
address the major problems facing our country, and we can lower our 
deficit.
  I hope that my fellow colleagues will give serious thought to this 
legislation and that we can move it forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 819. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for 
charitable purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by Senators 
Snowe, Kerry, Smith, Schumer, Lincoln and Coleman in re-introducing 
legislation we call the Public Good IRA Rollover Act. This legislation 
allows taxpayers to make tax-free distributions from their individual 
retirement accounts (IRAs) for gifts to charity.
  Last summer, the Congress passed and the President signed into law a 
major bill to reform our pension laws. This 392-page bill contained a 
little noticed but important new charitable giving tax incentive. For 
the first time, taxpayers who have reached age 70\1/2\ are allowed to 
give money directly from their IRAs to qualifying charities on a tax-
free basis without worrying about complicated adjusted gross income and 
other restrictions that otherwise apply to tax deductible charitable 
contributions. The charitable IRA rollover provision in H.R. 4 applies 
only for direct IRA gifts, is capped and it is available for a limited 
time--expiring at the end of this year.
  In fact, the charitable IRA rollover provision in H.R. 4 adopted the 
same general approach of legislation for direct IRA gifts I have been 
working on called the Public Good IRA Rollover Act with several of my 
Senate colleagues for a number of years.
  Before I authored this legislation, I was told by many charities that 
potential donors frequently asked about using their IRAs to make 
charitable donations but decided against such gifts after they were 
told about the potential tax consequences under then-current tax law. I 
am pleased to report that the charitable community is already feeling 
the positive impact of the new charitable IRA rollover measure. 
According to a limited survey conducted by the National Committee on 
Planned Giving thousands of IRA gifts totaling nearly $60 million have 
been made to eligible charities since the tax-free IRA rollover 
provision was enacted into law last August.
  I'm told that the IRA rollovers have resulted in significant gifts in 
North Dakota. It reportedly inspired a donor to Lutheran Social 
Services of North Dakota to contribute $15,000, an amount higher than 
the donor's typical gift. This charitable gift will help the 
organization to continue its diverse programs in such areas as adoption 
services, counseling for at-risk youth, economic self-sufficiency for 
refugees, and services for farmers and ranchers. Lutheran Social 
Services believes that the IRA rollover provision encourages people to 
give more and to continue giving. University of Mary reportedly 
received IRA gifts of over $250,000 in 2006. The Theodore Roosevelt 
Medora Foundation received an IRA gift of $80,000. Ducks Unlimited 
received eleven IRA gifts in 2006 totaling nearly $190,000 and expects 
even more in 2007. Jamestown College reportedly received nine IRA gifts 
in 2006 totaling over $112,000. Other North Dakota charities, including 
Catholic Health Services for Western North Dakota, have benefited from 
IRA gifts as well.
  The charitable IRA rollover has resulted in similar stories across 
the Nation. For example, Goodwill Industries of West Michigan has 
received several contributions as a direct result of the rollover 
provision and believes the provision is resonating with donors. A local 
physician made the single biggest IRA rollover donation of $10,000. The 
physician was not previously a Goodwill donor. This $10,000 donation 
will completely support a homeless family for up to six months in the 
organization's transitional housing and employment program for homeless 
families. This is just one example illustrating the success of the 
charitable IRA rollover but there are dozens of similar stories across 
the country.
  The results are undeniable: the temporary charitable IRA rollover 
incentive is working well and making a difference in the lives of 
people who are assisted by the Nation's charities. And the Public Good 
IRA Rollover Act that we are re-introducing today builds upon last 
year's temporary measure by removing its current dollar cap, expanding 
it to allow taxpayers who have attained age 59\1/2\ to make life-income 
gifts and by making it a permanent part of the Tax Code.
  As a Nation, we depend on a strong, active network of charities, 
small and large, to offer financial and other support to families and 
individuals who need help when government assistance is unavailable. 
That is why I think it's critically important for Congress to do 
everything possible to help encourage the work of worthy charities. 
Permanently extending and expanding the temporary charitable IRA 
rollover in current law will go a long way in that direction.
  A senior official from a major charity once said the charitable IRA 
rollover would be ``the single most important piece of legislation in 
the history of public charitable support in this country.'' The reason 
is the Public Good IRA Rollover Act eliminates major tax obstacles to 
charitable giving. Specifically, our bill would allow individuals to 
make tax-free distributions to charities from their IRAs at the age of 
70\1/2\ for direct gifts and age 59\1/2\ for life-income gifts. These 
changes to the Tax Code will put billions of additional dollars from a 
new source to work for the public good in the years ahead.
  The charitable IRA rollover approach in this legislation has been 
endorsed by over 530 charitable organizations operating in 46 States 
and the District of Columbia, including: AARP, the American Cancer 
Society, the American Red Cross and American Heart Association, 
America's Second Harvest, American Association of Museums, Big Brothers 
Big Sisters of America, Ducks Unlimited, Easter Seals, Goodwill, 
Lutheran Services of America, March of Dimes, the Salvation Army, 
United Jewish Communities, United Way of America, Volunteers of 
America, YMCA of the USA, Prairie Public Broadcasting, the North Dakota 
Community Foundation and many others. In addition, the U.S. Senate is 
previously on record in support of the Public Good IRA Rollover Act. In 
doing so, the Senate recognized that the charitable IRA rollover is an 
important tool for charities to use to raise the funds they need to 
serve those in need, especially when government assistance is not 
available.
  The Bush Administration supports charitable IRA rollovers. In his 
fiscal year 2008 budget submission, President Bush has proposed making 
permanent the limited tax-free charitable IRA distribution provision 
passed last summer

[[Page S2914]]

that is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. While the 
President's charitable IRA proposal has merit, the Public Good IRA 
Rollover Act is superior in one important respect: by allowing tax-
favored life-income gifts from an IRA whose owner has attained the age 
of 59\1/2\.
  In addition to direct IRA gifts, many charities use life-income gifts 
to secure funding commitments today to meet their future needs. Life-
income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where the 
giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined period. 
Many people would like to give part or all of their IRAs to charity, 
but need the retirement income from their IRAs. Allowing them to roll 
over their IRAs at age 59\1/2\ or older to a charity's life-income plan 
would allow them to secure retirement income and make a charitable 
commitment. The charities could plan on receiving the gift after the 
life interest terminates.
  The benefit of allowing life-income gifts at an earlier age is two-
fold. First, the life-income gift provision in our bill would stimulate 
additional charitable giving. Second, the evidence also suggests that 
people who make life-income gifts often become more involved with 
charities. They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues 
to make charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions 
for charity in their life-time giving plans and at death.
  Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise funds, 
and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from IRAs 
without adverse tax consequences. But life-income gifts are not part of 
the Administration's proposal. Again, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act 
permits individuals to make tax-favored life-income gifts at the age of 
59\1/2\.
  In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to review and consider 
cosponsoring this bill. With your help, we can permanently enact into 
law tax-free IRA rollover provisions that charities say is needed to 
encourage billions of dollars in new giving that will provide 
assistance to those who need it most.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and a letter 
from charitable organizations that have endorsed the Public Good IRA 
Rollover Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 8, 2007.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Dorgan and Snowe: We, the undersigned 
     organizations, representing millions of volunteers, donors, 
     and recipients of services who are part of America's 
     nonprofit community, strongly support the ``Public Good IRA 
     Rollover Act of 2007.''
       Since it was enacted in August 2006, the current IRA 
     Charitable Rollover has helped nonprofits enrich lives and 
     strengthen communities across the country and around the 
     world. By eliminating the barrier in the tax law that had 
     previously discouraged transfers from Individual Retirement 
     Accounts to charities, the rollover has enabled Americans to 
     make millions of dollars of new contributions to the 
     nonprofits--including hospitals, museums, educational 
     institutions, and religious organizations--that benefit 
     people every day.
       The IRA Charitable Rollover is scheduled to expire at the 
     end of 2007. It permits eligible IRA owners to make direct 
     gifts to eligible charities from their IRAs without suffering 
     a tax penalty. Beginning at age 70\1/2\, all IRA owners are 
     required to take annual minimum distributions, even if they 
     do not need the income. With the charitable rollover, those 
     who have accumulated more assets than they need in their IRAs 
     can use the distribution and other money in their accounts to 
     support the services and programs of nonprofits. The IRA 
     Rollover is particularly helpful for older Americans who do 
     not itemize their tax deductions and would not otherwise 
     receive any tax benefit for their charitable contributions.
       These advantages are the reason we appreciate your 
     sponsorship of the ``Public Good IRA Rollover Act of 2007'' 
     and why we ask that you aggressively push this critical 
     legislation. It would build on the success of the current IRA 
     Rollover by making it permanent, removing the current dollar 
     limit on donations per year, making all charities eligible to 
     receive donations, and providing IRA owners with a planned 
     giving option starting at age 59\1/2\.
       Thank you for your leadership in sponsoring the ``Public 
     Good IRA Rollover Act of 2007.'' We intend to work in 
     partnership with you to push for passage of this critical 
     legislation.
           Respectfully,
     Diana Aviv,
       President and CEO, Independent Sector.
     Tanya Howe Johnson,
       President and CEO, National Committee on Planned Giving.
       With the Undersigned Organizations.

  Organizations in Support of The Public Good IRA Rollover Act of 2007

       AACA Museum, Inc., Hershey, PA; AARP, Washington, DC; 
     Acadiana Outreach Center, Lafayette, LA; AFL-CIO Community 
     Services Agency, St. Joseph, MO; Alameda Hospital Foundation, 
     Alameda, CA; Alamo Community College District Foundation, 
     Inc., San Antonio, TX; Alaska Planned Giving Council, 
     Anchorage, AK; Alberta Bair Theater for the Performing Arts, 
     Billings, MT; Albion Volunteer Service Organization, Albion, 
     MI; Allegany Franciscan Ministries, Clearwater, FL; Allegheny 
     College, Meadville, PA; ALL-GA, Atlanta, GA; Alliance for 
     Children and Families, Milwaukee, WI; Aloha United Way, 
     Honolulu, HI; American Arts Alliance, Washington, DC; 
     American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, 
     Washington, DC; American Association of Museums, Washington, 
     DC; American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 
     Disabilities, Washington, DC; American Autoimmune Related 
     Diseases Association, E. Detroit/Eastpointe, MI; American 
     Bible Society, New York, NY.
       American Cancer Society, Washington, DC; American Cancer 
     Society Cancer Action Network, Washington, DC; American 
     Council on Education, Washington, DC; American Dental 
     Association Foundation, Chicago, IL; American Heart 
     Association, Dallas, TX; American Humanics, Inc., Kansas 
     City, MO; American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington, 
     DC; American Land Conservancy, San Francisco, CA; American 
     Red Cross, Washington, DC; American Red Cross, Utica, NY; 
     American Red Cross Alabama Gulf Coast Chapter, Mobile, AL; 
     American Red Cross of New Canaan, New Canaan, CT; American 
     Red Cross of Upper Northumberland County, Milton, PA; 
     American Red Cross, Hawaii State Chapter, Honolulu, HI; 
     American Red Cross, Heart of Oklahoma Chapter, Norman, OK; 
     American Red Cross-Greater Kansas City Chapter, Kansas City, 
     MO; American Society of Association Executives, Washington, 
     DC; American Symphony Orchestra League, New York, NY; 
     Americans for the Arts, Washington, DC; America's Second 
     Harvest--The Nation's Food Bank Network, Chicago, IL.
       Amherst College, Amherst, MA; Amizade, Pittsburgh, PA; 
     Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI; Archdiocese of 
     Kansas City in Kansas, Kansas City, KS; ARK Consulting, 
     Houston, TX; Arkansas Foodbank Network, Little Rock, AR; 
     Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance, Little Rock, AR; ArtSpring, 
     Inc., Miami, FL; Ashland University, Ashland, OH; Associated 
     Prevailing Wage Contractors, Inc., Ruston, LA; ASSOCIATED: 
     Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD; 
     Association of American Universities, Washington, DC; 
     Association of Art Museum Directors, Washington, DC; 
     Association of Fundraising Professionals, Arlington, VA; 
     Association of Jewish Aging Service of North America, 
     Washington, DC; Association of Jewish Family & Children's 
     Agencies, East Brunswick, IL; Association of Performing Arts 
     Presenters, Washington, DC; Association for the Blind & 
     Visually Impaired--Goodwill of Greater Rochester, Rochester, 
     NY; Augustana College, Rock Island, IL; AVANCE, Inc., San 
     Antonio, TX; Baker University, Baldwin City, KS; Bardmoor 
     YMCA, Largo, FL.
       Baton Rouge Area Foundation, Baton Rouge, LA; Bee, Bergvall 
     & Co, Certified Public Accountants, Warrington PA; Bethesda 
     Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc., Watertown, WI; Better 
     Health of Cumberland County, Inc., Fayetteville, NC; Big 
     Brothers Big Sisters of America, Philadelphia, PA; Big 
     Brothers Big Sisters of Butte-Silver Bow, Inc., Butte, MT; 
     Big Brothers Big Sisters of Honolulu, Inc., Honolulu, HI; 
     Billings Clinic Foundation, Billings, MT; B'nai B'rith 
     International, Washington, DC; Brightest Horizons, Fort 
     Myers, FL; Brown University, Providence, RI; Bucks County 
     Center for Nonprofit Management, Warrington, PA; Butler 
     County United Way, Hamilton, OH; Butte Emergency Food Bank, 
     Butte, MT; California Association of Nonprofits, Los Angeles, 
     CA; California Baptist Foundation, Fresno, CA; California 
     State University, Long Beach, CA; Camp Fire USA, Kansas City, 
     MO; Camp Fire USA Buckeye Council, Fremont, OH; Camp Fire USA 
     Central Oregon Council, Bend, OR; Camp Fire USA Portland 
     Metro Council, Portland, OR; Camp Fire USA Snohomish County, 
     Everett, WA.
       Camp Fire USA Wathana Council, Southfield, MI; Camp Fire 
     USA West Michigan Council, Grands Rapids MI; Capital Region 
     Community Foundation, Lansing, MI; A Carousel for Missoula 
     Foundation, Inc., Missoula, MT; Carroll College, Helena, MT; 
     Casa Esperanza, Inc., Albuquerque, NM; CASE, Washington, DC; 
     Catholic Charities, Galesburg, IL; Catholic Charities CYO of 
     the Archdiocese of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Catholic 
     Charities Diocese of Greensburg, PA, Greensburg, PA; Catholic 
     Charities Diocese of Peoria, Peoria, IL; Catholic Charities 
     of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO; Catholic Charities 
     of Galveston-Houston, Houston, TX; Catholic Charities of 
     Kansas City-St. Joseph, Kansas City, MO; Catholic Charities 
     of Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO;

