[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6463-S6483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Domenici,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, Mrs. Dole, Mr. DeMint, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Lott):
S. 15. A bill to establish a new budget process to create a
comprehensive plan to rein in spending, reduce the deficit, and regain
control of the Federal budget process; to the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to talk specifically about
how we get our fiscal house in order as a nation and especially as a
government. Just last week, the Congress passed--or at least the Senate
passed and the House passed--a proposal for a budget which,
unfortunately, fails the American people dramatically in the area of
controlling spending and in the area of good tax policy. It creates a
cascade. It is a Democratic budget that creates a cascade of new
spending, hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending which will
grow the size of the Government dramatically and which is, therefore,
undisciplined in its approach.
It also proposes tax policy which will radically increase taxes on
working Americans and have the effect of stifling what has been an
extraordinary economic expansion, which in part has been a function of
having a tax policy which understands that if you let people keep their
money, they tend to be more productive with those dollars, they tend to
go out and take risks, be entrepreneurs, create jobs, and as a result,
the Federal Government gets more revenue because people creating these
jobs pay taxes and we end up with more economic activity. We have had
72 months of growth, and we have created 7.4 million new jobs in this
country, and that is a significant step in the right direction toward
economic expansion.
But all that is at risk because we, as a government, tend to spend
more than we take in, and we do not have in place a discipline
necessary as a government to effectively manage our own house. This was
reflected in the budget that was just passed, regrettably. Therefore,
as we also look to the future, we are confronting a cost to the
Government which is going to radically increase the expenditures of the
Federal Government to a point where our children and our children's
children will not be able to afford them.
In fact, just the cost of three programs alone--Medicare, Social
Security, and Medicaid--by the year 2025, because of the retirement of
the baby boom generation, will actually exceed the amount of money
which the Federal Government has historically spent as a percentage of
gross national product. So by about the year 2025, because of the
retirement of the baby boom generation, three programs--Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will absorb all the money that
historically the Federal Government has spent, which means there will
be no money left over for education, laying out roads, or environmental
protection.
We will be in a position where our children, in order to bear the
burden of those three programs, will have to pay a tax rate which will
make it impossible for them to afford their own Government and will
make their lifestyle significantly constrained. The pressure on them
will be dramatic because the burden of taxes will exceed their ability
to pay them and still maintain a quality lifestyle. Their ability to
send their children to college, to buy a house, to have a good
lifestyle, to have the luxuries which our generation has had will be
constrained by the fact that the size of the Federal Government is
growing out of control as a function of the retirement of the baby boom
generation.
So these two events combined--the dramatic expansion in entitlement
spending and the Democratic budget which was essentially grossly
irresponsible in the area of spending on the discretionary side of the
account and in the area of creating debt; it will add $2.5 trillion of
new debt to the Federal Government over the 5 years of this budget--
these two events combined are going to put a lot of pressure on our
economy and on the well-being of our Nation.
A group of us believe very strongly that we need to put in place
mechanisms in this Government which more effectively discipline the
spending of the Government. So I am introducing today, along with 27
colleagues--and that is a fair number of cosponsors--the Stop Over-
Spending Act, SOS. This bill has eight basic elements. I am not going
to go through them all, but I
[[Page S6464]]
wish to highlight the ones that are significant.
Basically, what this bill does is it puts in place disciplines which
allow this Congress, if it desires to do so--all of these disciplines
can be waived by 60-vote points of order, basically--if Congress
desires to do so, it can limit the growth of the Federal Government to
something that is affordable to the American people.
The most important discipline this bill puts in place is one over
entitlement spending. Right now, we have nothing that controls
entitlement spending. This bill says that if entitlement spending
reaches a certain level of use of general funds of the Treasury--and
most of these entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid--are not supposed to be overwhelming burdens on the general
fund, the general fund being basic income taxes, not retirement taxes
and health insurance taxes--if the burden of these programs exceeds a
certain level, then there are mechanisms which allow us to take a
second look at these programs to improve them, to make them cost-
effective while delivering quality services.
In addition, this proposal puts in place caps, serious caps on
discretionary spending so that we know that when you hit a certain
level of spending and you are trying to exceed the amount of money the
Federal Government should spend, there will be a 60-vote point of order
before that can occur. That is only reasonable, that is only good
budgeting, and it is something we need to have in place.
Unfortunately, the Democratic budget which was just passed
essentially got rid of caps for the year 2009, 2010, and it puts them
in place for 2008, but that is almost irrelevant because it raises them
so high that there is no way anybody is going to hit those caps unless
they are truly spendthrifts.
They basically add $200 billion of new spending over the next 5
years, and next year they dramatically increase spending, both through
taking programs off the budget by declaring them emergencies, such as
in the agricultural area, and putting them into the next year through
advanced funding, which is a total gamesmanship, and then actually
increasing the spending levels under the discretionary account. It is a
grossly irresponsible cascade of new spending we see coming at us next
year as a result of this Democratic budget. This Stop Over-Spending Act
will try to discipline that in a more effective way, and it is time we
did that.
In addition, it puts in place two very aggressive proposals to try to
take a look at how we are managing the bigger programs of the Federal
Government. One is a proposal which came from Senator Brownback which
is a bipartisan commission on accountability and Federal review. It is
basically a BRAC commission for all the Federal Government. So if we
find programs that are overlapping--and believe me, there are an awful
lot of overlapping programs in the Federal Government--if we find
programs that are just not producing the results they are supposed to
produce or which have served their time, which were supposed to be 3-
year programs and they have been going on for 10, 15 years, we will
have a mechanism where those programs can come back to the Congress and
voted up or down, either they should be in place or not in place, the
same way we approach managing the defense spending accounts through
BRAC.
There is a second commission put in place which, again, has an
automatic vote by the Congress, which is an attempt to address the most
significant issue we have, which is this entitlement spending issue
which was reflected in the chart I held up earlier. This is a
commission which would be set up, which would be bipartisan, which
would be Members of the Congress, and which would essentially take a
look at these programs--Social Security and Medicare specifically--and
see how we can improve them, see how we can make them work more
effectively but see how we can make them more affordable for our
children, and then in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming
supermajority, so there is no question that anybody will be gamed,
everybody will be at the table, and nobody will be gamed, bring those
proposals back to Congress and vote them up or down without amendment
so that we know this commission, when it makes a report, will actually
get action from a report.
The problem is that we get all these commissions and they produce
wonderful reports and nothing happens. This commission will have
something happening. It is a critical element. It is important.
If we don't get on this issue of mandatory spending, we will be
irresponsible as a generation. We are the generation that created this
problem, the baby boom generation. We are the generation governing
today. Probably 80 percent of the people in this body are of the baby
boom generation. And what we are doing is burying our heads in the sand
and passing what we know is a huge problem--which is going to occur
because all the people who are going to create this problem exist and
they are going to retire--we are going to pass that problem on to our
children and say: You figure it out, even though it is a problem we
created. That is irresponsible.
As people who have obtained a position of governing in this country,
we have an absolute responsibility to our children and our children's
children and to this Nation's fiscal health to address this issue, and
this commission is an attempt to do that. This Stop Over-Spending Act
is an attempt to do just that.
In addition, the proposal includes biannual budgeting, which is
something many people around here think will help us be more efficient
in the way we approach the accounts of the Federal Government. It
changes and reforms a lot of what are institutional mechanisms for the
purposes of managing the day-to-day business of the spending of the
Federal Government by putting in place baselines which are appropriate
and limitations on the ability to spend money around here under
reconciliation and limitations on the ability to raise taxes
arbitrarily on the American people.
So it is a balanced approach. It has 27 cosponsors, and, quite
honestly, if a percentage of these proposals were adopted, we would
actually have some discipline around this place in the area of fiscal
policy. We would be back on a path toward making sure we have a
government that people can afford, while we still have a government
that is delivering the services that people want. That should be our
bottom-line goal.
It is an honor for me to have a chance to introduce this today, to be
the primary sponsor of it, but I especially appreciate the support of
my colleagues in signing onto this bill, which I hope will be
considered or at least elements of this bill will be considered because
we are running out of time.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 31. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reduce
fraud in certain visa programs for aliens working temporarily in the
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the H-1B Visa Fraud
Prevention Act of 2007.
Many American businesses rely on the H-1B visa program. When
employers can demonstrate that there are too few U.S. workers to fill
particular positions with defined education and skills standards, the
program allows temporary, non-immigrant workers to fill vacancies in
engineering, sciences, medicine, health, and other specialties.
The program is of considerable benefit to our economy. Unfortunately,
there has been a long history of some unscrupulous employers attempting
to abuse the H-1B program. Last fall, the Portland Press Herald
newspaper in Maine printed a three-part series resulting from its in-
depth investigation of H-1B abuses.
The newspaper found evidence of shell companies filing applications
for H-1B visas in Maine, but no evidence of H-1B visa holders actually
working for those businesses in Maine. One company rented office space
in Portland for a year and submitted at least 160 H-1B and green-card
applications on behalf of foreign workers, but the building manager
never saw anyone there, and was asked to forward all mail to an address
in New Jersey.
This legislation will help detect and prevent the kind of fraud
identified by the Portland Press Herald.
Before I describe the details of my legislation, I want to
acknowledge the
[[Page S6465]]
leadership of Senators Grassley, Durbin, Gregg, Hagel, and Lieberman on
this issue. They have also drafted bills aimed at reforming the H-1B
visa issuance process as well as expanding the number of H-1B visas. My
hope is that we can join forces to craft an amendment to the
immigration bill that will curb the fraud afflicting this program.
Specifically, my legislation is targeted at detecting employers who
do not have legitimate business operations that require H-1B workers
and who intend only to transfer the H-1B workers they receive to
another employer. This bill prohibits employers from contracting their
H-1B workers to an employer in a different State.
The Portland Press Herald's investigation showed that some employers
may have filed for H-1B workers in Maine in order to take advantage of
a lower prevailing wage, then transferred those employees to States
where a higher prevailing wage would have been required on the H-1B
application.
The legislation I am proposing would remove onerous restrictions on
the Department of Labor's ability to investigate suspected fraud. It
would allow the Department to investigate applications that have clear
indicators of fraud or misrepresentation, instead of merely checking
for completeness and obvious inaccuracies, as current law provides.
It also would expand the types of information that can be used to
investigate fraudulent activity and eliminate a requirement that the
Secretary of the Department of Labor personally approve each
investigation. In addition, to further deter companies from filing
fraudulent applications, the legislation would double the current
monetary penalties.
Preventing H-1B fraud and abuse also requires that the Department of
Labor work more closely with the Department of Homeland Security's U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which is the agency
that ultimately approves an H-1B visa application. To that end, this
legislation requires the Director of USCIS to share with Labor
information it receives from employers who file H-1B visa applications
that may indicate noncompliance with the H-1B visa program.
USCIS has taken first steps to detect fraud in other types of visas.
For example, last July USCIS completed an assessment of religious-
worker benefit fraud that showed fraud in one-third of the cases
surveyed. From these surveys, USCIS developed known indicators of fraud
for religious-worker visas that it can now compare against incoming
applications.
USCIS began a similar assessment of benefit fraud for H-1B visas
nearly a year ago. It is not yet completed, despite repeated inquiries
by my staff on its status. This legislation requires completion of the
H-1B fraud assessment within 30 days, so that USCIS can begin using
this valuable tool to uncover fraud in other H-1B applications.
This legislation fills gaps in our ability to ensure that H-1B visas
are granted and used in the manner Congress intended. I urge my
colleagues to support this proposal as we consider immigration-reform
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 31
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 ``H-1B Visa Fraud Prevention
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. H-1B EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Prohibition of Outplacement.--
(1) In general.--Section 212(n) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by amending subparagraph (F) to read
as follows:
``(F) The employer shall not place, outsource, lease, or
otherwise contract for the placement of an alien admitted or
provided status as an H-1B nonimmigrant with another employer
if the worksite of the receiving employer is located in a
different State;'' and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (E).
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to applications filed on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Immigration Documents.--Section 204 of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Employer To Share All Immigration Paperwork Exchanged
With Federal Agencies.--Not later than 10 working days after
receiving a written request from a former, current, or future
employee or beneficiary, an employer shall provide the
employee or beneficiary with the original (or a certified
copy of the original) of all petitions, notices, and other
written communication exchanged between the employer and the
Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, or
any other Federal agency that is related to an immigrant or
nonimmigrant petition filed by the employer for the employee
or beneficiary.''.
SEC. 3. H-1B GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Safeguards Against Fraud and Misrepresentation in
Application Review Process.--Section 212(n)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is
amended--
(1) in the undesignated paragraph at the end, by striking
``The employer'' and inserting the following:
``(H) The employer''; and
(2) in subparagraph (H), as designated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection--
(A) by inserting ``and through the Department of Labor's
website, without charge.'' after ``D.C.'';
(B) by inserting ``, clear indicators of fraud,
misrepresentation of material fact,'' after ``completeness'';
(C) by striking ``or obviously inaccurate'' and inserting
``, presents clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation
of material fact, or is obviously inaccurate'';
(D) by striking ``within 7 days of'' and inserting ``not
later than 14 days after''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following: ``If the
Secretary's review of an application identifies clear
indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact,
the Secretary may conduct an investigation and hearing under
paragraph (2).''.
(b) Investigations by Department of Labor.--Section
212(n)(2) of such Act is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``The Secretary shall
conduct'' and all that follows and inserting ``Upon the
receipt of such a complaint, the Secretary may initiate an
investigation to determine if such a failure or
misrepresentation has occurred.'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i)--
(A) by striking ``a condition of paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E),
or (1)(F)'' and inserting ``a condition under subparagraph
(B), (C)(i), (E), (F), (H), (I), or (J) of paragraph (1)'';
and
(B) by striking ``(1)(C)'' and inserting ``(1)(C)(ii)'';
(3) in subparagraph (G)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``if the Secretary'' and all
that follows and inserting ``with regard to the employer's
compliance with the requirements of this subsection.'';
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``and whose identity'' and
all that follows through ``failure or failures.'' and
inserting ``the Secretary of Labor may conduct an
investigation into the employer's compliance with the
requirements of this subsection.'';
(C) in clause (iii), by striking the last sentence;
(D) by striking clauses (iv) and (v);
(E) by redesignating clauses (vi), (vii), and (viii) as
clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
(F) by amending clause (v), as redesignated, to read as
follows:
``(v) The Secretary of Labor shall provide notice to an
employer of the intent to conduct an investigation. The
notice shall be provided in such a manner, and shall contain
sufficient detail, to permit the employer to respond to the
allegations before an investigation is commenced. The
Secretary is not required to comply with this clause if the
Secretary determines that such compliance would interfere
with an effort by the Secretary to investigate or secure
compliance by the employer with the requirements of this
subsection. A determination by the Secretary under this
clause shall not be subject to judicial review.'';
(G) in clause (vi), as redesignated, by striking ``An
investigation'' and all that follows through ``the
determination.'' and inserting ``If the Secretary of Labor,
after an investigation under clause (i) or (ii), determines
that a reasonable basis exists to make a finding that the
employer has failed to comply with the requirements under
this subsection, the Secretary shall provide interested
parties with notice of such determination and an opportunity
for a hearing in accordance with section 556 of title 5,
United States Code, not later than 120 days after the date of
such determination.''; and
(H) by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) The Secretary of Labor may impose a penalty under
subparagraph (C) if the Secretary, after a hearing, finds a
reasonable basis to believe that--
``(I) the employer has violated the requirements under this
subsection; and
``(II) the violation was not made in good faith.''; and
(4) by striking subparagraph (H).
