[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6551-S6562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burr, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Thomas, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Bunning, and Mr. Martinez):
S. 37. A bill to enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste, to assure protection of public
health safety, to ensure the territorial integrity and security of the
repository at Yucca Mountain, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program
back on
[[Page S6552]]
track. I am joined by Senator Craig and others to introduce the Nuclear
Waste Access to Yucca Bill, or Nu-Way Bill, which I believe will help
to resolve the issue of nuclear waste once and for all.
As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been
rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree,
starting back to the late 1950s when the National Academy of Sciences,
NAS, reported to the Atomic Energy Commission that burying radioactive
high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration.
NAS stated that ``radioactive waste can be disposed of safely in a
variety of ways and at a large number of sites in the United States.''
In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act after a solid
consensus had been reached around the major elements of the approach
broadly outlined by President Carter. When President Reagan signed it
into law the following January, he called the Act ``a milestone for
progress and the ability of our democratic system to resolve a
sophisticated and divisive issue.''
The Congress was quite optimistic then, so optimistic that we told
the Department of Energy, DOE, to enter into contracts with utilities
to begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998 in return for the
payment of fees. Well, obviously that didn't happen, but the United
States government continues to collect the fee at 1mil/KWH electricity
generated by nuclear plants. What did happen was that the utilities
began to sue DOE for failing to meet its contractual obligation to
remove spent nuclear fuel from storage at commercial reactor sites. DOE
has been negotiating with various reactor owners since 1999 over the
missed deadline for settlement agreements. The first agreement was
reached in July 2000 which allowed DOE to pay PECO Energy Co. up to $80
million in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years.
However, other utilities sued DOE to block the settlement, contending
that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the DOE Waste Program and
not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed that any compensation would have
to come from general revenue or other sources than the waste fund.
Today, commercial spent nuclear fuel continues to be stored at plant
sites, and DOE is facing more than $6 billion in judgments for failure
to dispose the spent nuclear fuel. As for the nuclear waste fund, we
now have more than $19 billion of the ratepayer's money in principal
and interest.
In addition to civilian spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy
stores about 2,500 metric tons of defense waste, which includes
unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel from its plutonium production
reactors, naval propulsion reactors, and research reactors at Hanford,
Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program
has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic
repository for nuclear waste a reality. Originally, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act required DOE to characterize more than one site for two
repositories. As the most promising site considered, the Yucca Mountain
site was selected by DOE to be the first site to be characterized. In
1987, the act was amended and the Congress directed DOE to focus its
siting effort on Yucca Mountain alone and terminated the second
repository program.
On February 14, 2002, after carrying out the required ``appropriate
site characterization activities'' at Yucca Mountain to determine its
suitability, the President recommended Yucca Mountain to Congress as
being ``qualified for application for a construction authorization for
a repository.''
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the Governor of Nevada the
opportunity to object to the site selection and to submit to Congress
the reasons. On April 8, 2002, the Governor of Nevada exercised this
authority and submitted his notice of disapproval and statement of
reasons. Under the terms of the Act, the Governor's notice had the
effect of terminating further consideration of the Yucca Mountain site
until both Houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law
a joint resolution approving the site.
The State veto provisions of the act accomplished their intent, which
was to afford Congress another opportunity to review and determine if
the objection was sufficient to terminate the program. Based on expert
opinion, both Houses concluded that the objection was not sufficient,
and that the Yucca Mountain site is geologically suitable for
development of the repository. In the national interest, Congress
approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license
application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
NRC. The decision has been made. All the scientific work performed to
date supports the decision.
With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the EPA to issue
general standards and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license
the facility by evaluating the scientific data and determining whether
the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.
Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent
nuclear fuel management strategy for this country. Let me be clear: We
need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill
introduced today will do that.
This bill will remove unintended legal barriers that will allow DOE
to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon
as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository
licensing decision.
The bill I am introducing today authorizes DOE to permanently
withdraw 147,000 acres of Federal land from public use currently
controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the
Nevada Test Site, to satisfy a license condition of the NRC.
This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton
statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca
Mountain. The cap was imposed when Congress was considering two rounds
of repositories. I believe that the capacity of the mountain should be
determined by scientific and technical analysis, and not by political
compromises.
Today, the major facility at the Yucca Mountain site is an
``exploratory studies facility'' with a 25-foot-diameter, 5-mile long,
tunnel with ramps leading to the surface. This legislation will allow
the DOE to begin construction of needed infrastructure for the
repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an
environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.