[[Page S2915]]

     Catholic Charities of Southeast Texas, Beaumont, TX; Catholic 
     Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Chicago, IL; 
     Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, 
     Houston, TX; Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria, 
     West Peoria, IL; Catholic Charities USA, Alexandria, VA; 
     Catholic Charities, Diocese of Norwich, Inc., Norwich, CT; 
     Catholic Charities, Diocese of Trenton, Trenton, NJ.
       Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona, Tucson, 
     AZ; Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Wilmington, DE; Catholic 
     Foundation of the Diocese of Lincoln, Lincoln, NE; Catholic 
     Social Services, Inc., Columbus, OH; The Catholic University 
     of America, Washington, DC; Cedar Valley United Way, 
     Waterloo, IA; Cedarhurst Center for the Arts--John R. & 
     Eleanor R. Mitchell Foundation, Mt. Vernon, IL; Center for 
     Community Building, Inc., Harrisburg, PA; Center for 
     Humanistic Change, Bethlehem, PA; Center for Non-Profit 
     Corporations (NJ), North Brunswick, NJ; Center for Nonprofit 
     Excellence, Colorado Springs, CO; Central Louisiana Community 
     Foundation, Alexandria, LA; Central Methodist University, 
     Fayette, MO; The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana 
     University, Indianapolis, IN; Children's Healthcare of 
     Atlanta, Atlanta, GA; The Children's Museum of Northeast 
     Montana, Glasgow, MT; Christchurch School, Christchurch, VA; 
     Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, 
     OH; Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, Cincinnati, OH; City 
     Year, Inc., Boston, MA; Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, 
     CA; Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.
       College Misericordia, Dallas, PA; Colorado Nonprofit 
     Association, Denver, CO; The Columbus Foundation, Columbus, 
     OH; Combined Jewish Philanthropies, Boston, MA; Communities 
     In Schools, Inc., Alexandria, VA; The Community Foundation 
     for Greater Atlanta, Inc., Atlanta, GA; The Community 
     Foundation for the National Capital Region, Washington, DC; 
     Community Foundation of Decatur/Macon County, Decatur, IL; 
     Community Foundation of Lorain County, Lorain, OH; Community 
     Foundation of Southwest Missouri, Carthage, MO; Community 
     Foundation of the Great River Bend, Davenport, IA; Community 
     Foundation of Waterloo/Cedar Falls and Northeast Iowa, 
     Waterloo, IA; Community Living, Inc., St. Peters, MO; 
     Community Mediation Center, Bozeman, MT; Community Resource 
     Center, Manchester, MI; Community Theater Project Corp./
     Kelly-Strayhorn Theater, Pittsburgh, PA; CompassPoint 
     Nonprofit Services, San Francisco, CA; Connecticut 
     Association of Nonprofits, Hartford, CT; ConnectMichigan 
     Alliance, Lansing, MI; Conservation Congress, Lewistown, MT; 
     Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc (CARE), 
     Washington, DC.
       Coro Center for Civic Leadership, Pittsburgh, PA; Council 
     on Foundations, Washington, DC; County United Way, 
     Cumberland, MD; The Cradle Foundation, Evanston, IL; Crocker 
     Art Museum Association, Sacramento, CA; Dance/USA, 
     Washington, DC; DCOSA Foundation, Tuscalo; The DELTA 
     Community, Harrisburg, PA; Detroit Newspapers in Education/
     Michigan KIDS, Inc., Detroit, MI; Diocese of Allentown, PA; 
     Diocese of St. Augustine, Jacksonville, FL; Directions for 
     Youth & Families, Columbus, OH; Donors Forum of Chicago, 
     Chicago, IL., Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, TN; Easter Seals 
     Arkansas, Little Rock, AR; Easter Seals, Inc., Chicago, IL; 
     Elderhostel, Boston, MA; Elmhurst Art Museum, Elmhurst, IL; 
     Employee & Family Resources, Inc., Des Moines, IA; Employment 
     Opportunity & Training Center--EOTC, Scranton, PA; Episcopal 
     Collegiate School Foundation, Little Rock, AR; The Episcopal 
     Foundation of Northern California, Sacramento, CA; Estamos 
     Unidos de PA, Harrisburg, PA.
       The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 
     CA; Fargo-Moorhead Area Foundation, Fargo, ND; First Baptist 
     Church of Indian Rocks, Largo, FL; Flathead Valley Community 
     College Foundation, Kalispell, MT; Florida Philanthropic 
     Network, Winter Park, FL; Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, 
     Inc., Live Oak, FL; Fonkoze USA, New York, NY; The Forbes 
     Funds, Pittsburgh, PA; The Fowler Center, Mayville, MI; 
     Franciscan Foundation, Tacoma, WA; The Fuller Foundation, 
     Pasadena, CA; The George Washington University, Washington, 
     DC; Georgia Center for Nonprofits, Atlanta, GA; Girl Scouts 
     of Eastern South Carolina, North Charleston, SC; Girl Scouts 
     of Northwest North Dakota, Minot, ND; Girls Incorporated, New 
     York, NY; Glacier National Park Fund, Whitefish, MT; GLSEN--
     the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, New York, 
     NY; Goodwill Industries Foundation of Central Indiana, 
     Indianapolis, IN; Goodwill Industries International, Inc., 
     Rockville, MD; Goodwill Industries of Central Virginia, Inc., 
     Richmond, VA; Goodwill Industries of Northeast Iowa, Inc., 
     Waterloo, IL.
       Goodwill Industries of Northern Michigan, Inc., Traverse 
     City, MI; Goodwill Industries of Northern New England, 
     Portland, ME; Goodwill Industries of Northern New England, 
     Portland, ME; Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, 
     Inc., Oakland, CA; Goodwill industries of the Greater East 
     Bay, Inc., Oakland, CA; Goodwill Industries of the Valleys, 
     Inc., Roanoke, VA; Goodwill Southern California, Los Angeles, 
     CA; Goodwill Theatre, Inc., Johnson City, NY; Goodwill/Easter 
     Seals Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Grand Rapids Community 
     Foundation, Grand Rapids, MI; Greater Columbus Arts Council, 
     Columbus, OH; Greater Des Moines Community Foundation, Des 
     Moines, IA; Greater Gallatin United Way, Bozeman, MT; Greater 
     Miami Jewish Federation, Miami, FL; Greater Milwaukee 
     Foundation, Milwaukee, WI; Greater Pittsburgh Nonprofit 
     Partnership; Pittsburgh, PA; Greater Twin Cities United Way, 
     Mpls--St. Paul, MN; Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc., 
     Bozeman, MT; Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA; Gulf Coast 
     Community Foundation of Venice, Venice, FL; Habitat for 
     Humanity International, Americus, GA; Habitat for Humanity of 
     Gallatin Valley, Belgrade, MT; Hale Kipa, Inc., Honolulu, HI; 
     Hathaway Brown School, Cleveland, OH; Haven House, East 
     Lansing, MI.
       Health Focus of Southwest, Virginia, Roanoke, VA; Heart of 
     KY United Way, Danville, KY; The Henry Ford, Dearborn, MI; 
     Hina Mauka, Kaneohe, HI; Holy Redeemer Health System, 
     Huntingdon Valley, PA; Holy Trinity Catholic Church, 
     Bloomington, IL; Hope Primas, Norristown, PA; Hospice 
     Foundation of Jefferson County, Inc., Watertown, NY; The 
     Hospice Foundation of the Florida Suncoast, Clearwater, FL; 
     House of Healing, Erie, PA; HSHCRC Homes, Inc., Houston, TX; 
     Interfaith Housing Alliance, Inc., Frederick, MD; 
     International Association of Jewish Vocational Services, 
     Philadelphia, PA; International Kids Alliance Network, Auburn 
     Hills, MI; Izaak Walton League of America, Gaithersburg, MD; 
     Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Becket, MA; James P. Gills 
     Family Branch, YMCA of the Suncoast, New Port Richey, FL; 
     Janaka Foundation, Nevada City, CA; Jewish Board of Family & 
     Children's Services, New York, NY; Jewish Family & Children's 
     Service (Philadelphia, PA), Philadelphia, PA; Jewish Family & 
     Children's Service (Tucson, Arizona), Tucson, AZ.
       Jewish Family & Children's Service of San Antonio, San 
     Antonio, TX; Jewish Family & Children's Services of San 
     Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, San 
     Francisco, CA; Jewish Family & Community Services, 
     Jacksonville, FL; Jewish Family Service (Houston, TX), 
     Houston, TX; Jewish Family Service of Buffalo & Erie County, 
     Buffalo, NY; Jewish Family Service of Colorado, Denver, CO; 
     Jewish Family Service of Greater Harrisburg, Inc., 
     Harrisburg, PA; Jewish Family Service of Silicon Valley, Los 
     Gatos, CA; Jewish Family Services (Columbus, OH), Columbus, 
     OH; Jewish Family Services (Milwaukee, WI), Milwaukee, WI; 
     Jewish Family Services of Greater Kansas City, Overland Park, 
     KS; Jewish Federation of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Jewish 
     Federation of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, FL; Jewish 
     Federation of Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, MI; Jewish Social 
     Service Agency, Washington, DC; Jewish War Veterans of the 
     USA, Washington, DC; John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa 
     Monica, CA; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Juniata 
     College, Huntingdon, PA; Kellogg Community College, Battle 
     Creek, MI; Kelly Anne Dolan Memorial Fund, Ambler, PA; 
     Lafayette Animal Aid, Carencro, LA; Lake Forest Academy, Lake 
     Forest, IL.
       Lakeland Regional Medical Center Foundation, Lakeland, FL; 
     Land of Lincoln Goodwill Industries, Inc., Springfield, IL; 
     Land Trust Alliance, Washington, DC; Larned A. Waterman Iowa 
     Nonprofit Resource Center, Iowa City, IA; LCMS Foundation, 
     St. Louis, MO; Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, Inc., 
     Los Angeles, CA; Lee Memorial Health System Foundation, Fort 
     Myers, FL; Lenawee Community Foundation, Tecumseh, MI; 
     Looking For My Sister, Inc., Detroit, MI; Louisiana 
     Association of Nonprofits, Baton Rouge, LA; Louisiana 
     Methodist Children's Home, Ruston, LA; Louordesmont/Good 
     Shepherd, Clarks Summit, PA; Luther Manor, Wauwatosa, WI; 
     Lutheran Camping Corporation of Central Pa., Arnedtsville, 
     PA; Lutheran Hillside Village, Peoria, IL; Lutheran Senior 
     Services, St. Louis, MO; Lutheran Senior Services at 
     Heisinger Bluffs, Jefferson City, MO; Lutheran Services in 
     America, Washington, DC; Lutheran Services in Iowa, Waverly, 
     IA; Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota, Fargo, ND; 
     Madison Jewish Community Council and Jewish Social Services, 
     Madison, WI; Maine Association of Nonprofits, Portland, ME.
       March of Dimes, Washington, DC; Marianist Mission, Dayton, 
     OH; Marquette County Aging Services, Marquette, MI; 
     Marshalltown Area United Way, Marshalltown, IA; Maryland 
     Institute College of Art, Baltimore, MD; McLaughlin Research 
     Institute, Great Falls, MT; MedCentral Health System 
     Foundation, Mansfield, OH; Memorial Medical Center 
     Foundation, Long Beach, CA; Mends Compassionate Nursing Care 
     Registry, Inc., Miami, FL; Mennonite Brethren Foundation, 
     Hillsboro, KS; Mennonite Home Communities, Lancaster, PA; 
     Mental Health Kokua, Honolulu, HI; The Mentoring Partnership 
     of SW PA, Pittsburgh, PA; Meredith College, Raleigh, NC; 
     Metro United Way, Louisville, KY; Metropolitan Opera, New 
     York, NY; Michigan AmeriCorps Partnership, Detroit, MI; 
     Michigan Association for Local Public Health, Lansing, MI; 
     Michigan Association of United Ways, Lansing, MI; Michigan 
     Colleges Foundation, Southfield, MI; Michigan Conference 
     Association of Seventh-day Adventists, Lansing, MI; Michigan 
     Historical Center Foundation, Lansing, MI; Michigan Jewish 
     Conference, Lansing, MI.
       Michigan Nonprofit Association, Lansing, MI; Michigan 
     Resource Center for Health and Safety, Lansing MI; The Miller 
     Foundation, Battle Creek, MI; Milwaukee Achiever Literacy 
     Services, Inc., Milwaukee, WI; Milwaukee Jewish Federation, 
     Milwaukee, WI;