(c) Information Sharing Between Department of Labor and
Department of Homeland Security.--Section 212(n)(2) of such
Act, as amended by this section, is further amended by
inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) The Director of United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services shall provide the Secretary of Labor
with any information contained in the materials submitted by
H-
[[Page S6466]]
1B employers as part of the adjudication process that
indicates that the employer is not complying with H-1B visa
program requirements. The Secretary may initiate and conduct
an investigation and hearing under this paragraph after
receiving information of noncompliance under this
subparagraph.''.
(d) Audits.--Section 212(n)(2)(A) of such Act, as amended
by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary may conduct surveys of the degree
to which employers comply with the requirements under this
subsection and may conduct annual compliance audits of
employers that employ H-1B nonimmigrants.''.
(e) Penalties.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) of such Act, as
amended by this section, is further amended--
(1) in clause (i)(I), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting
``$2,000'';
(2) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting
``$10,000''; and
(3) in clause (vi)(III), by striking ``$1,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000''.
(f) Information Provided to H-1B Nonimmigrants Upon Visa
Issuance.--Section 212(n) of such Act, as amended by this
section, is further amended by inserting after paragraph (2)
the following:
``(3)(A) Upon issuing an H-1B visa to an applicant outside
the United States, the issuing office shall provide the
applicant with--
``(i) a brochure outlining the employer's obligations and
the employee's rights under Federal law, including labor and
wage protections;
``(ii) the contact information for Federal agencies that
can offer more information or assistance in clarifying
employer obligations and workers' rights; and
``(iii) a copy of the employer's H-1B application for the
position that the H-1B nonimmigrant has been issued the visa
to fill.
``(B) Upon the issuance of an H-1B visa to an alien inside
the United States, the officer of the Department of Homeland
Security shall provide the applicant with--
``(i) a brochure outlining the employer's obligations and
the employee's rights under Federal law, including labor and
wage protections;
``(ii) the contact information for Federal agencies that
can offer more information or assistance in clarifying
employer's obligations and workers' rights; and
``(iii) a copy of the employer's H-1B application for the
position that the H-1B nonimmigrant has been issued the visa
to fill.''.
SEC. 4. H-1B WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
Section 212(n)(2)(C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)(iv)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``take, fail to take, or threaten to take
or fail to take, a personnel action, or'' before ``to
intimidate''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``An employer that
violates this clause shall be liable to the employees harmed
by such violation for lost wages and benefits.''.
SEC. 5. FRAUD ASSESSMENT.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services shall submit to Congress a fraud risk
assessment of the H-1B visa program.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 32. A bill to reform the acquisition process of the Department of
Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing this omnibus defense
acquisition reform bill today to highlight the scope and urgent need
for comprehensive reform in how the Pentagon procures its biggest and
most expensive weapons systems.
Defense acquisition policy has been a major issue ever since
President Eisenhower first warned the Nation, in 1961, about the
military-industrial complex. As Operation Ill Wind in the 1980s and the
Boeing tanker lease scandal just a few years ago have taught us,
Eisenhower's comments apply with equal force today.
Despite the lessons of the past, the acquisition process continues to
be dysfunctional. In the 110th Congress, major acquisition policy
issues have arisen in some of the biggest defense programs, including
the Navy transformational program, Littoral Combat Systems, LCS and the
Air Force's second largest acquisition program, Combat Search and
Rescue Vehicle Replacement Program, CSAR-X.
We can not do much to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely
in developing, testing and acquiring major defense systems. By
increasing transparency and accountability and maximizing competition,
comprehensive acquisition reform can provide the taxpayer with the best
value; minimize waste, fraud and abuse; and, perhaps most importantly,
help guarantee that the U.S. maintains the strongest, most capable
fighting force in the world. That is what this legislative proposal is
all about.
Our colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee have already
taken considerable steps in this area, which I applaud. It is my
intention to offer this acquisition package to the defense
authorization bill this week. The defense bill which we will be
considering this week in the Committee on Armed Services totals more
than $650 billion. That's serious money.
As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars we must assure the public that
we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the
best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon
systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon
systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue
to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt
the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in the field.
The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an
economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon
system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime
example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet
fighters, now we can only afford 183. In addition, without fundamental
reforms, such as I have proposed in this bill, we will continue to buy
weapon systems in an ineffective manner, which usually results in long
delays and unexpected cost growth, as requirements, acquisition policy
and resources never get in synch.
One aspect of how the Pentagon buys the biggest weapons systems that
my proposal addresses head-on is the ``requirements process''; that is,
the process by which the Pentagon defines the weapon system it wants to
procure. All too often, costly requirements, many of which are
unrelated to what the unified commands say they need, are piled on to
these programs irresponsibly, without regard to the bottom-line. Just
as egregious is the tendency to drop requirements that the warfighter
has said they need, which sometimes justified the system in the first
instance.
There is an emerging consensus that one way of addressing these, and
related, problems is by integrating processes, that is, aligning the
acquisition, resources, and requirements spheres of the procurement
process in a way that provides the necessary accountability and agility
for the Pentagon to make sound judgments on its defense investments.
Historically, each sphere has been stove-piped and allowed to operate
independently in a way that has produced poor cost, scheduling and
performance outcomes, to the detriment of both the taxpayer and the
warfighter.
Elements of this legislative proposal that provide for ``integrated
processes'' include 1. having the Service Chiefs help oversee
acquisition management decisions; 2. standing-up a ``tri-chair
committee''--so-called because it will be that headed by the primary
players in the acquisition, resources and requirements communities--
that can help make enterprise-wide investment decisions more powerfully
and with greater agility than any other procurement-related
organization currently within the Pentagon 3. increasing the membership
of the Pentagon's main requirements-setting body to include leadership
from all three spheres; and 4. setting out guidelines that, when
coupled with certain provisions currently under law, can help the
Pentagon better manage unexpected cost growth.
Other elements of this proposal address particular structural
problems in major weapons procurement that Congress has observed over
the last few years. One such provision restricts the services from
entering into multiyear contracts irresponsibly when buying weapons.
Buying weapons under a multiyear contract restricts Congress's ability
to exercise appropriate oversight. If Congress bought these items under
a series of annual contracts, there would be a meaningful opportunity
for it to annually review the programs' progress. For this reason,
using multiyear contracts should be limited to only the best performing
and most stable programs. The approach provided for under this
legislative proposal would help to ensure that.
Other elements of this proposal would help reign in abuses in how the
Government pays award fees and require defense contractors to maintain
a robust internal ethics compliance program that can help maintain
effective oversight of defense programs.
[[Page S6467]]
In developing this reform package, I have pulled the ``best of the
best,'' that is, the best, most powerful ideas which enjoy the broadest
consensus among some of the most respected experts, whose ideas have
been ventilated in public hearings and reps over the last 3 years,
including the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report, a.k.a.
the DAPA or the Kadish Report; the Center for Strategic International
Studies' CSIS, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Report; the section 804 report
from the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics; a number of reports and analyses from the Government
Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service; and
others. Some of the elements of this package also institutionalize good
ideas that the Pentagon has informally put in place recently.
Acquisition reform of a bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon does not
happen overnight. That is why we need to act now. Our defense spending
has doubled in the last decade, from $350 billion to $650 billion.
Every American I talk to as I cross the country understands that we
need to spend as much as necessary for national defense. However, how
much is enough? Taxpayers also expect that we spend his or her hard-
earned tax dollars in a sound and cost-effective manner. We have not
been fulfilling that expectation. We need to. This proposed legislation
sets us on that course.
Chairman Levin and I have discussed the need for greater oversight in
the Senate Armed Services Committee and the common goal of producing
concrete results on acquisition reform this year. I look forward to
working with Chairman Levin to fully adopt this acquisition package
this week and also working with his capable staff in taking
comprehensive steps, similar to what our House colleagues have done, to
assure that we buy weapon systems at the best price and field them as
soon as practicable.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 32
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 ``Defense Acquisition Reform
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL EVALUATION OF
MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS EXPERIENCING
CERTAIN COST INCREASES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 144 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2433a. Joint Requirements Oversight Council evaluation
of programs experiencing certain cost increases
``(a) In General.--The Secretary concerned may not
reprogram funds for a major defense acquisition program
described in subsection (b), or otherwise provide or provide
for additional funding for such a program, until the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council submits to the Secretary an
assessment of the performance requirements for the item to be
procured under the contract, including the effect of such
requirements on cost increases under the program.
``(b) Covered Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--A major
defense acquisition program described in this subsection is
any major defense acquisition program as follows:
``(1) A major defense acquisition program that experiences
a percentage increase in the program acquisition unit cost
of--
``(A) at least 10 percent over the program acquisition unit
cost for the program as shown in the current Baseline
Estimate for the program; or
``(B) at least 25 percent over the program acquisition unit
cost for the program as shown in the original Baseline
Estimate for the program.
``(2) A major defense acquisition program that is a
procurement program that experiences a percentage increase in
the procurement unit cost of--
``(A) at least 10 percent over the procurement unit cost
for the program as shown in the current Baseline Estimate for
the program; or
``(B) at least 25 percent over the procurement unit cost
for the program as shown in the original Baseline Estimate
for the program.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The terms `program acquisition unit cost' and
`procurement unit cost' have the meaning given those terms in
section 2432(a) of this title.
``(2) The terms `Baseline Estimate' and `procurement
program' have the meaning given those terms in section
2433(a) of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such title is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2433 the following new item:
``2433a. Joint Requirements Oversight Council evaluation of programs
experiencing certain cost increases.''.
SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT
COUNCIL.
Section 181(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(F) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics; and
``(G) the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) The Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation shall
be an advisor to the Council in the performance of its
mission under this section.''.
SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL OF JOINT REQUIREMENTS
OVERSIGHT COUNCIL FOR INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST
AND EVALUATION IN ENVIRONMENT NOT SPECIFIED IN
TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN.
Section 2399(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as
paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) Initial operational test and evaluation of a major
defense acquisition program may not be conducted in an
environment other than the environment specified and defined
in the test and evaluation master plan (TEMP) concerned
without the approval of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council.'';
(3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection, by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``paragraph (3)'';
(4) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking
``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
(5) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(5)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(3)''.
SEC. 5. APPROVAL BY PROGRAM MANAGERS OF CERTAIN COST
INCREASES IN CONTRACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY.
(a) Regulations Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe in regulations certain mechanisms that provide cost
control measures in contracts for the acquisition of property
for the Department of Defense that may be authorized or
approved by the program manager.
(2) Objectives.--In prescribing the regulations, the
Secretary shall seek, to the maximum extent practicable, to
achieve cost control, the stabilization of requirements, and
timely delivery in accordance with contract specifications in
the performance of contracts for the acquisition of property
for the Department.
(b) Covered Cost Increases.--The regulations required by
subsection (a) shall provide that the cost increases that may
be authorized or approved by a program manager under a
contract shall be limited to the following:
(1) A cost increase necessary to secure or enhance safety
in the property procured under the contract where the
unsecure or unsafe condition or situation (as officially
documented by a responsible oversight organization) is
attributable to the Government.
(2) A cost increase necessary for the correction of a
defect in the contract that is attributable to the
Government, including a defect in contract specifications, a
defect in or the unavailability of Government information
necessary for the performance of the contract, or a defect in
or the unavailability of Government equipment necessary for
the performance of the contract.
(3) A cost increase associated with the unavailability of
Government-specified, contractor-furnished equipment or
components.
(4) A cost increase that is necessary for the modification
of the property procured under the contract that is critical
for the delivery or completion of operational testing.
(5) A cost increase resulting from a modification of
applicable statutes or regulations, but only if--
(A) funds are specifically made available to implement such
modification; or
(B) in the event funds are not so made available, the
service acquisition executive concerned approves the cost
increase.
(6) Any other cost increase approved and funded by an
appropriate oversight organization that is the result of new
or revised requirements or modifications that would result in
an overall reduction in life cycle cost in the property
procured under the contract.
(c) Availability of Change Order Funds for Cost
Increases.--The regulations shall provide that amounts
appropriated for a program and available for change orders to
contracts under the program shall be available
[[Page S6468]]
for costs authorized or approved under subsection (b).
(d) Prohibition on Other Cost Increases.--The regulations
shall prohibit the authorization or approval by a program
manager of any cost increase under a contract not authorized
pursuant to subsection (b).
(e) Cost Reductions.--The regulations shall also authorize
a program manager to authorize or approve an administrative
change, whether engineering or non-engineering, to a contract
for the acquisition of property for the Department if the
change will reduce or have no effect on the cost of the
contract.
(f) Prohibition on Use of Certain Cost Reductions for
Offset.--The regulations shall prohibit the utilization as an
offset for a cost increase in a contract under subsection
(b)(6) of any reduction in the cost of the contract resulting
from a cost change approved by the program manager, including
a reduction attributable to a change authorized under
subsection (e).
SEC. 6. MILITARY DEPUTIES TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF THE
MILITARY DEPARTMENTS FOR ACQUISITION MATTERS
AND THE CHIEFS OF STAFF.
(a) Department of the Army.--
(1) In general.--There is in the Army a Military Deputy for
Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, from among officers in
the Army who have significant experience in the areas of
acquisition and program management.
(2) Grade.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters has
the grade of lieutenant general.
(3) Duties.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters
shall have the following duties:
(A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Army with
responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of
acquisition matters for the Army.
(B) To report to the Chief of Staff of the Army regarding
such matters.
(b) Department of the Navy.--
(1) In general.--There is in the Navy a Naval Deputy for
Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, from among officers in
the Navy and Marine Corps who have significant experience in
the areas of acquisition and program management.
(2) Grade.--The Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters has
the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant general.
(3) Duties.--The Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters shall
have the following duties:
(A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Navy with
responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of
acquisition matters for the Navy.
(B) To report to the Chief of Naval Operations regarding
such matters.
(c) Department of the Air Force.--
(1) In general.--There is in the Air Force a Military
Deputy for Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among
officers in the Air Force who have significant experience in
the areas of acquisition and program management.
(2) Grade.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters has
the grade of lieutenant general.
(3) Duties.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters
shall have the following duties:
(A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force with
responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of
acquisition matters for the Air Force.
(B) To report to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
regarding such matters.
(d) Exclusion of Military Deputies From Distribution and
Strength in Grade Limitations.--
(1) Distribution.--Section 525(b) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9)(A) An officer while serving in a position specified
in subparagraph (B) is in addition to the number that would
otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force for the
grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, as applicable.
``(B) A position specified in this subparagraph is each
position as follows:
``(i) Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Army.
``(ii) Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Navy.
``(iii) Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Air
Force.''.
(2) Authorized strength.--Section 526 of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Exclusion of Military Deputies to Assistant
Secretaries of the Military Departments for Acquisition
Matters.--The limitations of this section do not apply to a
general or flag officer who is covered by the exclusion under
section 525(b)(9) of this title.''.
SEC. 7. COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
within the Department of Defense a committee to ensure the
effective allocation within major defense acquisition
programs of the financial resources available for such
programs.
(b) Members.--
(1) In general.--The committee established under subsection
(a) shall be composed of the following:
(A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
(B) The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(C) The Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
(D) Any other officials of the Department of Defense
jointly agreed upon by the Under Secretary and the Vice
Chairman.
(2) Chairs.--The officials referred to in subparagraphs (A)
through (C) of paragraph (1) shall serve as joint chairs of
the committee.