The ``Nu-Way'' bill also begins to consolidate the defense nuclear
waste and spent nuclear fuel from defense activities at the Yucca
Mountain site. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a
surface receipt and storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the
same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca
Mountain.
As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface receipt
and storage facility from the NRC, it may begin moving defense fuel and
waste to the Nevada Test Site. We are not giving DOE any new authority
to move spent fuel. DOE currently has authority to transport and
consolidate defense waste at DOE facilities, with the sole exception of
Yucca Mountain site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense
activities that kept us safe during the Cold War should be consolidated
and stored securely at the Nevada Test Site. The defense waste is
currently stored temporarily in Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River
sites.
This legislation further provides that only after the NRC issues a
construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the Department of Energy
begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site. This
legislation also lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain
Repository Program and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, by
providing that before civilian spent nuclear fuel is shipped to Yucca
Mountain, the Secretary of Energy must determine if it can be recycled
within a reasonable time. I might add that the current plans for GNEP
do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel
that has already been generated. This proposal will would avoid moving
waste to Yucca Mountain Site that should be shipped instead to a GNEP
facility.
In the long run, this measure provides DOE with the authorities
needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project for long term emplacement
and for the
[[Page S6553]]
GNEP program to reduce the volume and toxicity of the material to be
placed in the repository, thereby eliminating the need for a second
waste repository.
This bill will also withdraw land for a rail route Yucca, a vital
transportation component. There is also a provision that provides that
appropriations from the nuclear waste fund will not count against the
allocations for discretionary spending. DOE will have access to the
full funds in the nuclear waste fund, moneys collected from electricity
rate payers, our constituents, specifically for developing and
constructing the waste repository.
To address the liability problem created by Congress when DOE could
not remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor sites, this legislation
will authorize DOE to revise the standard contract to accept waste from
new nuclear reactors at a more reasonable schedule. By doing all of
these things, this bill will establish a comprehensive program that
will provide confidence that our Nation's nuclear waste will be managed
safely both for current and future reactors.
The issue of Yucca Mountain has been addressed repeatedly by Congress
and Presidents. The legislation I am introducing today will not
circumvent any environmental standards or regulations, nor will it
preempt any State or local government rights.
Despite the great advances that we have made in this Nation on
nuclear energy, we are still faced with challenges. EIA estimates that
even with a projected increase in nuclear capacity and generation in
large, the nuclear share of total electricity is estimated to fall from
19 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2030. This is because our energy
needs will be great over the next 25 years. For energy security
reasons, economic reasons and environmental reasons, we must make
nuclear energy a larger part of our mix. To meet the challenge of
reducing carbon emissions in order to address climate change, we need
nuclear energy. And, if we need nuclear energy, we need Yucca Mountain.
Solving nuclear waste is in the national interest. We can solve this
problem and I hope we can move forward together in a new way.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Obama):
S. 38. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
establish a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health
services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator
Obama to introduce the Veterans' Mental Health Outreach and Access Act.
This bill will require the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to establish
a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health services
to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, with a particular emphasis on those soldiers who
served in the National Guard and Reserves.
Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF,
are unique in their extensive use of National Guard and Reserve troops
and their reliance on repetitive deployments. More than 1,500 National
Guard and Reservists from New Mexico have been deployed in support of
OIF and OEF. Several hundred of these soldiers have been deployed
multiple times. This is a new era for our National Guard and for the
Reserve. The role of these organizations in defending our national
security has significantly increased. Guard and Reserve members are
seeing significant combat action and we know that a number of these
soldiers will return with mental and physical wounds suffered in these
wars, including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, brain
injuries and other traumatic illnesses.
Virtually all returning veterans and their families will face
readjustment problems. These soldiers and their families deserve the
best care and treatment possible, but where do our National Guard and
Reserve soldiers fit into the military and veterans' systems of care?
These ``citizen-soldiers'' are not returning to military bases, but
rather to communities that are frequently remote from VA medical
centers and clinics.
We're quick to urge that VA provide veterans needed treatment for
service-related mental health problems, but we also need to do more to
remove the barriers such as travel and distance that oftentimes will
prevent a veteran from seeking and continuing treatment. The Domenici-
Obama bill calls on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a
national program to reach vets who can't or won't seek VA care. It
requires the Secretary to mount a national program to train a cadre of
returning servicemembers for positions as peer outreach workers and
peer-support specialists. In any remote area of the country in which
the VA determines there is inadequate access to a VA medical center,
the bill directs the Secretary of the VA to contract with community
mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide peer
outreach and support services, readjustment counseling and mental
health services. However, any resulting contracts would require centers
to first train and adhere to the VA's expertise and standards of care
in mental health. It also will require any contract-provider to hire a
trained peer specialist as well as have its clinicians participate in a
training program to be certain they'll provide ``culturally competent''
services.