[[Page S2916]]

     Minnesota Orchestral Association, Minneapolis, MN; Minot 
     YMCA, Minot, ND; Mississippi Center for Nonprofits, Jackson, 
     MS; Mississippi Policy Forum, Jackson, MS; Mississippi 
     University for Women Foundation, Columbus, MS; Missoula Food 
     Bank, Missoula, MT; Montana Food Bank Network, Missoula, MT; 
     Montana History Foundation, Helena, MT; Montana Nonprofit 
     Association, Helena, MT; Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries, 
     Boston, MA; Morristown Memorial Health Foundation, 
     Morristown, NJ; Mt. Pleasant Community Development 
     Corporation, Inc., Monroe, LA; Myasthenia Gravis Association, 
     Southfield, MI; NAMI Orange County (National Alliance on 
     Mental Illness), Santa Ana, CA; National Association for 
     Visually Handicapped, New York, NY; National Association of 
     Independent Schools, Washington, DC; National Audubon 
     Society, Washington, DC.
       National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and 
     Visually Impaired, St. Louis, MO; National Human Services 
     Assembly, Washington, DC; National MS Society, Maryland 
     Chapter, Owings Mills, MD; National Multiple Sclerosis 
     Society, New York City, NY; National Multiple Sclerosis 
     Society, Pacific South Coast Chapter, Carlsbad, CA; National 
     Multiple Sclerosis Society, Tampa Florida, Tampa, FL; 
     National Schizophrenia Foundation, Lansing, MI; The Nature 
     Conservancy, Arlington, VA; The Navigators, Colorado Springs, 
     CO; Neighborhood Housing Services Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; 
     Neighborhood Service Organization, Detroit, MI; Neighbors for 
     Better Neighborhoods, Winston-Salem, NC; The Network Against 
     Sexual and Domestic Abuse, Bozeman, MT; New Orleans 
     Neighborhood Development Collaborative, New Orleans, LA; New 
     York University, New York, NY; Niagara University, Niagara 
     University, NY; NJ State Association of Jewish Federations, 
     Union, NJ; The Nonprofit Center, Tacoma, WA; Nonprofit 
     Coordinating Committee of New York, Inc., New York, NY; 
     Nonprofit Network, Vancouver, WA; Nonprofit Resource Center, 
     Sacramento, CA; Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington, 
     Washington, DC.
       North Carolina Center for Nonprofits, Raleigh, NC; North 
     Carolina Zoological Society, Inc., Asheboro, NC; North Coast 
     Opportunities, Ukiah, CA; North Country Trail Association, 
     Lowell, MI; The North Dakota Community Foundation, Bismarck, 
     ND; Northampton Community College Foundation, Bethlehem, PA; 
     Northeastern University, Boston, MA; Northwestern University, 
     Evanston, IL; Notre Dame de Namur University, Belmont, CA; 
     Notre Dame India Mission, Chardon, OH; Oberlin College, 
     Oberlin, OH; Of Moving Colors Productions, Baton Rouge, LA; 
     Ohio Jewish Communities, Colombus, OH; The Omaha Home for 
     Boys, Omaha, NE; OPERA America, New York, NY; Oregon Trout, 
     Portland, OR; Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA; 
     Parents And Children Together, Honolulu, HI; Pennsylvania 
     Association of Nonprofit Organizations, Harrisburg, PA; 
     Pfeiffer University, Misenheimer, NC.; Philadelphia Council 
     for Community Advancement, Philadelphia, PA; Phillips 
     Academy, Andover, MA.
       Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa, OK; Phoebe 
     Foundation, Albany, GA; Pittsburgh History & Landmarks 
     Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA.; Plan USA, Warwick, RI; Prairie 
     Public Broadcasting, Inc., Fargo, ND; Prince William Chapter 
     American Red Cross, Manassas, VA; Providence House, 
     Shreveport, LA; Rainbow Kitchen Community Services, 
     Homestead, PA; Ravalli Services Corporation, Hamilton, MT; 
     Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY; Richland 
     Voluntary Council on Aging, Inc., Rayville, LA; Rimrock Opera 
     Company, Billings, MT; Riverview Retirement Community, 
     Spokane, WA; Rochester Area Neighborhood House, Inc., 
     Rochester, MI; Rochester Area Community Foundation, 
     Rochester, NY; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Inc., Missoula, 
     MT; RSVP Montgomery County, PA, Plymouth Meeting, PA; Ruth 
     Rales Jewish Family Service, Boca Raton, FL; SAE Foundation, 
     Warrendale, PA; Saint Louis Zoo, St. Louis, MO; Saint Xavier 
     High School, Louisville, KY; The Salvation Army, Alexandria, 
     VA; The Salvation Army, Minnesota & North Dakota, Roseville, 
     MN.
       Samaritan's Purse, Boone, NC; Sandhills Interfaith 
     Hospitality Network, Aberdeen, NC; Sangamon County Community 
     Foundation, Springfield, IL; Santa Clara University, Santa 
     Clara, CA; School Sisters of Notre Dame, Elm Grove, WI; 
     Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN; Seton Hill University, 
     Greensburg, PA; Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA; 
     Sherwood and Myrtie Foster Home for Children, Stephenville, 
     TX; Shimer College, Chicago, IL; Sholom Foundation, 
     Minneapolis, MN; The Sierra Club Foundation, San Francisco, 
     CA; Sixth Judicial District CASA/GAL Program, Inc., 
     Livingston, MT; Skaggs Hospital Foundation, Branson, MO; 
     Society Of Manufacturing Engineers Education Foundation, 
     Dearborn, MI; South Carolina Association of Nonprofit 
     Organizations, Columbia, SC; South Dakota State University 
     Foundation, Brookings, SD; Southern Adventist University, 
     Collegedale, TN; Southwestern Virginia Second Harvest Food 
     Bank, Salem, VA; Special K Ranch, Inc., Columbus, MT; Special 
     Olympics Inc., Washington, DC.
       St. Bernard Battered Women's Program, Inc., Chalmette, LA; 
     St. David's Society of Pittsburgh, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; St. 
     George Special Ministries, Brighton, MI; The St. Joe 
     Community Foundation, Panama City Beach, FL; St. John's 
     University, Jamaica, NY; Stanford Jazz Workshop, Stanford, 
     CA; Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation, Los Angeles, 
     CA; Sterling College, Sterling, KS; Stetson University, 
     DeLand, FL; Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ; 
     Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, York, PA; Strategic 
     Solutions, Marquette, MI; Swedish Medical Center Foundation, 
     Seattle, WA; Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX; Texas 
     Christian University, Fort Worth, TX; The National Catholic 
     Development Conference, Hempstead, NY; The Salvation Army, 
     Honolulu, HI; Theatre Communications Group, New York, NY; 
     Tides Foundation, San Francisco, CA; Tidewater Jewish 
     Foundation, Inc., Virginia Beach, VA; Trans World Radio, 
     Cary, NC; Triangle United Way, Morrisville, NC; The Trust for 
     Public Land, San Francisco, CA; UJA Federation of Northern 
     New Jersey, River Edge, NJ.
       UJA Federation of New York, New York City, NY; UNC 
     Wilmington, Wilmington, NC; Union Rescue Mission, Little 
     Rock, AR; United Cerebral Palsy of Metro Detroit, Southfield, 
     MI; United Cerebral Palsy of South Central PA Inc., York, PA; 
     United Jewish Communities, Washington, DC; United Jewish 
     Communities of Metro/West NJ, Whippany, NJ; United Jewish 
     Council of Greater Toledo, Toledo, OH; United Jewish 
     Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; United 
     Methodist Foundation of WV, Inc., Charleston, WV; United 
     Ministries, Greenville, SC; United Neighborhood Center of 
     America, Milwaukee, WI; United Way California Capital Region, 
     Sacramento, CA; United Way for Southeastern Michigan, 
     Detroit, MI; United Way Fox Cities, Menasha, WI; United Way 
     of America, Alexandria, VA; United Way of Bloomfield, 
     Bloomfield, NJ; United Way of Carlisle & Cumberland County, 
     Carlisle, PA; United Way of Central Iowa, Des Moines, IA; 
     United Way of Central Ohio, Columbus, OH.
       United Way of Clallam County, Port Angeles, WA; United Way 
     of Erie County, Erie, PA; United Way of Essex and West 
     Hudson, Newark, NJ; United Way of Greater Cincinnati, 
     Cincinnati, OH; United Way of Greater Mercer County, 
     Lawrenceville, NJ; United Way of Greater Portland, Portland, 
     ME; United Way of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY; United 
     Way of Harrison County, Inc., Clarksburg, WV; United Way of 
     Henderson County, Henderson, KY; United Way of Jasper County, 
     Newton, IA; United Way of Kentucky, Louisville, KY; United 
     Way of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, IL; United Way of 
     Nelson County, Bardstown, KY; United Way of North Carolina, 
     Raleigh, NC; United Way of North Central Iowa, Mason City, 
     IA; United Way of Northeast Florida, Jacksonville, FL; United 
     Way of Siouxland, Sioux City, IA; United Way of the Capital 
     Region, Enola, PA; United Way of the Columbia Willamette, 
     Portland, OR; United Way of the Greater Seacoast, Portsmouth, 
     NH; United Way of Williamson County, Williamson County, TX; 
     United Way Volunteer Center of Chippewa County, Sault Ste. 
     Marie, MI; United Ways of Texas, Austin, TX; University of 
     Florida and University of Florida Foundation, Gainesville, 
     FL; University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT.
       University of Illinois Foundation, Urbana, IL; University 
     of Maine Foundation, Orono, ME; University of Maryland 
     Baltimore Foundation, Inc., Baltimore, MD; University of 
     Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Minnesota Foundation, 
     Minneapolis, MN; The University of North Carolina, State of 
     North Carolina, NC; University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX; 
     The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 
     TX; University of the Ozarks, Clarksville, AR; University of 
     Virginia Law School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA; Ursinus 
     College, Collegeville, PA; US Lacrosse, Baltimore, MD; Utah 
     Valley State College, Orem, UT; Vancouver National Historic 
     Reserve Trust, Vancouver, WA; Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, 
     NY; Villa Nazareth dba Friendship, Inc., Fargo, ND; Village 
     Missions, Dallas, OR; Virginia Mennonite Retirement Community 
     Foundation, Harrisonburg, VA; Volunteers of America, 
     Alexandria, VA; Wabash College, Crawfordsville, IN; WADE 
     Management Group, Detroit, MI; Wartburg Theological Seminary, 
     Dubuque, IA.
       The Washington Center for Internships & Academic Seminars, 
     Washington, DC; Watson Children's Shelter, Missoula, MT; 
     Wesleyan College, Macon, GA; Wesleyan Homes, Georgetown, TX; 
     Westminster College, Fulton, MO; Westminster College, New 
     Wilmington, PA; WHAS Crusade for Children, Louisville, KY; 
     Whitefish Community Foundation, Whitefish, MT; Whitman 
     College, Walla Walla, WA; Wildlife Forever, Brooklyn Center, 
     MN; The Williston Northampton School, Easthampton, MA; Wright 
     State University, Dayton, OH; Wycliffe Bible Translators, 
     Orlando, FL; Wycliffe Foundation, Orlando, FL; Yakima Valley 
     Red Cross, Yakima, WA; Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch 
     Foundation, Billings, MT; YES Institute, Miami, FL; YMCA of 
     Honolulu, Honolulu, HI; YMCA of the Suncoast, Clearwater, FL; 
     YMCA of the USA, Washington, DC; Youth Crime Watch of 
     America, Miami, FL; Youth Homes, Missoula, MT; Youth Service 
     America, Washington, DC; Youth Service Bureau of St. Tammany, 
     Covington, LA; YWCA USA, Washington, DC.
                                  ____


                                 S. 819

       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 ``Public Good IRA Rollover Act 
     of 2007''.