(c) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The committee established under subsection
(a) shall, at each point in the acquisition of a major
defense acquisition program specified in paragraph (2),
determine the most effective allocation among such program of
the financial resources available to such program at such
point. In making such determinations, the committee shall
balance requirements, technological maturities, and available
resources under such program utilizing solutions bounded by a
time-certain and available resources (commonly referred to as
``bounded solutions''), portfolio management techniques, and
other appropriate investment evaluation techniques to
identify the most appropriate allocation of financial
resources to meet requirements.
(2) Points within acquisition process.--The points in the
acquisition of a major defense acquisition program specified
in this paragraph are the points as follows:
(A) At an appropriate point early in the acquisition
jointly specified by the Under Secretary and the Vice
Chairman.
(B) At such other point in the acquisition as the Under
Secretary and the Vice Chairman shall jointly specify for
purposes of this section or otherwise jointly specify for
purposes of the program.
(d) Major Defense Acquisition Program Defined.--In this
section, the term ``major defense acquisition program'' means
a major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter
144 of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 8. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE FOR THE ACQUISITION
OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on potential modifications of the
organization and structure of the Department of Defense for
the acquisition of major defense acquisition programs.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the results of a review, conducted by the Comptroller
General for purposes of the report, regarding the feasibility
and advisability of, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Establishing system commands within each military
department, each of which commands would be headed by a 4-
star general officer, to whom the program managers and
program executive officers for major defense acquisition
programs would report.
(2) Revising the acquisition process for major defense
acquisition programs by establishing shorter, more frequent
acquisition program milestones.
(3) Requiring certifications of program status to the
defense acquisition executive and Congress prior to milestone
approval for major defense acquisition programs.
(4) Establishing a new office (to be known as the ``Office
of Independent Assessment'') to provide independent cost
estimates and performance estimates for major defense
acquisition programs.
(5) Establishing a milestone system for major defense
acquisition programs utilizing the following milestones (or
such other milestones as the Comptroller General considers
appropriate for purposes of the review):
(A) Milestone 0.--The time for the development and approval
of a mission need statement for a major defense acquisition
program.
(B) Milestone 1.--The time for the development and approval
of a capability need definition for a major defense
acquisition program, including development and approval of a
certification statement on the characteristics required for
the system under the program and a determination of the
priorities among such characteristics.
(C) Milestone 2.--The time or technology development and
assessment for a major defense acquisition program, including
development and approval of a certification statement on
technology maturity of elements under the program.
(D) Milestone 3.--The time for system development and
demonstration for a major defense acquisition program,
including development and approval of a certification
statement on design proof of concept.
(E) Milestone 4.--The time for final design, production
prototyping, and testing of a major defense acquisition
program, including development and approval of a
certification statement on cost, performance, and schedule in
advance of initiation of low-rate production of the system
under the program.
(F) Milestone 5.--The time for limited production and field
testing of the system under a major defense acquisition
program.
(G) Milestone 6.--The time for initiation of full-rate
production of the system under a major defense acquisition
program.
(6) Requiring the Milestone Decision Authority for a major
defense acquisition program to specify, at the time of
Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval, as
applicable, the period of time that will be
[[Page S6469]]
required to deliver an initial operational capability to the
relevant combatant commanders.
(7) Establishing a materiel solutions process for
addressing identified gaps in critical warfighting
capabilities, under which process the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics circulates
among the military departments and appropriate Defense
Agencies a request for proposals for technologies and systems
to address such gaps.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the review required under
subsection (b) for the report required by subsection (a), the
Comptroller General shall obtain the views of the following:
(1) Senior acquisition officials currently serving in the
Department of Defense.
(2) Individuals who formerly served as senior acquisition
officials in the Department of Defense.
(3) Participants in previous reviews of the organization
and structure of the Department of Defense for the
acquisition of major weapon systems, including the
President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management in
1986.
(4) Other experts on the acquisition of major weapon
systems.
(5) Appropriate experts in the Government Accountability
Office.
SEC. 9. CHANGES TO MILESTONE B CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Changes to Certification.--(1) The program manager
for a major defense acquisition program that has received
certification under subsection (a) shall immediately notify
the milestone decision authority of any changes to the
program that are--
``(A) inconsistent with such certification; or
``(B) deviate significantly from the material provided to
the milestone decision authority in support of such
certification.
``(2) Upon receipt of information under paragraph (1), the
milestone decision authority may withdraw the certification
concerned or rescind Milestone B approval (or Key Decision
Point B approval in the case of a space program) if the
milestone decision authority determines that such action is
in the best interest of the national security of the United
States.'';
(3) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The certification''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (2):
``(2) Any information provided to the milestone decision
authority pursuant to subsection (b) shall be summarized in
the first Selected Acquisition Report submitted under section
2432 of this title after such information is received by the
milestone decision authority.''; and
(4) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking
``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
SEC. 10. BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Analysis Before Milestone B Approval.--The milestone
decision authority for a major defense acquisition program
may not grant Milestone B approval for the program until the
milestone decision authority obtains from a federally funded
research and development center (FFRDC) a business case
analysis for the program meeting the requirements of
subsection (c).
(b) Analysis Following Deviations From Milestone B Approval
Certification.--If the milestone decision authority for a
major defense acquisition program determines that information
provided to the milestone decision authority by the program
manager reveals changes to the program that are inconsistent
with the certification for Milestone B approval with respect
to the program under section 2366a(a) of title 10, United
States Code, or that significantly deviate from the material
provided to the milestone decision authority in support of
such certification, the milestone decision authority shall
require the conduct by a federally funded research and
development center of a new business case analysis for the
program meeting the requirements of subsection (c).
(c) Elements of Business Case Analysis.--The business case
analysis for a major defense acquisition program under this
section shall ensure the following:
(1) That the needs of the user for the system under the
program have been accurately defined.
(2) That alternative approaches to satisfying such needs
have been properly analyzed, and that the quantities of the
system required are well understood.
(3) That the system developed or, in the case of a new
developmental program, the system to be developed, is
producible at a cost that matches the expectations and
financial resources of the system user.
(4) That the developer has the resources to design the
system with the features that the user wants and to deliver
the system when the user needs the system.
(d) Submittal to Congress.--Each business case analysis
conducted under this section shall be submitted to the
congressional defense committees not later than seven days
after the date on which such business case analysis is
submitted to the milestone decision authority under this
section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``major defense acquisition program'' means a
major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter 144
of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The term ``Milestone B approval'', with respect to a
major defense acquisition program, has the meaning given that
term in section 2366(e)(7) of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 11. GUIDANCE ON UTILIZATION OF AWARD FEES IN CONTRACTS
UNDER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe in regulations guidance on the
appropriate use of award fees in contracts under Department
of Defense acquisition programs.
(b) Utilization of Objective Criteria in Assessment of
Contractor Performance.--
(1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a)
shall provide that, to the extent practicable, objective
criteria are utilized in the assessment of contractor
performance in Department acquisition programs.
(2) Mixed utilization of objective and subjective
criteria.--The regulations shall provide that, in any case in
which objective criteria are available for the assessment of
contractor performance, the program manager and contracting
officer concerned may elect to assess contractor performance
through an appropriate mixture of objective criteria and such
subjective criteria as the program manager and contracting
officer jointly consider appropriate under a contract
providing both incentive fees and awards fees, including a
cost-plus-incentive/award fee contract or a fixed-price-
incentive/award fee contract.
(3) Utilization of subjective criteria.--
(A) In general.--The regulations shall provide that, if it
is determined that objective criteria do not exist and it is
appropriate to use a cost-plus-award-fee contract, the head
of the contracting activity concerned shall find that the
work to be performed under the contract is such that it is
not feasible or effective to establish objective incentive
criteria for the contract.
(B) Delegation.--The authority to make a determination and
finding under subparagraph (A) may be delegated by the head
of a contracting activity but only to an official in the
contracting activity who is one level lower in the
contracting chain of authority than the head of the
contracting activity.
(c) Schedule for Award Fees.--
(1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a)
shall set forth a schedule of ratings of contractor
performance for award fees in contracts under Department
acquisition programs, including--
(A) a range of authorized ratings;
(B) the contractor performance required for each authorized
rating; and
(C) the percentage of potential award fees payable as a
result of the achievement of each authorized rating.
(2) Authorized ratings and performance.--The schedule shall
set forth a range of authorized ratings and associated
contractor performance as follows:
(A) Outstanding, for a contractor who meets--
(i) the minimum essential requirements of the contract; and
(ii) at least 90 percent of the criteria for the award of
award fees under the contract.
(B) Excellent, for a contractor who meets--
(i) the minimum essential requirements of the contract; and
(ii) at least 75 percent of the criteria for the award of
award fees under the contract.
(C) Good, for a contractor who meets--
(i) the minimum essential requirements under the contract;
and
(ii) at least 50 percent of the criteria for the award of
award fees under the contract.
(D) Satisfactory, for a contractor who meets the minimum
essential requirements under the contract but does not meet
at least 50 percent of the criteria for the award of award
fees under the contract.
(E) Unsatisfactory, for a contractor who does not meet the
minimum essential requirements under the contract.
(3) Award fees payable.--The schedule shall provide that
the amount payable from amounts available for the payment of
award fees under a contract (commonly referred to as an
``award fee pool'') to a contractor who achieves a particular
rating under the schedule shall be the percentage of such
amounts, as determined appropriate by the contracting
officer, from the percentages as follows:
(A) In the case of outstanding, 90 percent to 100 percent.
(B) In the case of excellent, 75 percent to 90 percent.
(C) In the case of good, 50 percent to 75 percent.
(D) In the case of satisfactory, not more than 50 percent.
(E) In the case of unsatisfactory, 0 percent.
(d) Establishment of Award Fee Requirements.--The
regulations required by subsection (a) shall provide that the
requirements to be satisfied for the award of award fees
under a contract shall be determined by the contracting
officer, in consultation with the program manager concerned
and the fee determining official for the contract. The
specification of such requirements in the contract may be
referred to as the ``Award Fee Plan'' for the contract.
[[Page S6470]]
(e) Rollover of Award Fees to Later Award Periods.--
(1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a)
shall establish a negative presumption against the rollover
of amounts available for the payment of award fees under a
contract from one award fee period under the contract to
another award fee period under the contract unless the
rollover of such amounts is specifically set forth in the
acquisition strategy under which the contract is entered
into.
(2) Limitation on amount of rollover.--The regulations
shall set forth specific limits on the amount available for
the payment of award fees under a contract that may be rolled
over from one award fee period under the contract to another
award fee period under the contract. Such limits may be
expressed as specific dollar amounts or as percentages of the
amount available for payment of award fees under the contract
concerned.
(3) Documentation of rollover.--The regulations shall
require that any determination by the fee determining
official to roll over amounts available for the payment of
award fees under a contract from one award fee period under
the contract to another award fee period under the contract
shall be included in writing in the contract file for the
contract.
SEC. 12. SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS UNDER MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.
(a) Definition in Regulations of Substantial Savings Under
Multiyear Contracts.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
modify the regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection
(b)(2)(A) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code,
to define the term ``substantial savings'' for purposes of
subsection (a)(1) of such section. Such regulations shall
specify the following:
(A) Savings that exceed 10 percent of the total anticipated
costs of carrying out a program through annual contracts
shall be considered to be substantial.
(B) Savings that exceed 8 percent of the total anticipated
costs of carrying out a program through annual contracts, but
do not exceed 10 percent of such costs, shall not be
considered to be substantial unless the following conditions
are satisfied:
(i) The program has not breached any threshold under
section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, during the two-
year period ending on the date on which the military
department concerned first submits to Congress a multiyear
procurement proposal with respect to the program.
(ii) The program is estimated to save at least $500,000,000
under a multiyear contract, as compared to annual contracts
(C) Savings that do not exceed 8 percent of the total
anticipated costs of carrying out a program through annual
contracts shall not be considered to be substantial.
(2) Determination of savings.--The regulations required
under this subsection shall require that the determination of
the amount of savings to be achieved under a multiyear
contract, including whether or not such savings are treatable
as substantial savings for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, shall be made
by the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) of the
Department of Defense.
(3) Effective date.--The modification required by paragraph
(1) shall apply with regard to any multiyear contract that is
authorized after the date that is 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Reports on Savings Achieved.--
(1) Reports required.--Not later than January 15 of 2008,
2009, and 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the savings
achieved through the use of multiyear contracts that were
entered under the authority of section 2306b of title 10,
United States Code, and the performance of which was
completed in the preceding fiscal year.
(2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
specify, for each multiyear contract covered by such report--
(A) the savings that the Department of Defense estimated it
would achieve through the use of the multiyear contract at
the time such contract was awarded; and
(B) the best estimate of the Department on the savings
actually achieved under such contract.
SEC. 13. INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees an
investment strategy for the allocation of funds and other
resources among major defense acquisition programs.
(b) Elements.--The strategy required by subsection (a)
shall do the following:
(1) Establish priorities among needed capabilities under
major defense acquisition programs, and to assess the
resources (including funds, technologies, time, and
personnel) needed to achieve such capabilities.
(2) Balance cost, schedule, and requirements for major
defense acquisition programs to ensure the most efficient use
of Department of Defense resources.
(3) Ensure that the budget, requirements, and acquisition
processes of the Department of Defense work in a
complementary manner to achieve desired results.
(c) Recommendations.--In submitting the strategy required
by subsection (a), the Secretary shall include any
recommendations, including recommendations for legislative
action, that the Secretary considers appropriate to implement
the strategy.
(d) Utilization for Budget Purposes.--The Secretary shall
utilize the strategy required by subsection (a) in developing
requests for funding and other resources to be allocated to
major defense acquisition programs under the budget of the
President to be submitted to Congress each fiscal year under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Current Programs Beyond Milestone B Approval.--Pending
completion of the strategy required by subsection (a), the
Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, establish
priorities in the allocation of funds and other resources for
major defense acquisition programs that have Milestone B
approval in order to ensure the acquisition of items under
such programs in the most cost-effective and efficient
manner.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``major defense acquisition program'' has the
meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United
States Code.
(2) The term ``Milestone B approval'' has the meaning given
that term in section 2366(e)(7) of title 10, United States
Code.
SEC. 14. ETHICS COMPLIANCE BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CONTRACTORS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe in regulations a requirement that a contracting
officer of the Department of Defense may not determine a
contractor to be responsible for purposes of the award of a
new covered contract for the Department, or an agency or
component of the Department, unless the entity to be awarded
the contract has in place, by the deadline specified in
subsection (c), an internal ethics compliance program,
including a code of ethics and internal controls, to
facilitate the timely detection and disclosure of improper
conduct in connection with the award or performance of the
covered contract and to ensure that appropriate corrective
action is taken with respect to such conduct.
(b) Elements of Ethics Compliance Program.--Each ethics
compliance program required of a contractor under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Requirements for periodic reviews of the program for
which the covered contract concerned is awarded to ensure
compliance of contractor personnel with applicable Government
contracting requirements, including laws, regulations, and
contractual requirements.
(2) Internal reporting mechanisms, such as a hot-line, for
contractor personnel to report suspected improper conduct
among contractor personnel.
(3) Audits of the program for which the covered contract
concerned is awarded.
(4) Mechanisms for disciplinary actions against contractor
personnel found to have engaged in improper conduct,
including the exclusion of such personnel from the exercise
of substantial authority.
