[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.
____________________