[[Page S2917]]

     SEC. 2. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT 
                   ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 408(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax treatment of 
     distributions) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
       ``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross 
     income by reason of a qualified charitable distribution.
       ``(B) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution' 
     means any distribution from an individual retirement 
     account--
       ``(i) which is made directly by the trustee--

       ``(I) to an organization described in section 170(c), or
       ``(II) to a split-interest entity, and

       ``(ii) which is made on or after the date that the 
     individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has 
     attained--

       ``(I) in the case of any distribution described in clause 
     (i)(I), age 70\1/2\, and
       ``(II) in the case of any distribution described in clause 
     (i)(II), age 59\1/2\.

     A distribution shall be treated as a qualified charitable 
     distribution only to the extent that the distribution would 
     be includible in gross income without regard to subparagraph 
     (A) and, in the case of a distribution to a split-interest 
     entity, only if no person holds an income interest in the 
     amounts in the split-interest entity attributable to such 
     distribution other than one or more of the following: the 
     individual for whose benefit such account is maintained, the 
     spouse of such individual, or any organization described in 
     section 170(c).
       ``(C) Contributions must be otherwise deductible.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) Direct contributions.--A distribution to an 
     organization described in section 170(c) shall be treated as 
     a qualified charitable distribution only if a deduction for 
     the entire distribution would be allowable under section 170 
     (determined without regard to subsection (b) thereof and this 
     paragraph).
       ``(ii) Split-interest gifts.--A distribution to a split-
     interest entity shall be treated as a qualified charitable 
     distribution only if a deduction for the entire value of the 
     interest in the distribution for the use of an organization 
     described in section 170(c) would be allowable under section 
     170 (determined without regard to subsection (b) thereof and 
     this paragraph).
       ``(D) Application of section 72.--Notwithstanding section 
     72, in determining the extent to which a distribution is a 
     qualified charitable distribution, the entire amount of the 
     distribution shall be treated as includible in gross income 
     without regard to subparagraph (A) to the extent that such 
     amount does not exceed the aggregate amount which would be so 
     includible if all amounts were distributed from all 
     individual retirement accounts otherwise taken into account 
     in determining the inclusion on such distribution under 
     section 72. Proper adjustments shall be made in applying 
     section 72 to other distributions in such taxable year and 
     subsequent taxable years.
       ``(E) Special rules for split-interest entities.--
       ``(i) Charitable remainder trusts.--Notwithstanding section 
     664(b), distributions made from a trust described in 
     subparagraph (G)(i) shall be treated as ordinary income in 
     the hands of the beneficiary to whom is paid the annuity 
     described in section 664(d)(1)(A) or the payment described in 
     section 664(d)(2)(A).
       ``(ii) Pooled income funds.--No amount shall be includible 
     in the gross income of a pooled income fund (as defined in 
     subparagraph (G)(ii)) by reason of a qualified charitable 
     distribution to such fund, and all distributions from the 
     fund which are attributable to qualified charitable 
     distributions shall be treated as ordinary income to the 
     beneficiary.
       ``(iii) Charitable gift annuities.--Qualified charitable 
     distributions made for a charitable gift annuity shall not be 
     treated as an investment in the contract.
       ``(F) Denial of deduction.--Qualified charitable 
     distributions shall not be taken into account in determining 
     the deduction under section 170.
       ``(G) Split-interest entity defined.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `split-interest entity' means--
       ``(i) a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable 
     remainder unitrust (as such terms are defined in section 
     664(d)) which must be funded exclusively by qualified 
     charitable distributions,
       ``(ii) a pooled income fund (as defined in section 
     642(c)(5)), but only if the fund accounts separately for 
     amounts attributable to qualified charitable distributions, 
     and
       ``(iii) a charitable gift annuity (as defined in section 
     501(m)(5)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 820. A bill to establish demonstration projects to provide at-home 
infant care benefits; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last month marked the 14th anniversary 
of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This law 
has enabled workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to attend to 
an ailing family member or to care for a newborn baby. Since this 
landmark legislation was signed into law, more than 50 million working 
Americans have been able to take critical time off when necessary 
without putting their jobs on the line.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act was a critical first step in 
recognizing the challenges that Americans face in achieving a family-
work balance. For nearly a decade and a half, it has provided the most 
basic protections for workers who can afford to take unpaid leave. Yet, 
40 million workers cannot use the FMLA because they can't go without a 
paycheck. Throughout my career as a lawyer, mother, First Lady and 
Senator, I have sought solutions to the difficult challenges that 
working parents face.
  That is why I am pleased to reintroduce legislation, the Choice in 
Child Care Act of 2007, to meet the child care needs of working 
families. My bill provides a modest and important option for families 
who have none: the chance to stay home with their infants when there is 
no childcare available to them. This is the critical next step to 
ensure low-income families welcoming children in their lives are 
afforded more economic security than they would have otherwise.
  Bringing a new child into the world is one of the greatest joys a 
parent can experience, yet we also know that in the reality of today's 
economy, most parents must work to provide economic security for their 
newborns. In fact, 55 percent of women with infants younger than one 
year of age are in the workforce. As a result, working parents are 
faced with trying to provide economic security for their family while 
simultaneously ensuring that their infant receives the quality of care 
that he or she needs.
  Research shows that the quality of caretaking in the first months and 
years of life is critical to a newborn's brain development, social 
development and well-being. Yet there is currently a severe shortage of 
safe, affordable, quality care for infants. The number of licensed 
child care slots for infants meets only 18 percent of the need. The 
shortage is particularly acute in rural areas, and especially in rural 
areas that have many low-income residents.
  Ideally, I think we would all agree that parents who need affordable, 
high-quality care for their infant would provide that care themselves. 
However we know that, in many low- and moderate-income families, having 
a parent quit his or her job or reduce work hours to care for an infant 
is not financially viable. Doing so would plunge the family into an 
economic crisis. Rather, parents should have the choice and greater 
flexibility in providing safe, quality care for their infants.
  My legislation is modeled on creative programs States have 
established to provide low-income parents of infants a choice between 
returning to work and using a State child care subsidy to care for 
their infant and caring for their infant themselves with a monthly 
child care stipend. The Choices in Child Care Act would make these 
programs available to families across the country.
  My bill amends the Child Care Development Block Grant so that low- 
and moderate-income parents have the option of forgoing a State 
childcare subsidy for infant care outside the home and instead 
receiving a comparable stipend to provide the care themselves while 
keeping the family economically stable. The bill would help parents 
balance work and family, help meet the critical shortage of infant 
child care, provide cost savings to state child care programs, support 
quality care for the critical first years of a child's development, and 
value parenting as a form of work.
  This legislation supports families when they need it the most by 
providing options for low and moderate income families when they need 
to care for an infant. In order to truly value families we need to make 
sure families at all income levels have options to do what is best for 
them. The Choices in Child Care Act promotes family security by 
ensuring low-income families have the chance to care for their infants 
at home and receive some, albeit modest, financial assistance.
  As we move forward from the celebration of the 14th anniversary of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act let us

[[Page S2918]]

recognize the challenges Americans face in balancing work and family 
life today. The time has come, with the new 110th Congress, to give 
parents additional resources and options in helping them address these 
challenges. I urge my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
join me in supporting the Choices in Child Care Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Cardin, 
        and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 821. A bill to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an 
extension of eligibility for supplemental security income through 
fiscal year 2010 for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian 
immigrants; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my 
colleague Senator Kohl, to reintroduce this important piece of 
legislation. This legislation will work to ensure the United States 
government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who 
are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country 
of ours.
  As many of you know, Congress modified the Supplemental Security 
Income (SSI) program to include seven-year time limit on the receipt of 
benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance 
the desire to have people who emigrate to the United States to become 
citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also 
takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees 
to become naturalized citizens, Congress provided the seven-year time 
limit before the expiration of SSI benefits.
  Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 
seven years. Applicants are required to live in the United States for a 
minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship. In addition to 
that time period, their application process often can take three or 
more years before resolution. Because of this time delay, many 
individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI 
benefits.
  Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture 
in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious 
persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam 
Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who 
served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam 
War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on 
their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of 
delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and 
inappropriate.
  The administration in its fiscal year 2008 budget acknowledged the 
necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend 
refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the seven-year limit. While I am 
pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, 
I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most 
people will need at least an additional two years to navigate and 
complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I 
have introduced this bill, which will provide a two-year extension. We 
believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look 
forward to working with Chairman Baucus and other members of the 
Finance Committee to secure these changes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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. 821

       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 ``SSI Extension for Elderly 
     and Disabled Refugees Act''.

     SEC. 2. SSI EXTENSION FOR HUMANITARIAN IMMIGRANTS.

       Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(M) SSI extension through fiscal year 2010.--
       ``(i) In general.--With respect to eligibility for benefits 
     for the specified Federal program described in paragraph 
     (3)(A), the 7-year period described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be deemed to be a 9-year period during the period that begins 
     on the date of enactment of the SSI Extension for Elderly and 
     Disabled Refugees Act and ends on September 30, 2010.
       ``(ii) Aliens whose benefits ceased in prior fiscal 
     years.--

       ``(I) In general.--Beginning on the date of the enactment 
     of the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, 
     any qualified alien rendered ineligible for the specified 
     Federal program described in paragraph (3)(A) during fiscal 
     years prior to the fiscal year in which such Act is enacted 
     solely by reason of the termination of the 7-year period 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be eligible for such 
     program for an additional 2-year period in accordance with 
     this subparagraph, if such alien meets all other eligibility 
     factors under title XVI of the Social Security Act.
       ``(II) Payment of benefits.--Benefits paid under 
     subparagraph (I) shall be paid prospectively over the 
     duration of the qualified alien's renewed eligibility.''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith 
to introduce the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act. 
This is the third year that a bipartisan group of Senators will come 
together in support of this legislation to serve the individuals in our 
society who most need our help.
  Due to short-sighted policy passed in the 1990's, elderly and 
disabled humanitarian immigrants face a time limit of seven years on 
eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Refugees 
and asylees have seven years to become citizens--an inadequate amount 
of time, given the bureaucratic delays and hurdles these individuals 
face. Thus, thousands have already lost their benefits, and tens of 
thousands more will lose this important benefit if Congress does not 
enact our legislation.
  It is estimated that in the next decade, more than 40,000 elderly or 
disabled humanitarian immigrants will lose their SSI benefits. This 
program is a safety net for those who need it; in 2007, the maximum SSI 
benefit is $623 for an individual and $934 for a couple--barely enough 
to afford basic necessities. The program is structured to help those 
with severe barriers to work or elderly individuals with little or no 
retirement income. To allow these benefits to expire is to take away a 
lifeline from the neediest individuals.
  In Wisconsin, these individuals are often of Hmong descent. Many 
fought with the U.S. in Laos during the Vietnam War, providing critical 
assistance to U.S. forces. After the fall of Saigon, thousands of Hmong 
fled Laos and its communist Pathet Lao government. The United States 
remains indebted to these courageous individuals and their families.
  In addition to the Hmong, America serves as a shelter for those faced 
with persecution or torture in their own countries. Across the country, 
we have heard their stories; whether Jews and Baptists fleeing 
religious persecution in the former Soviet Union or Iraqis and Cubans 
escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy toward refugees and 
asylees embodies the best of our country--compassion, opportunity, and 
freedom.
  Our legislation will bring the SSI program in line with our other 
policies towards these humanitarian immigrants. This legislation 
extends the amount of time that refugees and asylees have to become 
citizens to nine years. In addition, the bill contains a ``reach back'' 
provision: it retroactively restores benefits to those individuals who 
have already lost them for an additional two years. This provision 
helps the individuals who need it most; humanitarian immigrants who are 
trapped in the system and have lost this important income source.
  I believe we must act now to protect these individuals--we cannot let 
another year go by without action. Our country has long been a symbol 
of freedom, equality and opportunity. Our laws should reflect that. 
Every day that goes by could result in the loss of a refugee's support 
system--I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and restore 
the principles we were put here to protect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Bunning, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Coleman, Mr.