(5) Mechanisms for the reporting to appropriate Government
officials, including the contracting officer and the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, of
suspected improper conduct among contractor personnel,
including suspected conduct involving corruption of a
Government official or individual acting on behalf of the
Government, not later than 30 days after the date of
discovery of such suspected conduct.
(6) Mechanisms to ensure full cooperation with Government
officials responsible for investigating suspected improper
conduct among contractor personnel and for taking corrective
actions.
(7) Mechanisms to ensure the recurring provision of
training to contractor personnel on the requirements and
mechanisms of the program.
(8) Mechanisms to ensure the oversight of the program by
contractor personnel with substantial authority within the
contractor.
(c) Deadline for Program.--The deadline specified in this
subsection for a contractor having in place an ethics
compliance program required under subsection (a) for purposes
of a covered contract is 30 days after the date of the award
of the contract.
(d) Determination of Existence of Program.--In determining
whether or not contractor has in place an ethics compliance
program required under subsection (a), a contracting officer
of the Department may utilize the assistance of the Office of
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
(e) Suspension or Debarment.--The regulations prescribed
under subsection (a) shall provide that any contractor under
a covered contract whose personnel are determined not to have
reported suspected improper conduct in accordance with the
requirements and mechanisms of the ethics compliance program
concerned may, at the election of the Secretary of Defense,
be suspended from the contract or debarred from further
contracting with the Department of Defense.
(f) Covered Contract Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered contract'' means any contract to be awarded to a
contractor of the Department of Defense if, in the year
before the contract is to be awarded, the total amount of
contracts of the contractor with the Federal Government
exceeded $5,000,000.
[[Page S6471]]
SEC. 15. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOTAL
OWNERSHIP COSTS AND READINESS RATES FOR MAJOR
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the extent of the implementation of the recommendations
set forth in the February 2003 report of the Government
Accountability Office entitled ``Setting Requirements
Differently Could Reduce Weapon Systems' Total Ownership
Costs''.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) For each recommendation described in subsection (a)
that has been implemented, or that the Secretary plans to
implement--
(A) a summary of all actions that have been taken to
implement such recommendation; and
(B) a schedule, with specific milestones, for completing
the implementation of such recommendation.
(2) For each recommendation that the Secretary has not
implemented and does not plan to implement--
(A) the reasons for the decision not to implement such
recommendation; and
(B) a summary of any alternative actions the Secretary
plans to take to address the purposes underlying such
recommendation.
(3) A summary of any additional actions the Secretary has
taken or plans to take to ensure that total ownership cost is
appropriately considered in the requirements process for
major weapon systems.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 35. A bill to amend section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 35
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 ``Western Hemisphere Traveler
Improvement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (v)--
(i) by striking ``process'' and inserting ``read''; and
(ii) inserting ``at all ports of entry'' after
``installed'';
(B) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(viii) a pilot program in which not fewer than 1 State
has been initiated and evaluated to determine if an enhanced
driver's license, which is machine-readable and tamper-proof,
not valid for certification of citizenship for any purpose
other than admission into the United States from Canada, and
issued by such State to an individual, may permit the
individual to use the individual's driver's license to meet
the documentation requirements under subparagraph (A) for
entry into the United States from Canada at the land and sea
ports of entry;
``(ix) the report described in subparagraph (C) has been
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees;
``(x) a study has been conducted to determine the number of
passports and passport cards that will be issued as a
consequence of the documentation requirements under
subparagraph (A); and
``(xi) sufficient passport adjudication personnel have been
hired or contracted--
``(I) to accommodate--
``(aa) increased demand for passports as a consequence of
the documentation requirements under subparagraph (A); and
``(bb) a surge in such demand during seasonal peak travel
times; and
``(II) to ensure that the time required to issue a passport
or passport card is not anticipated to exceed 8 weeks.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the initiation
of the pilot program described in subparagraph (B)(viii), the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report, which includes--
``(i) an analysis of the impact of the pilot program on
national security;
``(ii) recommendations on how to expand the pilot program
to other States;
``(iii) any appropriate statutory changes to facilitate the
expansion of the pilot program to additional States and to
citizens of Canada;
``(iv) a plan to scan individuals participating in the
pilot program against United States terrorist watch lists;
``(v) an evaluation of and recommendations for the type of
machine-readable technology that should be used in enhanced
driver's licenses, based on individual privacy considerations
and the costs and feasibility of incorporating any new
technology into existing driver's licenses;
``(vi) recommendations for improving the pilot program; and
``(vii) an analysis of any cost savings for a citizen of
the United States participating in an enhanced driver's
license program as compared with participating in an
alternative program.''.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR MINORS.
Section 7209(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for minors.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
permit an individual to enter the United States without
providing any evidence of citizenship if the individual--
``(A)(i) is less than 16 years old;
``(ii) is accompanied by the individual's legal guardian;
``(iii) is entering the United States from Canada or
Mexico;
``(iv) is a citizen of the United States or Canada; and
``(v) provides a birth certificate; or
``(B)(i) is less than 18 years old;
``(ii) is traveling under adult supervision with a public
or private school group, religious group, social or cultural
organization, or team associated with a youth athletics
organization; and
``(iii) provides a birth certificate.''.
SEC. 4. TRAVEL FACILITATION INITIATIVES.
Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsections:
``(e) State Driver's License and Identification Card
Enrollment Program.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and not later than 180 days after the submission of the
report described in subsection (b)(1)(C), the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue
regulations to establish a State Driver's License and
Identity Card Enrollment Program as described in this
subsection (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the
`Program') and which allows the Secretary of Homeland
Security to enter into a memorandum of understanding with an
appropriate official of each State that elects to participate
in the Program.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Program is to permit a
citizen of the United States who produces a driver's license
or identity card that meets the requirements of paragraph (3)
or a citizen of Canada who produces a document described in
paragraph (4) to enter the United States from Canada by land
or sea without providing any other documentation or evidence
of citizenship.
``(3) Admission of citizens of the united states.--A
driver's license or identity card meets the requirements of
this paragraph if--
``(A) the license or card--
``(i) was issued by a State that is participating in the
Program; and
``(ii) is tamper-proof and machine readable; and
``(B) the State that issued the license or card--
``(i) has a mechanism to verify the United States
citizenship status of an applicant for such a license or
card;
``(ii) does not require an individual to include the
individual's citizenship status on such a license or card;
and
``(iii) manages all information regarding an applicant's
United States citizenship status in the same manner as such
information collected through the United States passport
application process and prohibits any other use or
distribution of such information.
``(4) Admission of citizens of canada.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland
Security determine that an identity document issued by the
Government of Canada or by the Government of a Province or
Territory of Canada meets security and information
requirements comparable to the requirements for a driver's
license or identity card described in paragraph (3), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit a citizen of
Canada to enter the United States from Canada using such a
document without providing any other documentation or
evidence of Canadian citizenship.
``(B) Technology standards.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall work, to the maximum extent possible, to
ensure that an identification document issued by Canada that
permits entry into the United States under subparagraph (A)
utilizes technology similar to the technology utilized by
identification documents issued by the United States or any
State.
``(5) Authority to expand.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security may expand the Program to permit an
individual to enter the United States--
``(A) from a country other than Canada; or
``(B) using evidence of citizenship other than a driver's
license or identity card described in paragraph (3) or a
document described in paragraph (4).
``(6) Relationship to other requirements.--Nothing in this
subsection shall
[[Page S6472]]
have the effect of creating a national identity card or a
certification of citizenship for any purpose other than
admission into the United States as described in this
subsection.
``(7) State defined.--In this subsection, the term `State'
means any of the several States of the United States, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam,
the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other
territory or possession of the United States.
``(f) Waiver for Intrastate Travel.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall accept a birth certificate as proof
of citizenship for any United States citizen who is traveling
directly from one part of a State to a noncontiguous part of
that State through Canada, if such citizen cannot travel by
land to such part of the State without traveling through
Canada, and such travel in Canada is limited to no more than
2 hours.
``(g) Waiver of Pass Card and Passport Execution Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, during the 2-year period beginning on the date on which
the Secretary of Homeland Security publishes a final rule in
the Federal Register to carry out subsection (b), the
Secretary of State shall--
``(A) designate 1 facility in each city or port of entry
designated under paragraph (2), including a State Department
of Motor Vehicles facility located in such city or port of
entry if the Secretary determines appropriate, in which a
passport or passport card may be procured without an
execution fee during such period; and
``(B) develop not fewer than 6 mobile enrollment teams
that--
``(i) are able to issue passports or other identity
documents issued by the Secretary of State without an
execution fee during such period;
``(ii) are operated along the northern and southern borders
of the United States; and
``(iii) focus on providing passports and other such
documents to citizens of the United States who live in areas
of the United States that are near such an international
border and that have relatively low population density.
``(2) Designation of cities and ports of entry.--The
Secretary of State shall designate cities and ports of entry
for purposes of paragraph (1)(A) as follows:
``(A) The Secretary shall designate not fewer than 3 cities
or ports of entry that are 100 miles or less from the
northern border of the United States.
``(B) The Secretary shall designate not fewer than 3 cities
or ports of entry that are 100 miles or less from the
southern border of the United States.
``(h) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--Prior to publishing a final
rule in the Federal Register to carry out subsection (b), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a complete cost-
benefit analysis of carrying out this section. Such analysis
shall include analysis of--
``(1) any potential costs of carrying out this section on
trade, travel, and the tourism industry; and
``(2) any potential savings that would result from the
implementation of the State Driver's License and Identity
Card Enrollment Program established under subsection (e) as
an alternative to passports and passport cards.
``(i) Report.--During the 2-year period beginning on the
date that is the 3 months after the date on which the
Secretary of Homeland Security begins implementation of
subsection (b)(1)--
``(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report not less
than once every 3 months on--
``(A) the average delay at border crossings; and
``(B) the average processing time for a NEXUS card, FAST
card, or SENTRI card; and
``(2) the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report not less than
once every 3 months on the average processing time for a
passport or passport card.
``(j) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In
this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees'
means--
``(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Homeland Security, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives.''.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE.
The intent of Congress in enacting section 546 of the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
(Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1386) was to prevent the
Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing the plan
described in section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note)
before the earlier of June 1, 2009, or the date on which the
Secretary certifies to Congress that an alternative travel
document, known as a passport card, has been developed and
widely distributed to eligible citizens of the United States.
SEC. 6. PASSPORT PROCESSING STAFF AUTHORITIES.
(a) Reemployment of Civil Service Annuitants.--Section
61(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956
(22 U.S.C. 2733(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``To facilitate'' and all
that follows through ``, the Secretary'' and inserting ``The
Secretary''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2010''.
(b) Reemployment of Foreign Service Annuitants.--Section
824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4064(g))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``to facilitate'' and
all that follows through ``Afghanistan,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2008'' and inserting
``2010''.
SEC. 7. REPORT ON BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on the adequacy of the infrastructure of the United States to
manage cross-border travel associated with the NEXUS, FAST,
and SENTRI programs. Such report shall include consideration
of--
(1) the ability of frequent travelers to access dedicated
lanes for such travel;
(2) the total time required for border crossing, including
time spent prior to ports of entry;
(3) the frequency, adequacy of facilities and any
additional delays associated with secondary inspections; and
(4) the adequacy of readers to rapidly read identity
documents of such individuals.
(b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Homeland Security, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 1445. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, promote, and
support a comprehensive prevention, research, and medical management
referral program for hepatitis C virus infection; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague
Senator Hutchison in introducing the Hepatitis C Epidemic Control and
Prevention Act of 2007. Senator Hutchison's leadership has been
essential in developing this legislation, which will encourage programs
for hepatitis C across the country similar to the programs that have
been so effective in Texas. Our goal is to expand and improve health
education, screening, and treatment to deal more effectively with the
epidemic of hepatitis C.
Hepatitis C is a life-threatening disease caused by a virus and is
the most common chronic, blood-borne infection in the United States. An
estimated 5 million people, almost 2 percent of the population, are now
infected with the hepatitis C virus. More than half a million of these
Americans are suffering from chronic infection, and 30,000 more are
infected every year.
Those infected come from all walks of life, and their numbers are
growing fast. People at greatest risk include emergency service
personnel, veterans, health care workers, and intravenous drug and
methamphetamine users. Hepatitis C also disproportionately affects
medically underserved populations, including African Americans, Native
Americans, persons of Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Island descent, and the
homeless.
It is truly a ``silent'' epidemic since the vast majority of these
individuals are unaware of their infection. Millions are not receiving
the care that could slow the progression of the disease or even cure
it. Those who are not aware of their infection are less likely to take
precautions against spreading the disease to others. Unlike the
hepatitis A and B viruses, there is no vaccine currently available to
prevent hepatitis C infection. It is critical to improve the screening
process, so that everyone infected can be identified, obtain treatment,
and learn healthier behavior.
The infection has serious health effects. It can cause liver disease,
including cirrhosis and liver cancer, and is the leading cause of adult
liver transplants. Chronic liver disease, most of
[[Page S6473]]
which is caused by this virus, is now the most common cause of death
among persons infected with HIV. In addition to the human costs, the
disease has massive financial implications. Direct medical costs
associated with care are alone expected to exceed $1 billion a year by
2010, and those costs will undoubtedly increase without better
prevention and treatment programs.
Greater Federal investment will play a critical role in reversing
this silent epidemic. Our bill will increase public awareness of the
dangers of hepatitis C, and make testing widely available. For those
already infected, it will provide counseling, referrals, and
vaccination against hepatitis A and B and other infectious diseases. It
will also support research, including the development of a vaccine
against hepatitis C. It also supports increased hepatitis C
surveillance activities by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and creates hepatitis C coordinators to provide technical
assistance and training to State public health agencies.
This bill will have a major impact on the lives of millions of
Americans who are infected by hepatitis C, and the families and loved
ones who care for them. I look forward to working closely with my
colleagues to act quickly to pass this needed legislation.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr.
Webb):
S. 1446. A bill to amend the National Capital Transportation Act of
1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and
improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help
sustain the Federal Government's longstanding commitment to the
Washington Metropolitan area's Metrorail system. The National Capital
Transportation Amendments Act of 2007 authorizes a total of
$1,500,000,000 in matching Federal funds over the next 10 years to
maintain and improve America's public transit system. It is a companion
to a measure introduced in the House by Representative Tom Davis, with
strong regional and bipartisan support, and is nearly identical to the
legislation which was approved by the House in the 109th Congress.
In March 2006, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
celebrated the 30th anniversary of passenger service on the Metrorail
system. Since service first began in 1976, Metrorail has grown from a
4.6-mile, five-station, 22,000-passenger system into the Nation's
second busiest rapid transit operation. Today the Metrorail system
consists of 106.3 miles, 86 stations and carries more than 100 million
passengers a year. The Metrorail system provides a unified and
coordinated transportation system for the region, enhances mobility for
the millions of residents, visitors and the Federal workforce in the
region, promotes orderly growth and development of the region, enhances
our environment, and preserves the beauty and dignity of our Nation's
Capital. It is also an example of an unparalleled partnership that
spans every level of government from city to State to Federal.
As the largest employer in this region, the Federal Government has
had a longstanding and unique responsibility to support the Metro
system. This special responsibility was recognized more than 40 years
ago in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, when Congress
found that ``an improved transportation system for the National Capital
region is essential for the continued and effective performance of the
functions of the Government of the United States.'' Today more than a
third of Federal employees in this region rely on Metrorail to get to
work, and at rush hour, more than 40 percent of Metro's riders are
Federal employees. The service that WMATA provides is also a critical
component of Federal emergency evacuation plans for the region. The
Federal Government's interest in Metro is ``unique and enduring.''