This bill also gives needed attention to the toll these military
operations have on the mental health needs of our veterans' families.
These deployments are causing great stress for the spouses and children
of these soldiers. Yet despite the recognition of the mental health
needs of the family members of the returning veterans, current law
limits the ability of the VA to work with these family members. This
bill will expand access to mental health services for the immediate
family of the veteran so that they may help the veteran recover in the
case of injury or illness incurred during deployment. It will also help
expand access to services so that the family can better help the
veteran adjust back to civilian life, and also help the readjustment of
the family to the return of the veteran.
Lastly, this bill will extend the eligibility for health care
services from the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans who
served in combat from 2 years to 5 years. Two years is often
insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illness
to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for symptoms to present
themselves, and the difficulty is often compounded by the fact that
many servicemembers do not immediately seek the care that they need.
Five years provides a more adequate window to address these risks.
Outreach and access to treatment are essential to prevent
readjustment problems for our returning veterans and their families.
Left untreated, mental disorders like PTSD and depression can become
chronic and debilitating. We need systems in place to ensure that OEF/
OIF veterans who are returning to their homes have access to the
services they need. It is my hope that this legislation will help close
the gaps we currently have in our service delivery systems and provide
help to those who have experienced mental health problems as a result
of their service to their country.
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. 38
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 ``Veterans' Mental Health
Outreach and Access Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROGRAM ON PROVISION OF READJUSTMENT AND MENTAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO VETERANS WHO SERVED IN
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING
FREEDOM.
(a) Program Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall establish a program to provide--
(1) to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, particularly veterans who served in such
operations while in the National Guard and the Reserves--
(A) peer outreach services;
(B) peer support services;
(C) readjustment counseling and services described in
section 1712A of title 38, United States Code; and
[[Page S6554]]
(D) mental health services; and
(2) to members of the immediate family of such a veteran,
during the three-year period beginning on the date of the
return of such veteran from deployment in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, education, support,
counseling, and mental health services to assist in--
(A) the readjustment of such veteran to civilian life;
(B) in the case such veteran has an injury or illness
incurred during such deployment, the recovery of such
veteran; and
(C) the readjustment of the family following the return of
such veteran.
(b) Contracts With Community Mental Health Centers and
Qualified Entities for Provision of Services.--In carrying
out the program required by subsection (a), the Secretary
shall contract with community mental health centers and other
qualified entities to provide the services required by such
subsection in areas the Secretary determines are not
adequately served by other health care facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs. Such contracts shall require
each contracting community health center or entity--
(1) to the extent practicable, to employ veterans trained
under subsection (c);
(2) to the extent practicable, to use telehealth services
for the delivery of services required by subsection (a);
(3) to participate in the training program conducted in
accordance with subsection (d);
(4) to comply with applicable protocols of the Department
of Veterans Affairs before incurring any liability on behalf
of the Department for the provision of the services required
by subsection (a);
(5) to submit annual reports to the Secretary containing,
with respect to the program required by subsection (a) and
for the last full calendar year ending before the submission
of such report--
(A) the number of the veterans served, veterans diagnosed,
and courses of treatment provided to veterans as part of the
program required by subsection (a); and
(B) demographic information for such services, diagnoses,
and courses of treatment;
(6) for each veteran for whom a community mental health
center or other qualified entity provides mental health
services under such contract, to provide the Department of
Veterans Affairs with such clinical summary information as
the Secretary shall require; and
(7) to meet such other requirements as the Secretary shall
require.
(c) Training of Veterans for the Provision of Peer-Outreach
and Peer-Support Services.--In carrying out the program
required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall contract with
a national not-for-profit mental health organization to carry
out a national program of training for veterans described in
subsection (a) to provide the services described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of such
subsection.
(d) Training of Clinicians for Provision of Services.--The
Secretary shall conduct a training program for clinicians of
community mental health centers or entities that have
contracts with the Secretary under subsection (b) to ensure
that such clinicians can provide the services required by
subsection (a) in a manner that--
(1) recognizes factors that are unique to the experience of
veterans who served on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom
or Operation Enduring Freedom (including their combat and
military training experiences); and
(2) utilizes best practices and technologies.
(e) Reports Required.--
(1) Initial report on plan for implementation.--Not later
than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives a report containing the plans of the
Secretary to implement the program required by subsection
(a).