[[Page S2919]]

        Smith, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 822. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 
and extend certain energy-related tax provisions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with 
Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Bunning, Bingaman, Salazar, Coleman, Smith, 
Allard and Cornyn that addresses the critical issue of the Nation's 
energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives Act of 2007. 
The Senators have come together--given where we are as a Nation in 
terms of reliance on foreign oil . . . the historically high costs of 
energy . . . the state of our environment . . . and the status of our 
technological know-how--to introduce realistic, doable legislation that 
represents one of the best opportunities for developing bipartisan 
consensus on tax policy to further securing our nation and its future.
  The EXTEND Act takes a comprehensive and practical approach to assure 
that the United States targets the maximum possible energy savings on 
the customer side of the meter and relief from high energy prices at 
the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings 
adopted in Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them 
where necessary to achieve these policy goals.
  The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency 
buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing four years of assured 
incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects 
with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A 
sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make 
rational investments as these buildings will be in use for at least 50 
to 100 years. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. I want 
to encourage large and small businesses alike to make investments to 
qualify for energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and 
large residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and 
construction of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides four 
years of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional 
time for projects with longer lead times.
  Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives 
so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual 
performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings 
and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and 
photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water 
heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 
retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on 
performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of 
incentives based truly on performance.
  The bipartisan legislation also extends the applicability of the 
EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential 
building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new 
homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. 
Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers 
incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a 
corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but 
it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders 
and equipment manufacturers.
  I have worked hard over the past six years for performance-based 
energy tax incentives for commercial buildings--one third of energy 
usage is from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to 
be made with the extension of these incentives. It is reasonable to 
expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we put into place the 
appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings of natural gas 
would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total projected 
natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added the indirect 
gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity generation fuel. 
Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, or 12 percent of 
natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings would be 115,000 
megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide electric capacity 
for the year 2017.
  In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the 
carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to 
bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 
percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the 
bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs.
  The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business 
and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in 
utility bills by 2018, as a direct result of the reductions in energy 
consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected 
decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households 
over an additional $30 billion annually.
  The EXTEND Act is synonymous with the security of America's future. 
The bill is a piece of an overall national energy picture that we need 
to address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small 
businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. 
Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move 
to substantive energy policy legislation such as the EXTEND Act. It is 
imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we cannot wait 
for yet another crisis.
  I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the 
Administration to provide the American people the leadership they 
deserve on these issues. And I would like to add some of the 
organizations and industries that support this legislation as it is a 
formidable list: Alliance to Save Energy; American Public Power 
Association; American Standard Companies; American Chemistry Council; 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Commission; Anderson Windows, 
Inc.; Building Owners and Managers Association International; 
California Energy Commission; Cardinal Glass Industries; The Dow 
Chemical Company; DuPont; Edison Electric Institute; Environmental and 
Energy Study Institute; Exelon Corporation; 3M Company; Manufactured 
Housing Institute; National Association of State Energy Officials; 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association; Natural Resources 
Defense Council; New York State Energy Research and Development 
Authority; North American Insulation Manufacturers Association; 
Northeast Public Power Association; Owens Corning; Pacific Gas & 
Electric Company; Plug Power, Inc.; Polyisocyanurate Insulation 
Manufacturers Association; Public Service Electric and Gas Company; The 
Real Estate Roundtable; Residential Energy Services Network; Retail 
Industry Leaders Association; Sacramento Municipal Utility District; 
San Diego Gas and Electric Company; Southern California Gas Company; 
Union of Concerned Scientists.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 823. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
facilitating the development of microbicides for preventing 
transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today is International Women's Day, a day 
to celebrate the social, economic, and political achievements of women 
around the world. We have come a long way in equality for women since 
that first International Women's Day in 1909. Yet, even as we celebrate 
these victories, we must acknowledge and increase awareness of the 
myriad struggles that women continue to face today. The battle against 
HIV/AIDS is one such struggle, and one that women in this Nation and 
across the world are losing. And that is why today, I am reintroducing 
the Microbicide Development Act, to help women protect themselves 
against deadly HIV infection.
  The devastation that HIV/AIDS is causing around the world is, sadly, 
not news to any of us. During a visit to Africa last August, I was 
reminded of this tragedy. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South 
Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours--even 
days--just for the chance to seek help. I saw just a few of the 15 
million orphans in Africa who lost their parents to this epidemic. All 
the while, I

[[Page S2920]]

remembered in the back of my mind that in some areas, 90 percent of 
those infected with HIV are unaware of their status, and this epidemic 
will only continue to get worse.
  But what we don't always focus on is the particular devastation HIV/
AIDS is bringing to women worldwide. As of 2006, nearly half of the 
over 37 million adults living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were women. In 
sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is 3 times higher among 
women ages 15 to 24 than among men of that age group. The severity of 
the problem hits close to home as well, with HIV/AIDS being the leading 
cause of death for African American women ages 25 to 34.
  Women have unique biological vulnerabilities that make them twice as 
likely as men to contract HIV from an infected partner during 
intercourse. And for many women, particularly in the developing world, 
social and cultural norms deny them the ability to insist on mutual 
monogamy or condom use, thus limiting their tools for prevention. In 
many situations, women who become infected have only one partner--their 
husband. In fact, studies in India have shown that among women infected 
with HIV, 93 percent were married, and 91 percent overall had only one 
partner--their husbands. Focusing solely on ABC's--abstain, be 
faithful, use condoms--is clearly failing these women. There is a 
naivety in thinking that abstinence and fidelity are real options for 
all men and women around the world, and so we have a moral obligation 
to expand prevention tools.
  Yet despite the fact that women have been increasingly devastated by 
this disease, female-initiated methods of prevention are limited and 
current prevention options are not enough.
  Topical microbicides represent a woman-initiated method of prevention 
that would put the power of prevention in the hands of women. 
Mathematical models predict that even a partially effective microbicide 
could prevent 2.5 million infections over 3 years and that gradual 
introduction of newer and better microbicides could ultimately save a 
generation of women. Topical microbicides, therefore, represent a 
critical element in a comprehensive strategy to fight the HIV/AIDS 
pandemic.
  A number of groups, including the International Partnership for 
Microbicides, the Alliance for Microbicide Development, the National 
Women's Health Network, the Global Campaign for Microbicides, and the 
Gates Foundation, have led the effort to develop a prevention tool for 
use by women. The National Institutes of Health has invested in 
microbicides research, including support for the newly formed 
Microbicides Trial Network. I would be remiss if I did not also 
recognize the efforts of the CDC and USAID in microbicide development. 
With 10 microbicide candidates currently in clinical development and 
over 30 in preclinical development, we are making headway in this 
field.
  But we cannot let this momentum slow. We must continue to prioritize 
microbicide research and development. Increased Federal support and 
coordination, which is provided for in the Microbicide Development Act, 
will give a clear sign that the Federal Government is willing to put 
forth the effort critical to the development of an effective product to 
protect our mothers, daughters, sisters, and other loved ones. I echo 
the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who said that, ``with leadership, 
collaborative effort, sufficient financial resources, and product 
development expertise, a microbicide is within reach.'' Congress should 
support our Federal health agencies and their partners in their 
efforts, and passage of the Microbicide Development Act would give an 
unambiguous indication that this work is a priority for all of us.
  In closing, I point out that we have made tremendous strides in 
medical treatment for individuals infected with HIV/AIDS. But this 
treatment comes with a price tag that is unsustainable. Between 2003 
and 2005, for every one person receiving anti-retroviral treatment, ten 
more individuals became infected. We are not able to treat all of those 
currently infected let alone this exponentially growing number of 
individuals who will need treatment down the line. Universal treatment 
today would cost roughly $7 billion. Given that we only fund PEPFAR and 
the Global Fund at $2 billion, that $7 billion price tag, which is only 
going to grow, appears rather daunting. This financial situation serves 
to underscore the moral obligation we have to invest in microbicides 
and other prevention tools. Let us hope that during International 
Women's Days to come, we will be celebrating tremendous success in the 
fight against HIV/AIDS rather than the loss of yet another generation 
of women.
  I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
Microbicide Development Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 830. A bill to improve the process for the development of needed 
pediatric medial devices; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pediatric 
Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation 
provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not 
left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for 
medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were 
treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of 
adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by 
pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the 
development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and 
growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults.
  While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and 
conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences 
in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, 
physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and 
physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so 
small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little 
incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on 
children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to 
``jury-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for 
pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to 
use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies.
  For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) do 
not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a 
mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood 
through the body. So, infants and children under five years of age who 
have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be 
supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). An ECMO 
consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial 
filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or 
arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While 
ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are 
problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that 
prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, 
children must remain bedridden while using the device.
  For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their 
breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that 
suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are 
inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the 
baby's throat.
  Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately 
high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing 
bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and 
deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a 
heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five 
operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must 
be better able to expand and grow as the child grows.
  Over the past several years, efforts have been launched to better 
identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to 
generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical 
devices.
  Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the

[[Page S2921]]

National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National 
Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical 
Technology Association (AdvaMed) hosted a series of stakeholders 
meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of 
pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the 
Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) released a report that identified numerous 
barriers to the development and approval of medical devices for 
children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a 
report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical 
devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization 
Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and 
recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require post-market studies 
of certain products and improve public access to information about 
post-market pediatric studies.
  This legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of 
pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the 
bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types 
of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions 
that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to 
support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in 
pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric 
subpopulations.
  The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for 
adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to 
make devices for children. The bill creates an incentive for companies 
by modifying the existing Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) provision 
to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically 
designed to meet a pediatric need.
  To prevent abuse, the bill reverts to current law which allows no 
profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be 
needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the 
existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no 
circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to 
treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 
individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same number allowed under 
current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are 
eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they meet the 
conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new 
pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2013 and the FDA is required to issue a 
report on its impact within five years.
  In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, the bill 
requires the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to designate a point 
of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access 
funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the 
NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 
to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies 
gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing 
them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of 
pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device 
needs.
  To better foster innovation in the private sector, the bill 
establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote 
pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors 
and manufacturers and Federal resources. These demonstration grants, 
which are authorized for $6 million annually, require the federal 
government to mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through 
the development process, including product identification, prototype 
design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must 
coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to 
identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to 
help facilitate approval of pediatric indications.
  Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the 
IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these 
devices. The legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a 
condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes 
``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be 
reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is 
intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, 
or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a 
device user facility.''
  The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies 
longer than three years with respect to a device that is to have 
significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be 
necessary to address longer-term pediatric questions, such as the 
impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly 
accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve 
questions about device use in pediatric populations.
  The legislation I am introducing today has been many years in the 
making. Last year, I introduced this legislation with Senator DeWine 
and I thank him for working with me on it and many other initiatives to 
improve children's health. I would like to also thank the Elizabeth 
Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare 
Disorders for their tireless work and support for this legislation. The 
bill I am introducing today is supported by the Advanced Medical 
Technology Association (AdvaMed) and its member company Stryker and I 
thank them for their support. The bill reflects many of the comments 
they provided throughout the development of this legislation and I am 
pleased that they join me today in supporting its passage. Several 
other device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, and Breas 
Medical AB have previously supported this legislation and I would like 
to recognize and thank them for their continued support of the bill.
  I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry 
and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy and 
Enzi--to move this legislation when the Committee considers medical 
device-related legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as 
possible.
  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. 830

       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 ``Pediatric Medical Device 
     Safety and Improvement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. TRACKING PEDIATRIC DEVICE APPROVALS.

       Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 515 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 515A. PEDIATRIC USES OF DEVICES.