It took extraordinary perseverance and effort to build the 106-mile
Metorail system. From its origins in legislation first approved by the
Congress during the Eisenhower Administration, three major statutes,
the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969, the National Capital
Transportation amendments of 1979, and the National Capital
Transportation Amendments of 1990 were enacted to provide Federal and
matching local funds for construction of the system. In addition, in
ISTEA, TEA-21 and most-recently in SAFETEA-LU, we made the Metrorail
eligible for millions of dollars in Federal funds annually to maintain
and modernize the system, and provided an additional $104 million for
WMATA's procurement of 52 rail cars and construction of upgrades to
traction power equipment on 20 stations to allow the transit agency to
expand many of its trains from 6 to 8 cars.
But the system is aging and has been experiencing increasing
incidents of equipment breakdowns, delays in scheduled service, and
unprecedented crowding on trains. In 2004, WMATA released a ``Metro
Matters'' report which found a $1.5 billion shortfall in funding over 6
years to meet WMATA's capital and operating needs. A Blue Ribbon Panel,
sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the
Greater Washington Board of Trade and the Federal City Council
published a report a year later which concluded that WMATA faces an
average annual operating and capital shortfall of approximately $300
million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2015.
This legislation seeks to provide additional Federal funds to help
close this gap. To be eligible for any Federals funds that may be
appropriated annually under this legislation, the District of Columbia,
the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia must first
enact the required Compact amendments and either establish or use an
existing dedicated funding source, such as Maryland's Transportation
Trust fund, to provide the local matching funds. The legislation is
still subject to the annual appropriations process and it is my hope
that federal funding authorized under this Act will be forthcoming in
future years. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1446
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(1) Metro, the public transit system of the Washington
metropolitan area, is essential for the continued and
effective performance of the functions of the Federal
Government, and for the orderly movement of people during
major events and times of regional or national emergency.
(2) On 3 occasions, Congress has authorized appropriations
for the construction and capital improvement needs of the
Metrorail system.
(3) Additional funding is required to protect these
previous Federal investments and ensure the continued
functionality and viability of the original 103-mile
Metrorail system.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM.
The National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (sec. 9-
1111.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL AND
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
``Sec. 18. (a) Authorization.--Subject to the succeeding
provisions of this section, the Secretary of Transportation
is authorized to make grants to the Transit Authority, in
addition to the contributions authorized under sections 3,
14, and 17, for the purpose of financing in part the capital
and preventive maintenance projects included in the Capital
Improvement Program approved by the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority.
``(b) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants made pursuant to
the authorization under this section shall be subject to the
following limitations and conditions:
``(1) The work for which such Federal grants are authorized
shall be subject to the provisions of the Compact (consistent
with the amendments to the Compact described in subsection
(d)).
``(2) Each such Federal grant shall be for 50 percent of
the net project cost of the project involved, and shall be
provided in cash from sources other than Federal funds or
revenues from the operation of public mass transportation
systems. Consistent with the terms of the amendment to the
Compact described in
[[Page S6474]]
subsection (d)(1), any funds so provided shall be solely from
undistributed cash surpluses, replacement or depreciation
funds or reserves available in cash, or new capital.
``(c) Applicability of Requirements For Mass Transportation
Capital Projects Receiving Funds Under Federal Transportation
Law.--Except as specifically provided in this section, the
use of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
under this section shall be subject to the requirements
applicable to capital projects for which funds are provided
under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, except to
the extent that the Secretary of Transportation determines
that the requirements are inconsistent with the purposes of
this section.
``(d) Amendments to Compact.--No amounts may be provided to
the Transit Authority pursuant to the authorization under
this section until the Transit Authority notifies the
Secretary of Transportation that each of the following
amendments to the Compact (and any further amendments which
may be required to implement such amendments) have taken
effect:
``(1)(A) An amendment requiring that all payments by the
local signatory governments for the Transit Authority for the
purpose of matching any Federal funds appropriated in any
given year authorized under subsection (a) for the cost of
operating and maintaining the adopted regional system are
made from amounts derived from dedicated funding sources.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `dedicated
funding source' means any source of funding which is
earmarked or required under State or local law to be used to
match Federal appropriations authorized under this Act for
payments to the Transit Authority.
``(2) An amendment establishing the Office of the Inspector
General of the Transit Authority in accordance with section 3
of the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of
2007.
``(3) An amendment expanding the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority to include 4 additional Directors appointed
by the Administrator of General Services, of whom 2 shall be
nonvoting and 2 shall be voting, and requiring one of the
voting members so appointed to be a regular passenger and
customer of the bus or rail service of the Transit Authority.
``(e) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Transportation for grants under this section
an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000,000 to be
available in increments over 10 fiscal years beginning in
fiscal year 2009, or until expended.
``(f) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization under this section--
``(1) shall remain available until expended; and
``(2) shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, amounts
available to the Transit Authority under chapter 53 of title
49, United States Code, or any other provision of law.''.
SEC. 3. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
(a) Establishment of Office.--
(1) In general.--The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority (hereafter referred to as the ``Transit
Authority'') shall establish in the Transit Authority the
Office of the Inspector General (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``Office''), headed by the Inspector
General of the Transit Authority (hereafter in this section
referred to as the ``Inspector General'').
(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the ``Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority'' means the Authority
established under Article III of the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774).
(b) Inspector General.--
(1) Appointment.--The Inspector General shall be appointed
by the vote of a majority of the Board of Directors of the
Transit Authority, and shall be appointed without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity
and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial
analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations, as well as familiarity or experience with the
operation of transit systems.
(2) Term of service.--The Inspector General shall serve for
a term of 5 years, and an individual serving as Inspector
General may be reappointed for not more than 2 additional
terms.
(3) Removal.--The Inspector General may be removed from
office prior to the expiration of his term only by the
unanimous vote of all of the members of the Board of
Directors of the Transit Authority, and the Board shall
communicate the reasons for any such removal to the Governor
of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the
chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
(c) Duties.--
(1) Applicability of duties of inspector general of
executive branch establishment.--The Inspector General shall
carry out the same duties and responsibilities with respect
to the Transit Authority as an Inspector General of an
establishment carries out with respect to an establishment
under section 4 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App. 4), under the same terms and conditions which
apply under such section.
(2) Conducting annual audit of financial statements.--The
Inspector General shall be responsible for conducting the
annual audit of the financial accounts of the Transit
Authority, either directly or by contract with an independent
external auditor selected by the Inspector General.
(3) Reports.--
(A) Semiannual reports to transit authority.--The Inspector
General shall prepare and submit semiannual reports
summarizing the activities of the Office in the same manner,
and in accordance with the same deadlines, terms, and
conditions, as an Inspector General of an establishment under
section 5 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.
5). For purposes of applying section 5 of such Act to the
Inspector General, the Board of Directors of the Transit
Authority shall be considered the head of the establishment,
except that the Inspector General shall transmit to the
General Manager of the Transit Authority a copy of any report
submitted to the Board pursuant to this paragraph.
(B) Annual reports to local signatory governments and
congress.--Not later than January 15 of each year, the
Inspector General shall prepare and submit a report
summarizing the activities of the Office during the previous
year, and shall submit such reports to the Governor of
Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the District
of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives, and the chair of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate.
(4) Investigations of complaints of employees and
members.--
(A) Authority.--The Inspector General may receive and
investigate complaints or information from an employee or
member of the Transit Authority concerning the possible
existence of an activity constituting a violation of law,
rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of
funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to the public health and safety.
(B) Nondisclosure.--The Inspector General shall not, after
receipt of a complaint or information from an employee or
member, disclose the identity of the employee or member
without the consent of the employee or member, unless the
Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable
during the course of the investigation.
(C) Prohibiting retaliation.--An employee or member of the
Transit Authority who has authority to take, direct others to
take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not,
with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any
action against any employee or member as a reprisal for
making a complaint or disclosing information to the Inspector
General, unless the complaint was made or the information
disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with
willful disregard for its truth or falsity.
(5) Independence in carrying out duties.--Neither the Board
of Directors of the Transit Authority, the General Manager of
the Transit Authority, nor any other member or employee of
the Transit Authority may prevent or prohibit the Inspector
General from carrying out any of the duties or
responsibilities assigned to the Inspector General under this
section.
(d) Powers.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General may exercise the
same authorities with respect to the Transit Authority as an
Inspector General of an establishment may exercise with
respect to an establishment under section 6(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 6(a)), other
than paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of such section.
(2) Staff.--
(A) Assistant inspector generals and other staff.--The
Inspector General shall appoint and fix the pay of--
(i) an Assistant Inspector General for Audits, who shall be
responsible for coordinating the activities of the Inspector
General relating to audits;
(ii) an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, who
shall be responsible for coordinating the activities of the
Inspector General relating to investigations; and
(iii) such other personnel as the Inspector General
considers appropriate.
(B) Independence in appointing staff.--No individual may
carry out any of the duties or responsibilities of the Office
unless the individual is appointed by the Inspector General,
or provides services procured by the Inspector General,
pursuant to this paragraph. Nothing in this subparagraph may
be construed to prohibit the Inspector General from entering
into a contract or other arrangement for the provision of
services under this section.
(C) Applicability of transit system personnel rules.--None
of the regulations governing the appointment and pay of
employees of the Transit System shall apply with respect to
the appointment and compensation of the personnel of the
Office, except to the extent agreed to by the Inspector
General. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to
affect subparagraphs (A) through (B).
(3) Equipment and supplies.--The General Manager of the
Transit Authority shall provide the Office with appropriate
and adequate office space, together with such equipment,
supplies, and communications facilities and services as may
be necessary for the operation of the Office, and shall
provide
[[Page S6475]]
necessary maintenance services for such office space and the
equipment and facilities located therein.
(e) Transfer of Functions.--To the extent that any office
or entity in the Transit Authority prior to the appointment
of the first Inspector General under this section carried out
any of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the
Inspector General under this section, the functions of such
office or entity shall be transferred to the Office upon the
appointment of the first Inspector General under this
section.
SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
on the use of the funds provided under section 18 of the
National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (as added by this
Act).
(b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the study conducted
under subsection (a).
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators
Mikulski, Cardin and Warner, to introduce legislation that will
reaffirm the Federal Government's continuing responsibility for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA. Our legislation,
in cooperation with State and local governments of the national capital
region, will aid in the preservation and maintenance of our regional
transportation system.
Our predecessors in Congress had a clear vision for rapid rail and
bus service that would not only transport Federal employees, residents,
and visitors around the national capital region but that would also
alleviate traffic congestion, spur growth and development, improve the
economic welfare and vitality of all parts of the region, and ensure
that all area residents have sufficient mobility options.
The Washington Metro transit system has fulfilled that vision and
more, providing critical support to the Federal Government and the
region during emergencies, helping to protect the environment and
improve air quality in our Nation's Capital, and attracting visitors
from around the country and the world to ride the system--now a
monument of its own.
With the Federal Government's commitment to reduce our Nation's
dependence on foreign oil and to increase national security, Federal
support of the Washington Metro system is more important now than ever
before. Congress has a fundamental interest in the transit system, and
we must join our longstanding regional partners to help meet the demand
of Metro's growing ridership and aging infrastructure.
Since the Washington Metro transit system began operating its first
4.6 miles of the Red Line between Rhode Island Avenue and Farragut
North in 1976, the Metrorail system has added over 100 miles and
extended operations to a total of 86 stations throughout the District
of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Almost half of all Metrorail
stations today serve Federal facilities, and 42 percent of Metro's peak
period commuters are Federal employees.
Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than a
million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred
mode of transit for traveling around the national capital region.
Metrorail ridership has grown steadily at an average annual growth of 4
percent, according to the Progress Report on the National Capital
Region's Six-Year Transportation Capital Funding Needs, 2007-2012, by
the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board, TPB. The
report predicts that transit ridership demand will exceed system
capacity by the year 2010. New funding authorized in this legislation
would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity
and meet forecasted ridership demands, before the system and region
become totally mired in congestion.
The Washington Metro transit system has proven critical to the
Federal Government, not only in moving its employees and serving
Federal facilities but also in providing significant support during
emergencies. Immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attack on the Pentagon, Metro continued operations and helped safely
evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the downtown core of the
District of Columbia. For a 30-day period after September 11, Metro
opened Metrorail service half an hour early to support the Department
of Defense as it heightened security actions and encountered major
traffic congestion accessing the Pentagon.
Metro is a key component in emergency transportation and continuity
of operations plans for the entire region, including the civilian and
military Federal workforce. Without the use of the Metro system,
gridlock would ensue on the region's roadways to a degree that would
make all emergency transportation evacuation plans inoperable. With
enactment of the legislation we propose today, Congress will assist the
Washington Metro transit system to continue to provide its vital
service and bolster security measures throughout the system.
Additional funding will also enable the transit system to continue to
provide the invaluable service of helping to reduce traffic congestion
throughout the region. With area roadways becoming increasingly
congested, the Washington Metro transit system is critical to the
region's infrastructure.
According to the 2005 Urban Mobility Report by the Texas
Transportation Institute, TTI, the Washington metropolitan area has the
third-worst traffic congestion in the United States. Washington area
commuters sat in traffic for 145.5 million hours in 2003, costing
drivers an estimated $2.46 billion and wasting more than 87 million
gallons of fuel. The report shows that the Washington area would have
the worst congestion in the Nation if not for its public transportation
system. Moreover, the report concludes that Washington Metro transit
improvements are necessary to help further relieve congested corridors
and serve major activity centers.
Currently, Metrorail and Metrobus services result in 580,000 cars
being removed from the region's highways each weekday and eliminate the
need for 1,400 additional highway lane miles. A reliable and safe
public transportation system is essential to encouraging more commuters
to utilize alternative modes of transportation, especially as
congestion on regional roadways is projected to increase, along with
strong job and population growth in the National Capital region.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG, estimates
the area's population will grow 36 percent by 2030. Already struggling
to meet its current ridership demands, the Washington Metro transit
system desperately needs increased support from the Federal Government
and State and local governments in the national capital region to keep
up with the region's current and future economic progress.
Metro is an unparalleled asset to the region, not only reducing
traffic congestion and air pollutants but also helping to reduce our
Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Public transportation is an
inherently energy efficient travel mode, with each transit user
consuming an average of one-half the oil consumed by the typical
automobile user, according to the American Public Transportation
Association, APTA.
Current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption
by 1.4 billion gallons each year. In concrete terms, that means 108
million fewer cars are filling up with gas per year, or almost 300,000
per day, 34 fewer supertankers are leaving the Middle East per year,
and over 140,000 fewer tanker trucks are making deliveries to service
stations.
Locally, the Washington Metro transit system saves the region from
using 75 million gallons of gasoline each year. As gas prices continue
to rise, many Washington area residents will continue to seize upon the
opportunity to save money on fuel consumption by taking public
transportation. Additional Federal funding will allow Metro to purchase
340 new railcars and 275 new buses, which are necessary to accommodate
more riders and help further reduce oil consumption throughout the
Washington region.
Public transportation not only helps reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, but it also helps reduce toxic emissions and air pollution caused
by the large number of cars sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on area
roadways. The Washington Metro transit system eliminates more than
10,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year. Much of the Metrobus
fleet is comprised of eco-friendly buses that run on ultra low
[[Page S6476]]
sulfur diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, diesel electric hybrid and
advanced technology fuels. Investing in Metro is one of the most
significant contributions the Federal Government can make to help
protect the environment in the Washington metropolitan area.