(2) Status report.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the implementation of the
program. Such report shall include the following:
(A) Information on the number of veterans who received
services as part of the program and the type of services
received during the last full calendar year completed before
the submission of such report.
(B) An evaluation of the provision of services under
paragraph (2) of subsection (a) and a recommendation as to
whether the period described in such paragraph should be
extended to a five-year period.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES
FROM DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR
VETERANS OF SERVICE IN COMBAT THEATER.
Section 1710(e)(3)(C) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray,
and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1457. A bill to provide for the protection of mail delivery on
certain postal routes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since it was created the U.S. Postal
Service has provided trusted, reliable delivery to tens of millions of
households throughout the country. Today, the USPS stands as the second
largest employer in the country with over 700,000 employees and is the
most efficient postal service in the world. Last year, the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed and signed into law,
ensuring the sustainability of the USPS for years to come.
However, recent decisions by the Postal Service have put the success
and reliability of mail delivery in jeopardy. Postal delivery managers
are now being encouraged to contract out delivery services for all new
deliveries, of which there are approximately 1.8 million per year.
Outsourcing the mailman bypasses the process that ensures that only
qualified people handle America's mail, leaving open the possibility
that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers
could have access to the mail stream.
Furthermore, it limits the ability of the Postal Service to prevent,
investigate, and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal
uses of the mail.
The USPS employs dedicated postal employees who earn solid middle-
class wages and have health benefits and pension plans. The quality of
service and reliability that the USPS has been known for is threatened
if our mail carriers are replaced by low-paid, short-term workers.
This is why I am introducing the Mail Delivery Protection Act of
2007. This bill would prevent the USPS from contracting out the
delivery of mail to postal patrons to private individuals and firms.
Each day millions of sensitive materials, including financial
statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, passports, and
ballots, pass through the mail stream. We cannot afford to allow the
safe delivery of these personal, private documents to be granted to the
lowest bidder.
In 2006, 379 Members of the House of Representatives voted against a
pilot program testing the feasibility of contracted delivery.
However, postal management has increasingly chosen to contract out
the delivery of mail, therefore outsourcing their core service
function. A fancy restaurant would not contract out its chefs to a
cheap fast-food chain to save money. Why should the Post Office
outsource its delivery?
We must remember that this is the U.S. Postal Service. This bill will
ensure that the safety and reliability we have all come to know from
our local mail carriers will continue.
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. 1457
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAIL DELIVERY PROTECTION.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Mail
Delivery Protection Act of 2007''.
(b) Mail Delivery Protection.--Section 5212 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Postal Service may'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), the Postal
Service may not enter into any contract under this section
with any motor carrier or other person for the delivery of
mail on any route with 1 or more families per mile.
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
``(A) any contract described under that paragraph in effect
on the date of enactment of the Mail Delivery Protection Act
of 2007--
``(i) shall remain in effect until terminated under the
terms of such contract or as otherwise provided by law; and
``(ii) may be renewed 1 or more times; and
``(B) service on a rural route may be converted to contract
delivery service when such route no longer serves a minimum
of 1 family per mile.''.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1459. A bill to strengthen the Nation's research efforts to
identify the causes and cure of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,
expand psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection, study
[[Page S6555]]
access to and quality of care for people with psoriasis and psoriatic
arthritis, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Psoriasis
and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007. According
to the National Institutes of Health, as many as 7.5 million Americans
are affected by psoriasis, a chronic, inflammatory, painful,
disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited
treatments and no cure. In my State of New Jersey, the National
Psoriasis Foundation estimates that 219,000 people have psoriasis.
Ten to thirty percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic
arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness, and swelling in and around the
joints. Moreover, of further concern is that people with psoriasis are
at elevated risk for a myriad other comorbidities, including but not
limited to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health
conditions. Despite the serious adverse effects that psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis have on individuals, families and society,
psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are underrecognized and underfunded
by our Nation's research institutions and public health agencies. At
the historical and current rate of psoriasis funding, NIH funding is
not keeping pace with research needs. For that reason, I am introducing
legislation to boost psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research,
improve and expand psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection,
increase access to care and treatment for these diseases, and help
debunk the myths associated with psoriasis.
I know that this legislation will go a long way in achieving these
important public policy goals. The bill calls on the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, HHS, to convene a summit of researchers,
public health professionals, representatives of patient advocacy
organizations and policymakers to review current efforts in psoriasis
and psoriatic arthritis research, treatment, and quality-of-life being
conducted by Federal agencies whose work involves psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related
comorbidities. The legislation also calls on the Secretary of HHS to
commission a study from the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, to evaluate
and make recommendations to address health insurance and prescription
drug coverage as they relate to medications and treatments for
psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Lastly, the bill directs the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a patient registry to
collect much-needed longitudinal data on psoriasis and psoriatic
arthritis so we can begin to understand the long-term impact of these
conditions and evaluate the effects of various therapies.