       ``(a) New Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that submits to the Secretary 
     an application under section 520(m), or an application (or 
     supplement to an application) or a product development 
     protocol under section 515, shall include in the application 
     or protocol the information described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Required information.--The application or protocol 
     described in paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the 
     device for which approval is sought and if readily 
     available--
       ``(A) a description of any pediatric subpopulations that 
     suffer from the disease or condition that the device is 
     intended to treat, diagnose, or cure; and
       ``(B) the number of affected pediatric patients.
       ``(3) Annual report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes--
       ``(A) the number of devices approved in the year preceding 
     the year in which the report is submitted, for which there is 
     a pediatric subpopulation that suffers from the disease or 
     condition that the device is intended to treat, diagnose, or 
     cure;
       ``(B) the number of devices approved in the year preceding 
     the year in which the report is submitted, labeled for use in 
     pediatric patients;
       ``(C) the number of pediatric devices approved in the year 
     preceding the year in

[[Page S2922]]

     which the report is submitted, exempted from a fee pursuant 
     to section 738(a)(2)(B)(v); and
       ``(D) the review time for each device described in 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).
       ``(b) Determination of Pediatric Effectiveness Based on 
     Similar Course of Disease or Condition or Similar Effect of 
     Device on Adults.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the course of the disease or 
     condition and the effects of the device are sufficiently 
     similar in adults and pediatric patients, the Secretary may 
     conclude that adult data may be used to support a 
     determination of a reasonable assurance of effectiveness in 
     pediatric populations, as appropriate.
       ``(2) Extrapolation between subpopulations.--A study may 
     not be needed in each pediatric subpopulation if data from 
     one subpopulation can be extrapolated to another 
     subpopulation.
       ``(c) Pediatric Subpopulation.--In this section, the term 
     `pediatric subpopulation' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 520(m)(6)(E)(ii).''.

     SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO HUMANITARIAN DEVICE EXEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``No'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), no'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``, if the Secretary has reason to believe 
     that the requirements of paragraph (6) are no longer met,'' 
     after ``public health''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``If the person 
     granted an exemption under paragraph (2) fails to demonstrate 
     continued compliance with the requirements of this 
     subsection, the Secretary may suspend or withdraw the 
     exemption from the effectiveness requirements of sections 514 
     and 515 for a humanitarian device only after providing notice 
     and an opportunity for an informal hearing.'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the 
     prohibition in paragraph (3) shall not apply with respect to 
     a person granted an exemption under paragraph (2) if each of 
     the following conditions apply:
       ``(i)(I) The device with respect to which the exemption is 
     granted is intended for the treatment or diagnosis of a 
     disease or condition that occurs in pediatric patients or in 
     a pediatric subpopulation, and such device is labeled for use 
     in pediatric patients or in a pediatric subpopulation in 
     which the disease or condition occurs.
       ``(II) The device was not previously approved under this 
     subsection for the pediatric patients or the pediatric 
     subpopulation described in subclause (I) prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and 
     Improvement Act of 2007.
       ``(ii) During any calendar year, the number of such devices 
     distributed during that year does not exceed the annual 
     distribution number specified by the Secretary when the 
     Secretary grants such exemption. The annual distribution 
     number shall be based on the number of individuals affected 
     by the disease or condition that such device is intended to 
     treat, diagnose, or cure, and of that number, the number of 
     individuals likely to use the device, and the number of 
     devices reasonably necessary to treat such individuals. In no 
     case shall the annual distribution number exceed the number 
     identified in paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(iii) Such person immediately notifies the Secretary if 
     the number of such devices distributed during any calendar 
     year exceeds the annual distribution number referred to in 
     clause (ii).
       ``(iv) The request for such exemption is submitted on or 
     before October 1, 2013.
       ``(B) The Secretary may inspect the records relating to the 
     number of devices distributed during any calendar year of a 
     person granted an exemption under paragraph (2) for which the 
     prohibition in paragraph (3) does not apply.
       ``(C) A person may petition the Secretary to modify the 
     annual distribution number specified by the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) with respect to a device if additional 
     information on the number of individuals affected by the 
     disease or condition arises, and the Secretary may modify 
     such number but in no case shall the annual distribution 
     number exceed the number identified in paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(D) If a person notifies the Secretary, or the Secretary 
     determines through an inspection under subparagraph (B), that 
     the number of devices distributed during any calendar year 
     exceeds the annual distribution number, as required under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), and modified under subparagraph (C), 
     if applicable, then the prohibition in paragraph (3) shall 
     apply with respect to such person for such device for any 
     sales of such device after such notification.
       ``(E)(i) In this subsection, the term `pediatric patients' 
     means patients who are 21 years of age or younger at the time 
     of the diagnosis or treatment.
       ``(ii) In this subsection, the term `pediatric 
     subpopulation' means 1 of the following populations:
       ``(I) Neonates.
       ``(II) Infants.
       ``(III) Children.
       ``(IV) Adolescents.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) The Secretary shall refer any report of an adverse 
     event regarding a device for which the prohibition under 
     paragraph (3) does not apply pursuant to paragraph (6)(A) 
     that the Secretary receives to the Office of Pediatric 
     Therapeutics, established under section 6 of the Best 
     Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (Public Law 107-109)). In 
     considering the report, the Director of the Office of 
     Pediatric Therapeutics, in consultation with experts in the 
     Center for Devices and Radiological Health, shall provide for 
     periodic review of the report by the Pediatric Advisory 
     Committee, including obtaining any recommendations of such 
     committee regarding whether the Secretary should take action 
     under this Act in response to the report.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2012, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives a report on the impact of allowing persons 
     granted an exemption under section 520(m)(2) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)(2)) with 
     respect to a device to profit from such device pursuant to 
     section 520(m)(6) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)(6)) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)), including--
       (1) an assessment of whether such section 520(m)(6) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)) has increased the availability of 
     pediatric devices for conditions that occur in small numbers 
     of children, including any increase or decrease in the number 
     of--
       (A) exemptions granted under such section 520(m)(2) for 
     pediatric devices; and
       (B) applications approved under section 515 of such Act (21 
     U.S.C. 360e) for devices intended to treat, diagnose, or cure 
     conditions that occur in pediatric patients or for devices 
     labeled for use in a pediatric population;
       (2) the conditions or diseases the pediatric devices were 
     intended to treat or diagnose and the estimated size of the 
     pediatric patient population for each condition or disease;
       (3) the costs of the pediatric devices, based on a survey 
     of children's hospitals;
       (4) the extent to which the costs of such devices are 
     covered by health insurance;
       (5) the impact, if any, of allowing profit on access to 
     such devices for patients;
       (6) the profits made by manufacturers for each device that 
     receives an exemption;
       (7) an estimate of the extent of the use of the pediatric 
     devices by both adults and pediatric populations for a 
     condition or disease other than the condition or disease on 
     the label of such devices;
       (8) recommendations of the Comptroller General of the 
     United States regarding the effectiveness of such section 
     520(m)(6) (as amended by subsection (a)) and whether any 
     modifications to such section 520(m)(6) (as amended by 
     subsection (a)) should be made;
       (9) existing obstacles to pediatric device development; and
       (10) an evaluation of the demonstration grants described in 
     section 5.
       (c) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs 
     shall issue guidance for institutional review committees on 
     how to evaluate requests for approval for devices for which a 
     humanitarian device exemption under section 520(m)(2) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)(2)) 
     has been granted.

     SEC. 4. ENCOURAGING PEDIATRIC MEDICAL DEVICE RESEARCH.

       (a) Access to Funding.--The Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health shall designate a contact point or 
     office at the National Institutes of Health to help 
     innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric 
     medical device development.
       (b) Plan for Pediatric Medical Device Research.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in 
     collaboration with the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research 
     and Quality, shall submit to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives a plan for expanding pediatric medical device 
     research and development. In developing such plan, the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall consult with individuals 
     and organizations with appropriate expertise in pediatric 
     medical devices.
       (2) Contents.--The plan under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) the current status of federally funded pediatric 
     medical device research;
       (B) any gaps in such research, which may include a survey 
     of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric 
     medical device needs, as needed; and
       (C) a research agenda for improving pediatric medical 
     device development and Food and Drug Administration clearance 
     or approval of pediatric medical devices, and for evaluating 
     the short- and long-term safety and effectiveness of 
     pediatric medical devices.

     SEC. 5. DEMONSTRATION GRANTS FOR IMPROVING PEDIATRIC DEVICE 
                   AVAILABILITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Request for proposals.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall issue a request for proposals

[[Page S2923]]

     for 1 or more grants or contracts to nonprofit consortia for 
     demonstration projects to promote pediatric device 
     development.
       (2) Determination on grants or contracts.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services issues a request for proposals under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall make a determination on the grants or 
     contracts under this section.
       (b) Application.--A nonprofit consortium that desires to 
     receive a grant or contract under this section shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     as the Secretary may require.
       (c) Use of Funds.--A nonprofit consortium that receives a 
     grant or contract under this section shall--
       (1) encourage innovation by connecting qualified 
     individuals with pediatric device ideas with potential 
     manufacturers;
       (2) mentor and manage pediatric device projects through the 
     development process, including product identification, 
     prototype design, device development, and marketing;
       (3) connect innovators and physicians to existing Federal 
     resources, including resources from the Food and Drug 
     Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Small 
     Business Administration, the Department of Energy, the 
     Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, and the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology;
       (4) assess the scientific and medical merit of proposed 
     pediatric device projects;
       (5) assess business feasibility and provide business 
     advice;
       (6) provide assistance with prototype development; and
       (7) provide assistance with postmarket needs, including 
     training, logistics, and reporting.
       (d) Coordination.--
       (1) National institutes of health.--Each consortium that 
     receives a grant or contract under this section shall--
       (A) coordinate with the National Institutes of Health's 
     pediatric device contact point or office, designated under 
     section 4; and
       (B) provide to the National Institutes of Health any 
     identified pediatric device needs that the consortium lacks 
     sufficient capacity to address or those needs in which the 
     consortium has been unable to stimulate manufacturer 
     interest.
       (2) Food and drug administration.--Each consortium that 
     receives a grant or contract under this section shall 
     coordinate with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and device 
     companies to facilitate the application for approval or 
     clearance of devices labeled for pediatric use.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO OFFICE OF PEDIATRIC THERAPEUTICS AND 
                   PEDIATRIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Office of Pediatric Therapeutics.--Section 6(b) of the 
     Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (21 U.S.C. 393a(b)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, including increasing pediatric 
     access to medical devices'' after ``pediatric issues''.
       (b) Pediatric Advisory Committee.--Section 14 of the Best 
     Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (42 U.S.C. 284m note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(including drugs and 
     biological products) and medical devices'' after 
     ``therapeutics''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(including drugs and 
     biological products) and medical devices'' after 
     ``therapeutics''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 505B'' and 
     inserting ``505B, 510(k), 515, and 520(m)'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) identification of research priorities related to 
     therapeutics (including drugs and biological products) and 
     medical devices for pediatric populations and the need for 
     additional diagnostics and treatments for specific pediatric 
     diseases or conditions; and''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``(including drugs 
     and biological products) and medical devices'' after 
     ``therapeutics''.

     SEC. 7. STUDIES.

       (a) Postmarket Studies.--Section 522 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360l) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, or as a condition to approval of an 
     application (or a supplement to an application) or a product 
     development protocol under section 515 or as a condition to 
     clearance of a premarket notification under section 510(k),'' 
     after ``The Secretary may by order''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, that is expected to have significant 
     use in pediatric populations,'' after ``health 
     consequences''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Surveillance Approval.--Each'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Surveillance Approval.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each'';
       (B) by striking ``The Secretary, in consultation'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary, in consultation'';
       (C) by striking ``Any determination'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), any determination''; 
     and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Longer studies for pediatric devices.--The Secretary 
     may by order require a prospective surveillance period of 
     more than 36 months with respect to a device that is expected 
     to have significant use in pediatric populations if such 
     period of more than 36 months is necessary in order to assess 
     the impact of the device on growth and development, or the 
     effects of growth, development, activity level, or other 
     factors on the safety or efficacy of the device.''.
       (b) Database.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 
     shall establish a publicly accessible database of studies of 
     medical devices that includes all studies and surveillances, 
     described in paragraph (2)(A), that were in progress on the 
     date of enactment of this Act or that began after such date.
       (B) Accessibility.--Information included in the database 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be in language reasonably 
     accessible and understood by individuals without specific 
     expertise in the medical field.
       (2) Studies and surveillances.--
       (A) Included.--The database described in paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (i) all postmarket surveillances ordered under section 
     522(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     360l(a)) or agreed to by the manufacturer; and
       (ii) all studies agreed to by the manufacturer of a medial 
     device as part of--

       (I) the premarket approval of such device under section 515 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360e);
       (II) the clearance of a premarket notification report under 
     section 510(k) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) with respect to 
     such device; or
       (III) the submission of an application under section 520(m) 
     of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)) with respect to such device.