Reliable Metrorail and Metrobus service is an attractive alternative
to sitting in traffic, but if Metro does not receive additional
funding, reliability will diminish along with the public's confidence
in the transit system. Already, Metro is struggling to accommodate more
riders and modernize its existing assets. Additional dedicated sources
of funding are needed if Metro is to continue to serve the Federal
workforce and thousands of other area residents and visitors.
For the past 30 years, the Washington Metro transit system has been a
bedrock for the national capital region, providing reliable
transportation, facilitating day-to-day operations of the Federal
Government, spurring economic growth and sensible development, reducing
sprawl and traffic congestion, and improving the quality of life for
the region's citizens and visitors to the Nation's Capital.
The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent
support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it
serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to
providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro
system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must
continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many
rewards not only to the region but also to the Federal Government and
the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it
moves through the Senate.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 1448. A bill to extend the same Federal benefits to law
enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher education
and rail carriers that apply to law enforcement officers serving units
of State and local government; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a
terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation.
I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless
violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech
graduate student from Lincoln, RI.
The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have
happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our
Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack.
Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to
extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private
institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of-
duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program,
and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the
Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or
certified police officers serving private institutions of higher
education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law
enforcement officers serving units of State and local government.
The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted
to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and
firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible
survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result
of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this
law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and
fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits,
might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these
fields.
The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private
universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately
employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers
within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our
college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the
same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from
receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law
enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.
According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25
college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty
since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including
Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at
Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been
killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial.
Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been
killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public
universities: the University of Florida and the University of
Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety
Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University
Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed
in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus
disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer
Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his
counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of
Mississippi.
I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in
introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death
benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these
public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they
need.
The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State
certification or licensing, and is supported by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed,
the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be
no significant budget impact by its enactment.
I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in
cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure
that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and
university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they
deserve. 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. 1448
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 ``Equity in Law Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. LINE-OF-DUTY DEATH AND DISABILITY BENEFITS.
Section 1204(8) of part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) an individual who is--
``(i) serving a private institution of higher education in
an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law
enforcement officer; and
``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a
State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to
meet the training standards for law enforcement officers
established by the relevant governmental appointing
authority); or
``(E) a rail police officer who is--
``(i) employed by a rail carrier; and
``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a
State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to
meet the training standards for law enforcement officers
established by the relevant governmental appointing
authority).''.
SEC. 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS.
(a) Grant Program.--Section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and Indian tribes'' and inserting
``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher education,
and rail carriers''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``and law
enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher
education and rail carriers who are sworn, licensed, or
certified under the laws of a State for the purposes of law
enforcement (and trained to meet the training standards for
law enforcement officers established by the relevant
governmental appointing authority)'';
[[Page S6477]]
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or Indian tribe''
and inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher
education, or rail carrier''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and
inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher
education, or rail carrier''.
(b) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and
inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher
education, or rail carrier''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Indian tribes''
and inserting ``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher
education, and rail carriers''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 2503(6) of part Y of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
2(6)) is amended by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and
inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher
education, or rail carrier''.
SEC. 4. BYRNE GRANTS.
Section 501(b)(2) of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(b)(2))
is amended by inserting after ``units of local government''
the following: ``, private institutions of higher education,
and rail carriers''.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 1449. A bill to establish the Rocky Mountain Science Collections
Center to assist in preserving the archeological, anthropological,
paleontological, zoological, and geologic artifacts and archival
documentation from the Rocky Mountain region through the construction
of an on-site, secure collections facility for the Denver Museum of
Nature and Science in Denver, Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I introduced the
``Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007,'' a bill to
establish a secure collections facility and education center for
archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and
geological artifacts and archival documentation from throughout the
Rocky Mountain region at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver,
Colorado.
Our bill would authorize $15 million, subject to appropriations, for
the Secretary of Interior to provide grants to pay the Federal share,
50 percent of the cost of constructing appropriate, museum-standard
facilities to house the collections of the Museum.
Since its founding in 1900, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science has
been the principal natural history museum between Chicago and Los
Angeles and has educated more than 70 million visitors. The Museum
holds more than a million objects in public trust. Together, the
Museum's collections, library, and archives provide the foundation for
understanding science and the natural and cultural history of the
region and serve as the primary resource for informal science education
to Colorado school and general audiences. The Museum is a world leader
in creating opportunities that allow the general public to participate
in authentic collection based scientific research.
The majority of the collections that the Museum maintains in
perpetuity are acquired through federal authorization, are cared for on
behalf of Federal agencies, or are controlled by federal legislation.
Of the more than 840,000 items in the Museum's collection, more than
half were recovered from federally managed public land. Construction of
on-site collection facilities, exhibition facilities and an education
center for the Museum will provide a secure facility for the collection
and ensure that it is accessible to members of the public, universities
and research scientists alike. The Federal cost share will help pay for
construction as well as the costs of design, planning, furnishing,
equipping and supporting the Museum.
For the benefit of my colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's
provisions:
Section 1. Short Title. The Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center
Act of 2007.
Section 2. Findings. Recites several of the findings of Congress,
including the size and breadth of the collections held by the Denver
Museum of Nature and Science and the finding that significant portions
of these collections were recovered from public lands managed by
various Federal agencies. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science is
the federally designated repository for these collections and as such
is governed by various Federal statutes and regulations in carrying out
its trustee responsibilities.
Section 3. Definitions. The term ``Museum'' in the Act refers to the
Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The term ``Secretary'' in the Act
refers to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
Section 4. Grant to the Museum. This section provides that the
Secretary may provide grants to pay for the Federal share of the cost
of constructing appropriate, Museum standard facilities to house the
collections of the Museum. The Federal share reflects the continuing
Federal ownership of the artifacts and other scientifically significant
materials held by the Museum in a trust responsibility. This section
authorizes the use of any grant funds for construction, design,
engineering, plans, equipment, furnishing and other services or goods
in furtherance of the construction of the Collections Center.
Subsection 4 (b). Application. The subsection provides an application
process whereby the Museum provides the Secretary with the necessary
documentation and information to assure the Secretary that grant
proceeds are expended for the intended result.
Subsection 4 (c). Matching Funds. This subsection requires the Museum
to provide a match for any amounts granted under the section and allows
the Museum to use cash, in-kind donations and/or services in
satisfaction of the match requirement.
Subsection 4 (d). Authorization. The Act authorizes $15,000,000 to be
appropriated to the Secretary in carrying out the Act; such funds to
remain available until expended.
______
By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1450. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Housing
Assistance Council; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Housing
Assistance Council Authorization Act. This legislation will authorize
appropriations for the Housing Assistance Council, HAC, which has been
committed to developing affordable housing in rural communities for
over 35 years.
The bill provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and then
$15 million in fiscal year 2009-2014. In the past, the Council has
received appropriations from the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership
Opportunity Program. The funding has helped HAC provide loans to 1,875
organizations across the country, raise and distribute over $5 million
in capacity building grants and hold regional training workshops. These
critical services help local organizations, rural communities and
cities develop safe and affordable housing.
Throughout the country, approximately one-fifth of the Nation's
population lives in rural communities. About 7.5 million of the rural
population is living in poverty and 2.5 million of them are children.
Nearly 3.6 million rural households pay more than 30 percent of their
income in housing costs. While housing costs are generally lower in
rural counties, wages are dramatically outpaced by the cost of housing.
Additionally, the housing conditions are often substandard and there
are many families doubled up due to lack of housing. Rural areas lack
both affordable rental units and homeownership opportunities needed to
serve the population.
There are several Federal programs that are aimed at developing
affordable housing and economic opportunities in rural communities in
both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department
of Agriculture. However, over the past 6 years, funding for these
programs has been reduced by 20 percent. For the fiscal year 2008
budget, the administration proposed to eliminate $1.3 billion in rural
housing assistance. In many regions Federal funding might be the only
assistance available for housing and economic development. The Housing
Assistance Council is yet another tool that rural communities can
utilize when trying to develop affordable housing.
In Wisconsin, HAC has provided close to $5.2 million in grants and
loans to 17 nonprofit housing organizations and helped develop 820
units of housing. Specifically, since 1972 the Southeastern Wisconsin
Housing Corporation has partnered with the Housing Assistance Council
to develop 268 units of self-help housing. The presence of the
[[Page S6478]]
Council in Wisconsin has made a huge impact on rural housing
development in Wisconsin and other rural communities across the
country.
I am very honored to work with Senator Snowe this legislation. Its
passage will allow every State to better serve the needs of the people
living in rural areas. I look forward to Working with my colleagues to
ensure the adoption of this bill.
______
By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
S. 1451. A bill to encourage the development of coordinated quality
reforms to improve health care delivery and reduce the cost of care in
the health care system; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today because I will be
introducing my first bills as a Member of this esteemed body;
legislation that I hope will provide a helpful step forward as we
address one of the most significant challenges this Senate faces,
reforming America's broken health care system.
I have heard from countless Rhode Islanders who have struggled to pay
for their health care and who live in fear of losing coverage on which
they and their families depend. I have met nurses frustrated and
heartbroken that they must spend so much time coping with the paperwork
and so little time caring for patients. I have talked with families
whose lives and health were shaken by terrifying medical errors, lost
paperwork, missed diagnoses that should have been totally avoided.
I believe our current health care system is too complex and costs so
much, yet so often does not provide patients with the quality of care
they should have. It does not have to be this way. I have seen
firsthand that we can make the system work better for everyone, we can
cut costs, save lives, and improve the quality of the health care we
receive, a critical step toward ensuring that all Americans have health
care they can afford.
In Rhode Island, we have been working and experimenting for years to
find solutions to many of these challenges. I have been privileged to
be part of much of that work, most directly when I founded the Rhode
Island Quality Institute to focus on quality reforms in health care.
While we have a long way to go, so far we have been successful. It is
that Rhode Island experience that I bring to you today. It is Rhode
Island's good work that I hope will provide a good example.
Right now our health care system is a mess, such a mess that we
should hesitate to call it a health care system. It yields
unsatisfactory results at vast expense. What I wish to talk about today
is not how you finance the health care system--that is an important
issue--but it is a different issue. I don't even want to talk about how
you get all Americans covered by our health care system. That is
another important issue, but that is not the subject today.
The subject today is the issue of how the system itself runs, how it
operates, put bluntly, how badly in America it runs. If we can reduce
the cost of the underlying system by improving its performance, it will
make solutions easier for financing our health care system and for
finding a way to make sure every American gets health care coverage.
Our health care system is a mess. The number of uninsured Americans is
climbing and will soon reach 50 million. The annual cost of the system
exceeds $2 trillion every year, and that number is expected soon to
double. We spend more of our gross domestic product on health care than
any other industrialized country in the world, 16 percent. That is
double the European Union average.
There is today more health care in Ford cars than there is steel.
There is more health care in Starbucks coffee than there are coffee
beans. Worse still, for all this money we spend, we get a mediocre
product. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best procedures
and equipment, the best medical education in the world. Yet the system
produces mediocre results. As many as 100,000 Americans are killed
every year by unnecessary and avoidable medical errors. That is just
the fatalities. Think how many people have to stay longer in the
hospital and run up costs.
Life expectancy, obesity rates, and infant mortality rates are much
worse than they should be in a country such as ours. We fail by most
international measures. The system itself does not work. Hospitals are
going broke. Doctors are furious, and paperwork chokes the system.
Quarrels between the providers and the payers drive up costs, while
potential savings in billions of dollars are left lying on the table.
More American families are bankrupted by health care costs than any
other cause. It is a system in crisis.
I urge my colleagues to consider this point too. If we do not fix
this system now, while we still can, if we don't get these savings now,
then we are going to be forced to consider very tragic choices in the
future: Cutting coverage for seniors now on Medicare, throwing children
off S-CHIP or pushing more and more out-of-pocket costs onto families
who need Medicaid in their struggle to get by.
Those will be tragic choices, awful choices, ones I hope we never
have to deliberate. But if we end up having to make these choices
because today we failed to do our duty, then shame on us.
I believe what is wrong with our system can be identified. The
reasons for its failures can be identified. The causes of those
failures can be corrected, and the failings can be cured.
In the days to come, I will speak at greater length on three critical
areas of reform, one by one, and advance proposals for each one that
will help provide a cure.
Today, I wish to highlight all three of the major failures, how they
combine to worsen each other and keep our system broken, and how
reforming those three areas can reinforce each other and repair our
broken system.
Left unattended, these three conditions will continue to degrade our
system. Properly reformed, they will begin to improve it. This is
because what we are dealing with, in a nutshell, is market failure.
Market forces are bottled up, logjammed, conflicted, and misdirected to
push the health care system in a bad direction.
I trust market forces and I believe in market forces, but I see it as
our job in Government to create the environment in which market forces
operate in a healthy way to serve the public interest.
That is our job. It always has been. Where that healthy environment
for market forces does not exist--which is the case right now in our
health care system--Government must act. The market failure in health
care has three core components: One, the American health care system
does not optimize investment in quality of care, even where--indeed,
particularly where--that quality investment in improving care would
also lower costs; two, the system does not have the information
technology infrastructure to support the improvements we need; three,
the way we pay for health care sends perverse price signals that steer
us away from the public interest.
These problems can each be fixed, but fixing each in isolation will
not yield the change we need. Similar to three climbers roped together
for an ascent, the three solutions need to track with each other, not
necessarily in lockstep but staying close because each one reinforces
the other.
Let me tell a story about each one of those problems to illustrate
the three points. Let's look at the area where improved quality of care
would lower costs. That intersection, where improved quality of care
and lower costs converge, should be our Holy Grail. A good example
comes out of the Keystone Project in Michigan, home to Senators Levin
and Stabenow.
The Keystone Project went into a significant number of Michigan
intensive care units to improve quality and reduce line infections,
respiratory complications, and other conditions that are associated
with intensive care units. In a 15-month span, between March 2004 and
June 2005, the project saved 1,578 lives, 81,020 days patients would
otherwise have been spent in the hospital, and it saved--in that 15
months--over $165 million.
The Rhode Island Quality Institute has taken this model statewide in
Rhode Island, with every hospital participating. Infections in patients
with catheters decreased 36 percent from the
[[Page S6479]]
first quarter of 2006 to the fourth quarter. Eleven out of twenty-three
participating intensive care units had zero infections for 12 months.
Savings from the initiative are on track to produce $4 million
annually. That is pretty good money in Rhode Island.
What is true in intensive care units in Michigan and Rhode Island is
also true far more broadly in health care. There are many areas where
significant savings can be achieved by making care better. There could
be initiatives similar to Keystone throughout the health care sector.
They do not necessarily have to be reforms of existing procedures and
practices because Keystone was. Quality improvements, quality reform,
could well involve improvements in prevention and detection of illness,
stopping it before it even gets to the hospital. There are vast and
unexplored horizons out there, rich with opportunity, and the Keystone
story is one example of how improved quality of care can lower costs
and save lives. This takes us to the second story, this one about the
reimbursement problem. Why isn't this quality reform happening
spontaneously all over the country if these big savings are there?
Think of Michigan, $165 million in 15 months in one State. That is big
money.