       (B) Excluded.--The database described in paragraph (1) 
     shall not include any studies with respect to a medical 
     device that were completed prior to the initial approval of 
     such device.
       (3) Contents of study and surveillance.--For each study or 
     surveillance included in the database described in paragraph 
     (1), the database shall include--
       (A) information on the status of the study or surveillance;
       (B) basic information about the study or surveillance, 
     including the purpose, the primary and secondary outcomes, 
     and the population targeted;
       (C) the expected completion date of the study or 
     surveillance;
       (D) public health notifications, including safety alerts; 
     and
       (E) any other information the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services determines appropriate to protect the public health.
       (4) Once completed or terminated.--In addition to the 
     information described in paragraph (3), once a study or 
     surveillance has been completed or if a study or surveillance 
     is terminated, the database shall also include--
       (A) the actual date of completion or termination;
       (B) if the study or surveillance was terminated, the reason 
     for termination;
       (C) if the study or surveillance was submitted but not 
     accepted by the Food and Drug Administration because the 
     study or surveillance did not meet the requirements for such 
     study or surveillance, an explanation of the reasons and any 
     follow-up action required;
       (D) information about any labeling changes made to the 
     device as a result of the study or surveillance findings;
       (E) information about any other decisions or actions of the 
     Food and Drug Administration that result from the study or 
     surveillance findings;
       (F) lay and technical summaries of the study or 
     surveillance results and key findings, or an explanation as 
     to why the results and key findings do not warrant public 
     availability;
       (G) a link to any peer reviewed articles on the study or 
     surveillance; and
       (H) any other information the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services determines appropriate to protect the public health.
       (5) Public access.--The database described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be--
       (A) accessible to the general public; and
       (B) easily searchable by multiple criteria, including 
     whether the study or surveillance involves pediatric 
     populations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Lieberman, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 831. A bill to authorize States and local governments to prohibit 
the investment of State assets in any company that has a qualifying 
business relationship with Sudan; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to again raise the issue of 
Darfur. I may not match the tenacity of former Senator William 
Proxmire. You see, he came to the Senate floor every day--every day--
for 19 years urging the Senate to ratify the 1948 Convention on 
Genocide. Finally, Senator

[[Page S2924]]

Proxmire prevailed. Finally, the United States became a signatory to 
this historic international agreement. We were one of the last, but we 
were on board.
  The reason I come to the Chamber today to speak is because having 
noted the presence of the need for an international agreement on 
genocide, having acknowledged that a genocide is taking place in Darfur 
in the Sudan, a simple honest answer is we have done little or nothing 
about it.
  I have tried each week to come to the Chamber to again highlight the 
situation and to propose what the United States can do. It is worth 
putting this matter in context. Several times in the history of this 
world, we have witnessed genocides of horrific proportion. One of the 
most recently noted tragedies, of course, involved 6 million Jews and 
others who were killed in the Holocaust in World War II.
  When I was a young college student in Washington at Georgetown 
University, my first year I had an amazing professor whose name was Jan 
Karski. Karski was born in Poland. He was a member of the Polish 
underground resisting the Nazis in World War II. He used to come to our 
classes ramrod straight with military bearing, always dressed 
impeccably in starched white shirt and tie and would speak to us about 
government. He would intersperse his lectures with stories of his life.
  I was fascinated with Dr. Karski. He told the story as a young man 
coming to Washington, DC, in the midst of World War II. He came here 
because he knew what was happening. He knew about the Holocaust, he 
knew about the concentration camps, and he knew something had to be 
done. So he came to war-weary Washington and tried to find someone 
receptive to his message.
  He went from office to office, finally securing a meeting with 
President Roosevelt but never quite convincing the highest level of our 
Government in those days, trying to tell them, yes, there are 
concentration camps; yes, innocent people were being killed; yes, there 
was a Holocaust and something needs to be done.
  Dr. Karski told us in these lectures that he left Washington empty-
handed and despondent. Unfortunately, he never convinced America to 
act, and, unfortunately, the Holocaust continued.
  I used to puzzle over this and imagine: How could it be? How could 
the people of a great Nation such as America stand back and not do 
anything if people were alerting them to the reality of genocide, the 
killing of innocent people? Sadly, I have come to understand it now 
because 4 years ago we declared a genocide was taking place in Darfur 
in Sudan. It was an amazing declaration, it was a courageous 
declaration by this Bush administration. The President, along with 
Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Secretary of State Condoleezza 
Rice, have been unsparing in their criticism of the Sudanese 
Government, and they have used that word, ``genocide.'' But the sad 
reality is, having made this declaration, we have done nothing--
nothing.
  The President said early on he would not allow a genocide to occur on 
his watch. I have reminded him--and I am sure it is painful to hear--
that his watch is coming to an end and the genocide continues and 
America continues to do nothing.
  Today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, 
Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut 
in introducing the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. This 
bill is designed to support the actions of seven States that have 
already passed divestment laws and the dozens more that are considering 
legislation.
  The first of these States, I am proud to say, is the home State of 
this Senator and the Presiding Officer, the State of Illinois. Our 
friend and your former colleague, Mr. President, Jackie Collins, has 
led this fight. She is tenacious, and she is great to have on your 
team.
  Over 50 universities and municipalities have also chosen to divest 
their portfolios of companies that directly or indirectly support the 
genocidal Sudanese Government. Countless individual Americans have made 
this same choice. These States, universities, and individuals have said 
they do not want their pensions or other investments to support a 
government that is carrying out mass atrocities against its own people.
  In this morning's Washington Post, there is a graphic story written 
by Travis Fox of a visit to a refugee camp at Chad. I know the 
Presiding Officer has visited the refugee camps in Chad and has seen 
firsthand what is happening there: 230,000--230,000--Darfur refugees 
have streamed across the border and live in 12 United Nations-
administered camps.
  This heartbreaking story shows an emaciated young boy being fed by 
his mother. It goes on to say that so many of these children are dying 
of malnutrition, even in the refugee camps. They are trying to get this 
poor little boy to eat some food, which he thinks is horrible and spits 
out. He would rather go hungry than eat what he is being given.
  These children are dying in these refugee camps and, sadly, more 
people are streaming to these camps because of the ongoing genocide in 
Darfur.
  As many as 450,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch, have died 
from disease and violence in this genocide; 2.5 million people have 
been displaced since the fighting began. The United Nations reports 
that in the second half of the year 2006, 12 humanitarian workers were 
killed and 38 compounds were attacked.
  This morning's paper also includes a report that members of the 
African Union and the peacekeepers who are valiantly trying to bring 
peace to this area are now being killed as well. Mr. President, 7,000 
members of the African Union are there; 7,000 troops are policing an 
area as large as the State of Texas. Imagine, if you will, trying to 
contain the violence of a militia who is hellbent on killing innocent 
people, raping and pillaging with 7,000 soldiers. Even the best 
soldiers couldn't rise to that challenge. That is why America must rise 
to this challenge.
  As I mentioned, divestment is one tool. It is not what I would 
prefer, but it is a move in the right direction. Our bill recognizes 
that divestment should be undertaken only in rare circumstances, but 
declarations of genocide by both the President and the Congress provide 
all the justification needed for these State and local efforts which 
our bill will support.
  This bipartisan bill affirms it is the sense of Congress that States 
and other entities should be permitted to provide for the divestment of 
assets as an expression of opposition to the genocide and policies of 
the Khartoum Government.
  It also expresses the sense of Congress that such State divestment 
laws are consistent with our Constitution and that, for example, they 
do not run afoul of the foreign commerce clause of the Federal foreign 
affairs power. The bill recognizes that nongovernmental organizations 
working in Sudan on humanitarian efforts or companies that are 
operating under Federal permit or to promote health or religious 
activities, for example, should not be classified as supporting the 
Sudanese Government.
  We do not want to hinder the fine work that is being done by 
nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian organizations. What we want 
to do is put pressure on this Government in Khartoum to change this 
deadly policy which they have followed now for years.
  This is a targeted bill. It is aimed at supporting State and local 
efforts in America to do the right thing.
  Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, last fall I sent a letter 
to every Governor in the country whose State had not divested urging 
them to do so. I sent a similar letter to every university president in 
my State making the same request. I am proud to say that Northwestern 
University in Evanston, IL, and its president, Henry Bienen, had 
already quietly taken steps to divest of major companies operating in 
Sudan. President Bienen has been to Sudan. He has had a life experience 
there. He understands this on a personal basis. I met with him. I 
applaud him for his leadership.
  Sadly, some universities have said no. Incredibly, they have said no. 
One university president of a major university in Illinois called me to 
explain why they could not bring themselves to divest of their 
investments in Sudan where this genocide is taking place. He gave a 
long, tortured explanation

[[Page S2925]]

about university policy. I asked him one question: Do you believe there 
is a genocide taking place in Darfur? There was a long silence. Then he 
said: Well, I guess I don't know. I said: Until you can answer that 
question, you shouldn't make this decision. Others have looked at the 
facts, and they have decided that genocide is taking place. I ask you: 
If you come to that same conclusion that a genocide is taking place, my 
next question is very simple and straightforward: What are you going to 
do about it?
  I believe we have a moral responsibility. It goes beyond any 
political debate and any partisanship. I am glad the cosponsors of this 
legislation, which I am now putting before the Senate, are bipartisan 
in nature.
  When I sent out these letters, incidentally, I had a wake-up call 
personally. A reporter called and said: So you are all for divestment, 
are you, Senator Durbin? Oh, yes, I am committed to it. Guess what, 
Senator. We went through the handful of mutual funds you and your wife 
own and one has investments in Sudan. I was stunned. I said: I will 
sell immediately, which I did. It wasn't very painful to my portfolio, 
but I felt a little better when it was done.
  It doesn't take much, but it is a reminder that change begins at 
home. Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped create and serve as the first chair 
of the United Nations Human Rights Commission once posed that famous 
question:

       Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?

  She answered:

       Human rights begin in small places, close to home--so close 
     and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the 
     world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the 
     neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; 
     the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the 
     places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, 
     equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. 
     Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little 
     meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold 
     them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the 
     larger world.

  That statement embodies the spirit that drives the divestment 
movement.
  The Darfur movement in this country was born on college campuses with 
idealistic youth, but it has now spread across the Nation. The effort 
to divest is a struggle that students are continuing to have with the 
administrators in my home State and across the country.
  These students are carrying on a legacy, a legacy of those students 
who came before them, who led the movement to divest from South Africa 
in order to starve apartheid, the rank discrimination and bigotry of 
our time in the great country of South Africa.
  South Africa changed because of the courage and capabilities of 
people such as Nelson Mandela, who led one of the most remarkable 
revolutions of my time. Change will come in Sudan when Sudanese leaders 
are convinced or compelled to change. But the divestment movement 
helped to drive the process in South Africa, and it can help drive the 
process in Sudan today.
  This bill is only a start, but it isn't the end of the discussion. 
Divestment is a useful tool but just that--only one tool among many we 
should be considering.
  Yesterday, the Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, met with 
President Bashir in Khartoum. The press reported that it was a 20-
minute meeting. I don't know how productive it was. It wasn't the first 
time they have met and, sadly, all the previous times have not led to 
any decision by the Khartoum Government to bring the militia under 
control, which is wreaking havoc and causing this genocide which is 
killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
  Special Envoy Natsios has talked about what now has publicly been 
disclosed and described as Plan B. The biggest export of Sudan, no 
surprise, is oil. How is the oil exported? Through different 
companies--including companies owned by the Chinese, India, and 
Malaysia. Special Envoy Natsios told us that if the Sudanese Government 
did not respond by allowing U.N. peacekeepers to come in and protect 
these innocent people living in their villages by January 1 of this 
year, he would encourage the administration to move on Plan B, which 
calls for economic sanctions against the oil transactions coming out of 
Sudan.
  January 1 has come and gone. According to the press reports, the 
President has ordered the Treasury Department to prepare a menu of 
options that would directly affect the Khartoum Government. I believe 
the President should use this list of options to enact additional 
meaningful sanctions immediately.
  I have spoken to the President twice personally. I have spoken to 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I have tried to raise my voice on 
every occasion to urge them to do something and do it now. People are 
dying, people are starving to death. This genocide continues on our 
watch, America.
  Today's sanctions program is based on Executive orders signed by 
President Clinton in 1997 and President Bush in 2006 and on the Darfur 
Peace and Accountability Act and a host of other laws that provide 
additional mechanisms. The menu of options is there.
  Sudan produces 500,000 barrels of oil a year, 40 percent of which is 
exported. We can find a way to stop the revenue stream leaving Sudan 
and the money coming back into that country. I hope that is on the menu 
being presented to the Government.
  New laws are not required for the President to enact these sanctions. 
He doesn't have to wait on Congress or a long debate. He has the power. 
It might, however, speed action along if Congress passed legislation to 
encourage him.
  This week, the State Department released its annual Country Reports 
on Human Rights Practices. Imagine that, the United States each year 
boldly announces a report card on the rest of the world and how well 
they are doing in the area of human rights. Let me read a portion of 
that report on Sudan, a report from our own State Department, and I 
quote:

       While all sides in Darfur violated international human 
     rights and humanitarian law, the government and the Janjaweed 
     militia continue to bear responsibility for genocide that 
     occurred in Darfur. During the year the government, Arab 
     militia forces, and Darfur rebel groups reportedly killed 
     several thousand civilians.
       By year's end, there were more than 2 million internally 
     displaced persons in Darfur, and another 234,000 that fled 
     into Chad, a neighboring country, where the U.N. High 
     Commissioner for Refugees coordinated a massive refugees 
     relief effort. According to the United Nations, more than 
     200,000 persons have died since 2003 as a result of the 
     violence and forced displacement. The government continues to 
     support the largely Arab nomad Janjaweed militia, which 
     terrorized and killed civilians, raped women, and burned and 
     pillaged the region.
       During the year, the government resumed aerial bombardment 
     of civilian targets, including homes, schools, and markets. 
     There were no reports that the government of Sudan prosecuted 
     or otherwise penalized attacking militias or made efforts to 
     protect civilian victims from attacks. Government forces 
     provided logistic and transportation support, weapons, and 
     ammunition to progovernment militias throughout the country.