Why isn't it being pursued? Why aren't we all doing this? Well,
primarily because the economics of health care pays providers not to
and punishes providers who try. When a group of hospitals in Utah began
following the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society for treating
community-acquired pneumonia, significant complications fell from 15.3
percent to 11.6 percent, inpatient mortality fell from 7.2 to 5.3
percent, and the resulting cost savings exceeded half a million dollars
a year. But net operating income of participating facilities dropped by
over $200,000 per year because treating the healthier patients was
reimbursed at roughly $12,000 less per case.
In Rhode Island, when we got into this intensive care unit reform,
the Hospital Association estimated a $400,000 cost for $8 million in
savings, a 20-to-1 return on investment. But all the savings went to
the insurers and the payers, and the costs came out of the hospitals'
pockets. Do you know a lot of businesses that invest money in order to
reduce their revenue? I don't. How many businesses would spend $400,000
in cash to lose $8 million in revenues every year? With reimbursement
incentives such as the ones we have, it is no wonder that quality
investments face an uphill struggle.
The final problem is our health care information technology, which is
inexcusably underdeveloped and underdeployed. It has been described by
the Economist magazine as the worst information technology system in
any American industry except one, the mining industry. We are leaving
massive savings in health care costs unclaimed as a result.
Some pretty respectable groups have looked at health information
technology to see what an adequate system would save in health care
costs, and here is what they report: Rand Corporation, $81 billion per
year conservatively. David Brailer, the former National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology, $100 billion per year. The Center for
Information Technology Leadership, $77 billion per year. That is a lot
of savings to leave sitting on the table, savings desperately needed by
American businesses and American families.
Here is my third story, about a courageous and passionate doctor in
Rhode Island trying to build an electronic health record for patients
in our State. By the way of context, Rhode Island may be the lead State
in the country at developing health information technology. We have
Patrick Kennedy in the House, our Representative, who has been an
absolute leader on this issue; Lifespan and other hospitals are leaders
in electronic physician order entry; the Rhode Island Quality Institute
is a leader in e-prescribing, electronic health records and health
information exchange; Rhode Island Blue Cross is beginning to fund
innovations; all the local Rhode Island health care folks are active in
this. It is very impressive. I mean no criticism by telling this story,
only to illustrate what an uphill struggle it is.
The lead on developing electronic health records in Rhode Island is
being taken by a very frustrated doctor, Dr. Mark Jacobs, who put his
practice on hold, went out and looked at what was available, found an
e-clinical works platform, had it modified to suit what he thought
would be more useful for his needs, and is now raising capital and
trying to recruit his colleagues to get around that system and get it
up. It is his passion, and he is dedicating himself to it with energy
and conviction.
What Dr. Jacobs is doing is heroic, but if you went to any business
school and if they asked you, what is the best way to seize that $81
billion a year in savings that RAND Corporation has said is out there,
and you had said: Well, we are going to wait until a doctor gets so
frustrated he is willing to give up his practice and go out and try to
learn about health care technology and do it on his own, you would be
laughed out of that business school classroom. They wouldn't just say
you flunked the course, they would suggest you should maybe look at
another livelihood. But that is exactly the system we have right now.
If a truckdriver were to go out with a pick and shovel building bits
of the interstate highway for us, that would be pretty heroic and
noble. But all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower, people in Government
knew that would be a pretty nonsensical way to finance the Federal
highway system.
We have work to do in these three areas: fixing our information
technology to increase efficiency and generate savings; improving
health care quality and prevention in ways that lower costs; and
repairing the reimbursement system so it does not discourage those
reforms but encourages and rewards them.
In the coming days, I will expand on each of these problems, and I
will propose solutions in those three areas that will unleash market
incentives in positive directions. As I conclude, my message is this:
The health care system that underlies all our health care financing and
coverage problems is itself broken. The underlying health care delivery
system is itself broken. It is administrative and bureaucratic
machinery, but it is still machinery. It needs to be repaired the way
any broken machinery does. Fixing it, however, will reduce costs,
improve care, and make a badly operating system run better and move us
a critical step forward to making sure every American family has access
to health care they can afford.
I sincerely hope to work with all of my colleagues on solving this.
Please think of it this way: If your car is not running right, there is
no Republican or Democratic way to tune it up. There is just getting it
working. If your plumbing is jammed and water is flooding out, there is
not a Republican or Democratic way to fix that. It is either flowing
properly or it isn't. If your electric system is sparking and short
circuited, again, there is no Democratic or Republican way to solve
that problem. It is working right or it is not. Our health care system
is not working right, and it needs to be fixed. Because the health care
system is a dynamic system, you can't tell it what to do. You have to
take the trouble to identify what is wrong, identify why it is wrong,
and correct the cause.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1452. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
national center for public mental health emergency preparedness, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are
introducing the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2007. I originally introduced this legislation during the 109 Congress
to address mental health needs of those affected by disasters and
public health emergencies, and I want to thank Senator Domenici for his
support of this legislation and for his strong leadership on mental
health issues. The Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2007 would take several important steps toward preparing our Nation to
effectively address mental health issues in the wake of public health
emergencies, including potential bioterrorist attacks. We are pleased
to be introducing this important legislation in anticipation of
reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration SAMHSA.
[[Page S6480]]
I want to acknowledge and thank our partners from the mental health
community who have collaborated with us and have been working
diligently on these issues for several years, including the American
Psychological Association, the American Public Health Association, the
National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and all the other groups who have lent
their support.
The events of September 11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and other
recent natural and man-made catastrophes have sadly taught us that our
current resources are not sufficient or coordinated enough to meet the
mental health needs of those devastated by emergency events. We need a
network of trained mental health professionals, first responders and
leaders, and a process to mobilize and deploy mental health resources
in a rapid and sustained manner at times of an emergency.
It is clear that the consequences of emergency events like hurricanes
or terrorist attacks result in increased emotional and psychological
suffering among survivors and responders, and we must do more to assist
all who are affected. That is why I, along with Senator Domenici, am
introducing the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2007.
This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human services to
establish the National Center for Public Mental Health Emergency
Preparedness the National Center to coordinate the development and
delivery of mental health services in collaboration with existing
Federal, State and local entities when our Nation is confronted with
public health catastrophes.
This legislation would charge the National Center with five functions
to benefit affected Americans at the community level, including
vulnerable populations like children, older Americans, caregivers,
persons with disabilities, and persons living in poverty.
First, the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007
would make sure we have evidence-based or emerging best practices
curricula available to meet the diverse training needs of a wide range
of emergency health professionals, including mental health
professionals, public health and health care professionals, and
emergency services personnel, working in coordination with county
emergency managers, school personnel, spiritual care professionals, and
State and local government officials responsible for emergency
preparedness. By using these curricula to educate responders, the
National Center would build a network of trained emergency health
professionals at the State and local levels.
Second, this legislation would establish and maintain a clearinghouse
of educational materials, guidelines, and research on public mental
health emergency preparedness and service delivery that would be
evaluated and updated to ensure the information is accurate and
current. Technical assistance would be provided to help users access
those resources most effective for their communities.
Third, this bill would create an annual national forum for emergency
health professionals, researchers, and other experts as well as
Federal, State and local government officials to identify and address
gaps in science, practice, policy and education related to public
mental health emergency preparedness and service delivery.
Fourth, this bill would require annual evaluations of both the
National Center's efforts and those across the Federal Government in
building our Nation's public mental health emergency preparedness and
service delivery capacity. Based on these evaluations, recommendations
would be made to improve such activities.
Finally, the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007
would ensure that licensed mental health professionals are included in
the deployment of Disaster Medical Assistance Teams DMAT. Deployment of
licensed mental health professionals will increase the efficacy of the
medical team members by providing psychological assistance and crisis
counseling to survivors and to the other DMAT team members. Further,
this legislation would mandate that licensed mental health
professionals are included in the leadership of the National Disaster
Medical System, NDMS, to provide appropriate support for behavioral
programs and personnel within the DMATs.
We must not wait until another disaster strikes before we take action
to improve the way we respond to the psychological needs of affected
Americans. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
ensure passage of this bill that would take critical steps toward
preparing our nation to successfully deal with the mental health
consequences of public health emergencies.
I ask unanimous consent that the text and a letter of support be
printed in the Record. Thank you.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1452
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 Mental Health
Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS.
(a) Technical Amendments.--The second part G (relating to
services provided through religious organizations) of title V
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290kk et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating such part as part J; and
(2) by redesignating sections 581 through 584 as sections
596 through 596C, respectively.
(b) National Center.--Title V of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq.), as amended by subsection (a),
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``PART K--NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
``SEC. 599. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Definition.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term
`emergency health professionals' means--
``(i) mental health professionals, including psychiatrists,
psychologists, social workers, counselors, psychiatric
nurses, psychiatric aides and case managers, group home
staff, and those mental health professionals with expertise
in psychological trauma and issues related to vulnerable
populations such as children, older adults, caregivers,
individuals with disabilities, pre-existing mental health and
substance abuse disorders, and individuals living in poverty;
``(ii) public health and healthcare professionals,
including skilled nursing and assisted living professionals;
and
``(iii) emergency services personnel such as police, fire,
and emergency medical services personnel.
``(B) Coordination.--In conducting activities under this
part, emergency health professionals shall coordinate with--
``(i) county emergency managers;
``(ii) school personnel such as teachers, counselors, and
other personnel;
``(iii) spiritual care professionals;
``(iv) other disaster relief personnel; and
``(v) State and local government officials that are
responsible for emergency preparedness.
``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, shall establish the National Center for Public
Mental Health Emergency Preparedness (referred to in this
part as the `NCPMHEP') to address mental health concerns and
coordinate and implement the development and delivery of
mental health services in conjunction with the entities
described in subsection (b)(2), in the event of bioterrorism
or other public health emergency.
``(3) Location; director.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to award a
grant to an eligible institution to provide the location of
the NCPMHEP.
``(B) Eligible institution.--To be an eligible institution
under subparagraph (A), an institution shall--
``(i) be an academic medical center or similar institution
that has prior experience conducting statewide training, and
has a demonstrated record of leadership in national and
international forums, in public mental health emergency
preparedness, which may include disaster mental health
preparedness; and
``(ii) submit to the Secretary an application at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
``(C) Director.--The NCPMHEP shall be headed by a Director,
who shall be appointed by the Secretary (referred to in this
part as the `Director') from the eligible institution to
which the Secretary awards a grant under subparagraph (A).
``(b) Duties.--The NCPMHEP shall--
``(1) prepare the Nation's emergency health professionals
to provide mental health services in the aftermath of
catastrophic events, such as bioterrorism or other public
health
[[Page S6481]]
emergencies, that present psychological consequences for
communities and individuals, including vulnerable populations
such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals
with preexisting mental health problems (including substance-
related disorders), older adults, caregivers, and individuals
living in poverty;
``(2) coordinate with existing mental health preparedness
and service delivery efforts of--
``(A) Federal agencies (such as the National Disaster
Medical System, the Medical Reserve Corps, the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (including
the National Child Traumatic Stress Network), the
Administration on Aging, the National Institute of Mental
Health, the National Council on Disabilities, the
Administration on Children and Families, the Department of
Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs (including the
National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and
tribal nations);
``(B) State agencies (such as the State mental health
authority, office of substance abuse services, public health
authority, department of aging, the office of mental
retardation and developmental disabilities, agencies
responsible rehabilitation services);
``(C) local agencies (such as county offices of mental
health and substance abuse services, public health, child and
family community-based services, law enforcement, fire,
emergency medical services, school districts, Aging Services
Network, county emergency management, and academic and
community-based service centers affiliated with the National
Child Traumatic Stress Network); and
``(D) other governmental and nongovernmental disaster
relief organizations; and
``(3) coordinate with childcare centers, childcare
providers, community-based youth serving programs (including
local Center for Mental Health Services children's systems of
care grant sites), Head Start, the National Child Traumatic
Stress Network, and school districts to provide--
``(A) support services to adults and their family members
with mental health and substance-related disorders to
facilitate access to mental health and substance-related
treatment;
``(B) prevention and intervention services for mental
health and substance-related disorders to youth of all ages
that integrate the training curricula under section 599A; and
``(C) resources and consultation to address the
psychological trauma needs of the families, caregivers,
emergency health professionals; and all other professionals
providing care in emergency situations.
``(c) Panel of Experts.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with
Federal (such as the National Association of State Mental
Health Program Directors, National Association of County and
City Health Officials, and the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials), State, and local mental health
and public health authorities, shall develop a mechanism to
appoint a panel of experts for the NCPMHEP.
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The panel of experts appointed under
paragraph (1) shall be composed of individuals--
``(i) who are--
``(I) experts in their respective fields with extensive
experience in public mental health emergency preparedness or
service delivery, such as mental health professionals,
researchers, spiritual care professionals, school counselors,
educators, and mental health professionals who are emergency
health professionals (as defined in subsection (a)(1)(A)) and
who shall coordinate with the individuals described in
subsection (a)(1)(B); and
``(II) recommended by their respective national
professional organizations and universities to such a
position; and
``(ii) who represent families with family members who have
mental health and substance-related disorders.
``(B) Terms.--The members of the panel of experts appointed
under paragraph (1)--
``(i) shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; and
``(ii) may be reappointed for an unlimited number of terms.
``(C) Balance of composition.--The Director shall ensure
that the membership composition of the panel of experts
fairly represents a balance of the type and number of experts
described under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Vacancies.--
``(i) In general.--A vacancy on the panel of experts shall
be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was
made and shall be subject to conditions which applied with
respect to the original appointment.
``(ii) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to
fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of
the member replaced.
``(iii) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member shall
not expire before the date on which the member's successor
takes office.
``SEC. 599A. TRAINING CURRICULA FOR EMERGENCY HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS.
``(a) Convening of Group.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall convene a Training
Curricula Working Group from the panel of experts described
in section 599(c) to--
``(A) identify and review existing mental health training
curricula for emergency health professionals;
``(B) approve any such training curricula that are
evidence-based or emerging best practices and that satisfy
practice and service delivery standards determined by the
Training Curricula Working Group; and
``(C) make recommendations for, and participate in, the
development of any additional training curricula, as
determined necessary by the Training Curricula Working Group.
``(2) Collaboration.--The Training Curricula Working Group
shall collaborate with appropriate organizations including
the American Red Cross, the National Child Traumatic Stress
Network, the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress
Studies.
``(b) Purpose of Training Curricula.--The Training
Curricula Working Group shall ensure that the training
curricula approved by the NCPMHEP--
``(1) provide the knowledge and skills necessary to respond
effectively to the psychological needs of affected
individuals, relief personnel, and communities in the event
of bioterrorism or other public health emergency; and
``(2) is used to build a trained network of emergency
health professionals at the State and local levels.
``(c) Content of Training Curricula.--
``(1) In general.--The Training Curricula Working Group
shall ensure that the training curricula approved by the
NCPMHEP--
``(A) prepares emergency health professionals, in the event
of bioterrorism or other public health emergency, for
identifying symptoms of psychological trauma, supplying
immediate relief to keep affected persons safe, recognizing
when to refer affected persons for further mental healthcare
or substance abuse treatment, understanding how and where to
refer for such care, and other components as determined by
the Director in consultation with the Training Curricula
Working Group;
``(B) includes training or informational material designed
to educate and prepare State and local government officials,
in the event of bioterrorism or other public health
emergency, in coordinating and deploying mental health
resources and services and in addressing other mental health
needs, as determined by the Director in consultation with the
Training Curricula Working Group;
``(C) meets the diverse training needs of the range of
emergency health professionals; and
``(D) is culturally and linguistically competent.
``(2) Review of curricula.--The Training Curricula Working
Group shall routinely review existing training curricula and
participate in the revision of the training curricula
described under this section as necessary, taking into
consideration recommendations made by the participants of the
annual national forum under section 599D and the Assessment
Working Group described under section 599E.
``(d) Training Individuals.--
``(1) Field trainers.--The Director, in consultation with
the Training Curricula Working Group, shall develop a
mechanism through which qualified individuals trained through
the curricula approved by the NCPMHEP return to their
communities to recruit and train others in their respective
fields to serve on local emergency response teams.
``(2) Field leaders.--The Director, in consultation with
the Training Curricula Working Group, shall develop a
mechanism through which qualified individuals trained in
curricula approved by the NCPMHEP return to their communities
to provide expertise to State and local government agencies
to mobilize the mental health infrastructure of such State or
local agencies, including ensuring that mental health is a
component of emergency preparedness and service delivery of
such agencies.
``(3) Qualifications.--The individuals selected under
paragraph (1) or (2) shall--
``(A) pass a designated evaluation, as developed by the
Director in consultation with the Training Curricula Working
Group; and
``(B) meet other qualifications as determined by the
Director in consultation with the Training Curricula Working
Group.
``SEC. 599B. USE OF REGISTRIES TO TRACK TRAINED EMERGENCY
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.
``(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with the
mental and public health authorities of each State and
appropriate organizations (including the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network), shall coordinate the use of
existing emergency registries (including the Emergency System
for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals
(ESAR-VHP)) established to track medical and mental health
volunteers across all fields and specifically to track the
individuals in the State who have been trained using the
curricula approved by the NCPMHEP under section 599A. The
Director shall ensure that the data available through such
registries and used to track such trained individuals will be
recoverable and available in the event that such registries
become inoperable.
``(b) Use of Registry.--The tracking procedure under
subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and the Governor of each State, for the
recruitment and deployment of trained emergency health
professionals in the event of bioterrorism or other public
health emergency.
[[Page S6482]]
``SEC. 599C. CLEARINGHOUSE FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE DELIVERY.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and
maintain a central clearinghouse of educational materials,
guidelines, information, strategies, resources, and research
on public mental health emergency preparedness and service
delivery.
``(b) Duties.--The Director shall ensure that the
clearinghouse--
``(1) enables emergency health professionals and other
members of the public to increase their awareness and
knowledge of public mental health emergency preparedness and
service delivery, particularly for vulnerable populations
such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals
with pre-existing mental health problems (including
substance-related disorders), older adults, caregivers, and
individuals living in poverty; and
``(2) provides such users with access to a range of public
mental health emergency resources and strategies to address
their community's unique circumstances and to improve their
skills and capacities for addressing mental health problems
in the event of bioterrorism or other public health
emergency.
``(c) Availability.--The Director shall ensure that the
clearinghouse--
``(1) is available on the Internet;
``(2) includes an interactive forum through which users'
questions are addressed;
``(3) is fully versed in resources available from
additional Government-sponsored or other relevant websites
that supply information on public mental health emergency
preparedness and service delivery; and
``(4) includes the training curricula approved by the
NCPMHEP under section 599A.
``(d) Clearinghouse Working Group.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall convene a
Clearinghouse Working Group from the panel of experts
described under section 599(c) to--
``(A) evaluate the educational materials, guidelines,
information, strategies, resources and research maintained in
the clearinghouse to ensure empirical validity; and
``(B) offer technical assistance to users of the
clearinghouse with respect to finding and selecting the
information and resources available through the clearinghouse
that would most effectively serve their community's needs in
preparing for, and delivering mental health services during,
bioterrorism or other public health emergencies.
``(2) Technical assistance.--The technical assistance
described under paragraph (1) shall include the use of
information from the clearinghouse to provide consultation,
direction, and guidance to State and local governments and
public and private agencies on the development of public
mental health emergency plans for activities involving
preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, and evaluation.
``SEC. 599D. ANNUAL NATIONAL FORUM FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE DELIVERY.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall organize an annual
national forum to address public mental health emergency
preparedness and service delivery for emergency health
professionals, researchers, scientists, experts in public
mental health emergency preparedness and service delivery,
and mental health professionals (including those with
expertise in psychological trauma and issues related to
vulnerable populations such as children, older adults,
caregivers, individuals with disabilities, pre-existing
mental health and substance abuse disorders, and individuals
living in poverty), as well as personnel from relevant
Federal (including the National Center for Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder), State, and local agencies (including
academic and community-based service centers affiliated with
the National Child Traumatic Stress Network), and other
governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
``(b) Purpose of Forum.--The national forum shall provide
the framework for bringing such individuals together to,
based on evidence-based or emerging best practices research
and practice, identify and address gaps in science, practice,
policy, and education, make recommendations for the revision
of training curricula and for the enhancement of mental
health interventions, as appropriate, and make other
recommendations as necessary.
``SEC. 599E. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC MENTAL
HEALTH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE
DELIVERY EFFORTS.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall convene an Assessment
Working Group from the panel of experts described in section
599(c), who shall be independent from those individuals who
have developed the NCPMHEP, to evaluate the effectiveness of
the NCPMHEP's efforts and those across the Federal Government
in building the Nation's public mental health emergency
preparedness and service delivery capacity. Such group shall
include individuals who have expertise on how to assess the
effectiveness of the NCPMHEP's efforts on vulnerable
populations (such as children, older adults, caregivers,
individuals with disabilities, pre-existing mental health and
substance abuse disorders, and individuals living in
poverty).
``(b) Duties of the Assessment Working Group.--The
Assessment Working Group shall--
``(1) evaluate--
``(A) the effectiveness of each component of the NCPMHEP,
including the identification and development of training
curricula, the clearinghouse, and the annual national forum;
``(B) the effects of the training curricula on the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes of emergency health professionals
and on their delivery of mental health services in the event
of bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
``(C) the effects of the NCPMHEP on the capacities of State
and local government agencies to coordinate, mobilize, and
deploy resources and to deliver mental health services in the
event of bioterrorism or other public health emergency; and
``(D) other issues as determined by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Assessment Working Group; and
``(2) submit the annual report required under subsection
(c).
``(c) Annual Report and Information.--
``(1) Annual report.--On an annual basis, the Assessment
Working Group shall--
``(A) report to the Secretary and appropriate committees of
Congress the results of the evaluation by the Assessment
Working Group under this section; and
``(B) publish and disseminate the results of such
evaluation on as wide a basis as is practicable, including
through the NCPMHEP clearinghouse website under section 599C.
``(2) Information.--The results of the evaluation under
paragraph (1) shall be displayed on the Internet websites of
all entities with representatives participating in the
Assessment Working Group under this section, including the
Federal agencies responsible for funding the Working Group.
``(d) Recommendations.--
``(1) In general.--Based on the annual report, the
Director, in consultation with the Assessment Working Group,
shall make recommendations to the Secretary--
``(A) for improving--
``(i) the training curricula identified and approved by the
NCPMHEP;
``(ii) the NCPMHEP clearinghouse; and
``(iii) the annual forum of the NCPMHEP; and
``(B) regarding any other matter related to improving
mental health preparedness and service delivery in the event
of bioterrorism or other public health emergency in the
United States through the NCPMHEP.
``(2) Action by secretary.--Based on the recommendations
provided under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit
recommendations to Congress for any legislative changes
necessary to implement such recommendations.
``SEC. 599F. SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
``For purposes of this part, where ever there is a
reference to providing treatment, having expertise, or
provide training with respect to mental health, such
reference shall include providing treatment, having
expertise, or providing training relating to substance abuse,
if determined appropriate by the Secretary.
``SEC. 599G. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part--
``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2008
through 2011.''.
SEC. 3. DISASTER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TEAMS.
Section 2812(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300hh-11(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Disaster medical assistance teams and mental health
professionals.--
``(A) Inclusion of mental health professionals.--
``(i) In general.--The National Disaster Medical System, in
consultation with the National Center for Public Mental
Health Emergency Preparedness (established under section 599)
and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, shall--
``(I) identify licensed mental health professionals with
expertise in treating vulnerable populations, as identified
under section 599(b)(1); and
``(II) ensure that licensed mental health professionals
identified under subclause (I) are available in local
communities for deployment with Disaster Medical Assistance
Teams (including speciality mental health teams).
``(ii) Coordination.--The National Disaster Medical System
shall ensure that licensed mental health professionals are
included in the leadership of the National Disaster Medical
System, in coordination with the National Center for Public
Mental Health Emergency, to provide appropriate leadership
support for behavioral programs and personnel within the
Disaster Medical Assistance Teams.
``(B) Duties.--The principal duties of the licensed mental
health professionals identified and utilized under this
paragraph shall be to assist Disaster Medical Assistance
Teams in carrying out--
``(i) rapid psychological triage during an event of
bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
``(ii) crisis intervention prior to and during an event of
bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
``(iii) information dissemination and referral to specialty
care for survivors of an event of bioterrorism or other
public health emergency;
``(iv) data collection; and
``(v) follow-up consultations.
``(C) Training.--The National Disaster Medical System shall
coordinate with the National Center for Public Mental Health
[[Page S6483]]
Emergency Preparedness to ensure that, as part of their
training, Disaster Medical Assistance Teams include the
training curricula for emergency health professionals
established under section 599A.
``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Disaster medical assistance teams.--The term
`Disaster Medical Assistance Teams' means teams of
professional medical personnel that provide emergency medical
care during a disaster or public health emergency.
``(ii) Rapid psychological triage.--The term `rapid
psychological triage' means the accurate and rapid
identification of individuals at varied levels of risk in the
aftermath of a public health emergency, in order to provide
the appropriate, acute intervention for those affected
individuals.
``(iii) Data collection.--The term `data collection' means
the use of standardized, consistent, and accurate methods to
report evidence-based or emerging best practices, triage
mental health data obtained from survivors of an event of
bioterrorism or other public health emergency.''.
____
American
Psychological Association,
May 22, 2007.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Clinton and Domenici: On behalf of the
148,000 members and affiliates of the American Psychological
Association (APA), I am writing to express our strong support
for the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2007. This important legislation would significantly enhance
our preparedness, response, and recovery efforts to address
the mental health aspects of disasters and public health
emergencies.
Both human made and natural disasters can have significant
effects on the mental health and well-being of individuals,
families, and communities. Among the most common mental
health problems encountered by disaster survivors are
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety,
and increased alcohol, tobacco, and substance use. For many,
the psychological effects of disasters may be temporary,
while others may require more long-term mental health
assistance.
The Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007
would take several important steps toward enhancing our
Nation's public mental health preparedness and response
efforts in the event of a public health emergency. In
particular, this legislation would establish a National
Center for Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness to
prepare for and address the immediate and long-term mental
health needs of the general population and potentially
vulnerable subgroups, including children, individuals with
disabilities, individuals with pre-existing mental health
problems, older adults, caregivers, and individuals living in
poverty. This center would undertake several important
activities, including developing and disseminating training
curricula for emergency mental health professionals,
establishing a clearinghouse of mental health emergency
resources, organizing an annual national forum on mental
health emergency preparedness and response, and ensuring the
inclusion of mental health professionals within Disaster
Medical Assistance Teams.
We commend you for your leadership and commitment to public
mental health preparedness and look forward to working with
you to ensure enactment of the Public Mental Health Emergency
Preparedness Act. If we can be of further assistance, please
feel free to contact Diane Elmore, Ph.D., in our Government
Relations Office.
Sincerely,
Gwendolyn Puryear Keita, Ph.D.,
Executive Director,
Public Interest Directorate.
____
American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2007.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the American Public
Health Association (APHA), the oldest, largest and most
diverse organization of public health professionals in the
world, dedicated to protecting all Americans and their
communities from preventable, serious health threats and
assuring community-based health promotion and disease
prevention activities and preventive health services are
universally accessible in the United States, I write in
support of the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness
Act of 2007.
Despite recent efforts to improve all-hazards preparedness
in this country, the lack of mental health services available
to victims of public health emergencies remains troubling. As
lessons learned from the hurricanes of 2005 and essentials to
adequately prepare for and respond to a flu pandemic are
incorporated into national, state and local all-hazards
preparedness plans, we must also ensure that mental health
emergency preparedness and delivery is integrated into all of
these plans, including the HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan and
the National Response Plan. To ensure that this happens, APHA
supports the provisions in this bill that would require the
inclusion of mental health professionals in National Disaster
Medical System (NDMS) leadership and Disaster Medical
Assistance Teams.
To ensure that public health preparedness and response
activities are comprehensive and incorporate mental health
needs and realities, APHA supports the creation of a National
Center for Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness
(NCPMHEP) outlined in your legislation. The NCPMHEP would be
able to use existing data to train emergency health
professionals in the provision of mental health services,
coordinate mental health preparedness and response activities
with federal, state and local partners and ensure that
trained professionals in mental health service delivery can
be identified and quickly mobilized.
Thank you for your attention to and leadership on this
important public health issue. We look forward to working
with you to move this legislation forward this Congress. If
you have questions, or for additional information, please
contact me or have your staff contact Courtney Perlino (202)
777-2436 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
FACP, FACEP (Emeritus),
Executive Director.
____
National Association of
Social Workers,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Clinton: I am writing on behalf of the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the largest
professional social work organization in the world with
150,000 members nationwide. NASW promotes, develops, and
protects the effective practice of social work services
throughout the country. NASW strongly supports the ``Public
Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007,'' and is
pleased to endorse it. We greatly appreciate your attention
and that of Senator Domenici to the important but often
neglected needs of emergency preparedness in mental health
services. NASW is particularly pleased to see that social
workers and other behavioral health professions would have an
enhanced role in the Nation's disaster response teams through
the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS).
NASW, both nationally and in state chapters, was a resource
for the identification of trained mental health professionals
during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. In addition, several
NASW state chapters worked with local Red Cross organization
to ensure that mental health services were made available to
hurricane victims in affected states. We recognize the need
to be prepared to provide mental health training in
emergencies and the steps that are required to ensure the
availability of a wide network of trained professionals with
the skills to provide emergency mental health evaluation and
triage. We also understand the importance of providing
emergency mental health services.
Your tireless efforts on behalf of consumers of behavioral
health services and professional social workers nationwide
are greatly appreciated by our members. We thank you for your
sponsorship of this legislation. NASW looks forward to
working with you on this and future issues of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Polowy,
General Counsel.
____
American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), I write in support
of the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of
2007. The AACAP is a medical membership association
established by child and adolescent psychiatrists in 1953.
Now over 7,000 members strong, the AACAP is the leading
national medical association dedicated to treating and
improving the quality of life for the estimated 7-12 million
American youth under 18 years of age who are affected by
emotional, behavioral, developmental and mental disorders.
AACAP supports research, continuing medical education and
access to quality care.
Tragic events, such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina
are devastating to the mental health of children and
adolescents and could have significant alterations in child
and adolescent development. Changes in environmental and
societal patterns of parenting, socialization, education,
maturation, acculturation, and technology due to a traumatic
event all have significant ramifications. Too often mental
health services for children are fragmented. This bill
addresses the need to coordinate the delivery of mental
health services in times of public health emergencies, which
AACAP recognizes as elements of the treatment process.
It is your continued leadership that will help ensure a
bright future for today's youth and the continued assurance
of mentally healthy Americans. We look forward to working
with you on this most important issue. Please contact Kristin
Kroeger Ptakowski Director of Government Affairs, at
202.966.7300, x. 108 if you have any questions concerning
children's mental health issues.
Sincerely,
Thomas Anders, M.D.,
President.
____________________