  That is the report of our Government about ongoing genocide to which 
we have not responded.
  The report goes on to detail attacks by helicopter gunships and 
bombers as well as ground assaults by both Janjaweed militia and 
uniformed soldiers. It also describes widespread and systemic sexual 
violence against women and children, often carried out by men in 
uniform. Some women who reported these rapes to the Sudanese police 
were then arrested for reporting them. During this year of violence, 
the Sudanese Government conducted only one single successful 
prosecution of a rapist, a man who was convicted of assaulting an 11-
year-old girl. It is unclear how many violations have been prosecuted.
  The report from the State Department also describes how the Sudanese 
Government systematically restricts humanitarian access to Darfur. The 
Government denies and delays visas and harasses and arrests 
humanitarian workers. This is all part of an effort to cut off the food 
and medicine humanitarian groups are bringing into Darfur.

  The mere presence of international aid workers helps safeguard people 
in the camps as well. That is one more reason Khartoum tries to keep 
them out. Rebel groups add to the violence by attacking humanitarian 
workers as well, stealing their vehicles and supplies. According to the 
report, both the rebel groups and the government-supported militias use 
child soldiers to help fight their battles.

[[Page S2926]]

  The State Department's Human Rights Report is just the latest 
testament to the atrocities that continue to unfold in Darfur.
  Mr. President, it is time the world brought these crimes against 
humanity to a halt. We do that by taking steps that we can in the 
United States--starting with supporting divestment and imposing tougher 
sanctions, and we should go to the United Nations and demand a vote. We 
have been told over and over again that if we ask the United Nations to 
get involved, it is likely that one country on the Security Council--
and many point to China--will veto that request. Well, so be it. Let us 
have this vote, let us be on the record, let us say that in the midst 
of genocide, we forced the issue to a vote and the United States voted 
on the side of compassion and humanity. Let those countries threatening 
a veto explain their position.
  I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Specter, and Senator 
Lieberman for joining me in this step we take today to support State 
and local divestment. Many people wonder what one or two Senators can 
accomplish. We are fortunate in the State of Illinois to have a legacy 
of some great people who have served in the Senate, from both political 
parties. The Presiding Officer and I were fortunate to count as a 
friend a former U.S. Senator, the late Paul Simon.
  In 1994, when the Rwanda genocide was unfolding, Paul Simon saw it, 
and he went to Jim Jeffords, a Republican Senator from Vermont, and he 
said: We have to do something; innocent people are being hacked to 
death in Rwanda. He and Senator Jeffords then called Romeo Dallaire, 
the U.N. Peacekeeping General in Rwanda at the time in 1994, and they 
asked: What will it take to stop the killing? He said: It will take 
5,000 equipped soldiers, and I can stop this massacre--only 5,000. So 
Senator Simon and Senator Jeffords called down to the Clinton White 
House and said: We need to talk to somebody about getting 5,000 
soldiers in to stop a massacre. Their call went unheeded. There was no 
response. President Clinton now apologizes today, saying it was one of 
the worst foreign policy decisions of his administration. I respect his 
honesty and candor, but the fact is, no soldiers were sent.
  Recently, a little over a year ago, I visited Rwanda for the first 
time. I went to Hotel Rwanda, made famous by the movie, Hotel des Mille 
Collines, where a brave little hotel manager played the role of Oscar 
Schindler in his time. He started harboring people who otherwise would 
have been killed in the streets of Kigali, Rwanda. It was harrowing to 
walk through the hotel and imagine what life was like; to know that 11 
years before, people huddled, afraid they were about to be pulled out 
and killed in the streets. You would look down at this beautiful, 
crystal-clear swimming pool and realize it was the water in that pool 
that sustained them during that period.
  I went down the hill from that hotel to a red brick Catholic church, 
known as Ste. Famille. I looked inside during the early morning, and I 
went back to the hotel. Someone in the hotel said: That is a famous 
church. A thousand people sought asylum as refugees in that church but, 
unfortunately, the doors were opened and a thousand people were hacked 
to death in that church.
  That is the reality of genocide. It is the reality of Rwanda, and it 
is the reality of Darfur. It is a reality we cannot ignore. We have the 
power. The question is, Do we have the will?
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 831

       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 ``Sudan Divestment 
     Authorization Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On July 22, 2004, the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives passed concurrent resolutions declaring that 
     ``the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide''.
       (2) On June 30, 2005, President Bush affirmed that ``the 
     violence in Darfur region is clearly genocide [and t]he human 
     cost is beyond calculation''.
       (3) The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, which 
     was signed into law on October 13, 2006, reaffirms that ``the 
     genocide unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan is 
     characterized by acts of terrorism and atrocities directed 
     against civilians, including mass murder, rape, and sexual 
     violence committed by the Janjaweed and associated militias 
     with the complicity and support of the National Congress 
     Party-led faction of the Government of Sudan''.
       (4) Several States and governmental entities, through 
     legislation and other means, have expressed their desire, or 
     are considering measures--
       (A) to divest any equity in, or to refuse to provide debt 
     capital to, certain companies that operate in Sudan; and
       (B) to disassociate themselves and the beneficiaries of 
     their public pension and endowment funds from directly or 
     indirectly supporting the Darfur genocide.
       (5) Efforts of States and other governmental entities to 
     divest their pension funds and other investments of companies 
     that operate in Sudan build upon the legal and historical 
     legacy of the anti-apartheid movement in the United States, a 
     movement which contributed to the end of apartheid in South 
     Africa and the holding of free elections in that country in 
     1994.
       (6) Although divestment measures should be employed 
     judiciously and sparingly, declarations of genocide by 
     Congress and the President justify such action.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) States and other governmental entities should be 
     permitted to provide for the divestment of certain State 
     assets within their jurisdictions as an expression of 
     opposition to the genocidal actions and policies of the 
     Government of Sudan; and
       (2) a divestment measure authorized under section 5 does 
     not violate the United States Constitution because such a 
     measure--
       (A) is not preempted under the Supremacy Clause;
       (B) does not constitute an undue burden on foreign or 
     interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause; and
       (C) does not intrude on, or interfere with, the conduct of 
     foreign affairs of the United States.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Assets.--The term ``assets'' means any public pension, 
     retirement, annuity, or endowment fund, or similar 
     instrument, managed by a State.
       (2) Company.--The term ``company'' means any natural 
     person, legal person, sole proprietorship, organization, 
     association, corporation, partnership, firm, joint venture, 
     franchisor, franchisee, financial institution, utility, 
     public franchise, trust, enterprise, limited partnership, 
     limited liability partnership, limited liability company, or 
     other business entity or association, including all wholly-
     owned subsidiaries, majority-owned subsidiaries, parent 
     companies, or affiliates of such business entities or 
     associations.
       (3) Company with a qualifying business relationship with 
     sudan.--The term ``company with a qualifying business 
     relationship with Sudan''--
       (A) means any company--
       (i) that is wholly or partially managed or controlled, 
     either directly or indirectly, by the Government of Sudan or 
     any of its agencies, including political units and 
     subdivisions;
       (ii) that is established or organized under the laws of the 
     Government of Sudan;
       (iii) whose domicile or principal place of business is in 
     Sudan;
       (iv) that is engaged in business operations that provide 
     revenue to the Government of Sudan;
       (v) that owns, maintains, sells, leases, or controls 
     property, assets, equipment, facilities, personnel, or any 
     other apparatus of business or commerce in Sudan, including 
     ownership or possession of real or personal property located 
     in Sudan;
       (vi) that transacts commercial business, including the 
     provision or obtaining of goods or services, in Sudan;
       (vii) that has distribution agreements with, issues credits 
     or loans to, or purchases bonds of commercial paper issued 
     by--

       (I) the Government of Sudan; or
       (II) any company whose domicile or principal place of 
     business is in Sudan;

       (viii) that invests in--

       (I) the Government of Sudan; or
       (II) any company whose domicile or principal place of 
     business is in Sudan; or

       (ix) that is fined, penalized, or sanctioned by the Office 
     of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury 
     for violating any Federal rule or restriction relating to 
     Sudan after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) does not include--
       (i) nongovernmental organizations (except agencies of 
     Sudan), which--

       (I) have consultative status with the United Nations 
     Economic and Social Council; or
       (II) have been accredited by a department or specialized 
     agency of the United Nations;

       (ii) companies that operate in Sudan under a permit or 
     other authority of the United States;
       (iii) companies whose business activities in Sudan are 
     strictly limited to the provision of goods and services that 
     are--

       (I) intended to relieve human suffering;
       (II) intended to promote welfare, health, religious, or 
     spiritual activities;
       (III) used for educational purposes;
       (IV) used for humanitarian purposes; or

[[Page S2927]]

       (V) used for journalistic activities.

       (4) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of 
     Sudan''--
       (A) means--
       (i) the government in Khartoum, Sudan, which is led by the 
     National Congress Party (formerly known as the National 
     Islamic Front); or
       (ii) any successor government formed on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, including the Government of 
     National Unity, established in 2005 as a result of the 
     Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan; and
       (B) does not include the regional Government of Southern 
     Sudan.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and any department, agency, public university or 
     college, county, city, village, or township of such 
     governmental entity.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL DIVESTMENT 
                   MEASURES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any State may adopt measures to prohibit any investment 
     of State assets in the Government of Sudan or in any company 
     with a qualifying business relationship with Sudan, during 
     any period in which the Government of Sudan, or the officials 
     of such government are subject to sanctions authorized 
     under--
       (1) the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245);
       (2) the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-497);
       (3) the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 
     2005 (Public Law 109-177);
       (4) the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109-344); or
       (5) any other Federal law or executive order.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to measures 
     adopted by a State before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Carper, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. 
        Dorgan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kohl, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, 
        Mr. Sanders, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. 
        Wyden):


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S2927, March 8, 2007, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. 
Webb were listed as cosponsors of S.J. Res. 9.
  
  On online version has been corrected by deleting Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
Lieberman, and Mr. Webb from the list.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  S.J. Res. 9. A joint resolution to revise United States policy on 
Iraq; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 9

       Whereas Congress and the American people will continue to 
     support and protect the members of the United States Armed 
     Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably 
     in Iraq;
       Whereas the circumstances referred to in the Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-243) have changed substantially;
       Whereas United States troops should not be policing a civil 
     war, and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a 
     political solution; and
       Whereas United States policy on Iraq must change to 
     emphasize the need for a political solution by Iraqi leaders 
     in order to maximize the chances of success and to more 
     effectively fight the war on terror: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``United States 
     Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PROMPT COMMENCEMENT OF PHASED REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED 
                   STATES FORCES FROM IRAQ.

       (a) Transition of Mission.--The President shall promptly 
     transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the 
     limited purposes set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq.--The 
     President shall commence the phased redeployment of United 
     States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal 
     of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat 
     forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are 
     essential for the following purposes:
       (1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and 
     infrastructure.
       (2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
       (3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
       (c) Comprehensive Strategy.--Subsection (b) shall be 
     implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, 
     and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with 
     Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the 
     purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
       (d) Reports Required.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the 
     United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased 
     redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required 
     under this section.

                          ____________________