I would like to thank the National Psoriasis Foundation for all of
its efforts and leadership over the last four decades and am grateful
to the Foundation and its members and staff for their ongoing
commitment to improving quality of life for people with psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research Cure, and
Care Act.
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. 1459
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 ``Psoriasis and Psoriatic
Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Expansion of biomedical research.
Sec. 5. National patient registry.
Sec. 6. National summit.
Sec. 7. Study and report by the Institute of Medicine.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are autoimmune-
mediated, chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring, and
life-altering diseases that require life-long sophisticated
medical intervention and care and have no cure.
(2) Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis affect as many as 7.5
million men, women, and children of all ages and have an
adverse impact on the quality of life for virtually all
affected.
(3) Psoriasis often is overlooked or dismissed because it
does not cause death. Psoriasis is commonly and incorrectly
considered by insurers, employers, policymakers, and the
public as a mere annoyance, a superficial problem, mistakenly
thought to be contagious and due to poor hygiene. Treatment
for psoriasis often is categorized, wrongly, as ``life-
style'' and not ``medically necessary''.
(4) Psoriasis goes hand-in-hand with a myriad of co-
morbidities such as Crohn's disease, diabetes, metabolic
syndrome, obesity, hypertension, heart attack, cardiovascular
disease, liver disease, and psoriatic arthritis, which occurs
in 10 to 30 percent of people with psoriasis.
(5) The National Institute of Mental Health funded a study
that found that psoriasis may cause as much physical and
mental disability as other major diseases, including cancer,
arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and
depression.
(6) Psoriasis is associated with elevated rates of
depression and suicidal ideation.
(7) Each year the people of the United States lose
approximately 56 million hours of work and spend $2 billion
to $3 billion to treat psoriasis.
(8) Early diagnosis and treatment of psoriatic arthritis
may help prevent irreversible joint damage.
(9) Treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents a
challenge for patients and their health care providers
because no one treatment works for everyone, some treatments
lose effectiveness over time, many treatments are used in
combination with other treatments, and all treatments may
cause a unique set of side effects.
(10) Although new and more effective treatments finally are
becoming available, too many people do not yet have access to
the types of therapies that may make a significant difference
in the quality of their lives.
(11) Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis constitute a
significant national health issue that deserves a
comprehensive and coordinated response by State and Federal
governments with involvement of the health care provider,
patient, and public health communities.
SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''), acting
through the Director of the National Institutes of Health,
shall expand and intensify research and related activities of
the Institutes with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic
arthritis.
(b) Research by NIAMS.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases shall conduct
or support research to expand understanding of the causes of,
and to find a cure for, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Such research shall include the following:
(A) Basic research to discover the pathogenesis and
pathophysiology of the disease.
(B) Expansion of molecular genetics and immunology studies,
including additional animal models.
(C) Global association mapping with single nucleotide
polymorphisms.
(D) Identification of environmental triggers and
autoantigens in psoriasis.
(E) Elucidation of specific immune receptor cells and their
products involved.
(F) Pharmcogenetic studies to understand the molecular
basis for varying patient response to treatment.
(G) Identification of genetic markers of psoriatic
arthritis susceptibility.
(H) Research to increase understanding of joint
inflammation and destruction in psoriatic arthritis.
(I) Clinical research for the development and evaluation of
new treatments, including new biological agents.
(J) Research to develop improved diagnostic tests.
(K) Research to increase understanding of co-morbidities
and psoriasis, including shared molecular pathways.
(2) Coordination with other institutes.--In carrying out
paragraph (1), the Director of the National Institute of
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases shall
coordinate the activities of the Institute with the
activities of other national research institutes and other
agencies and offices of the National Institutes of Health
relating to psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL PATIENT REGISTRY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in
collaboration with an eligible national organization, shall
establish a national psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis
patient registry.
(b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary shall enter into cooperative agreements
with an eligible national organization and appropriate
academic health institutions to develop, implement, and
manage a system for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patient
data collection and analysis, including the creation and use
of a common data entry and management system.
(c) Longitudinal Data.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall ensure the collection and analysis of
longitudinal data
[[Page S6556]]
related to individuals of all ages with psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis, including infants, young children,
adolescents, and adults of all ages including older
Americans.
(d) Eligible National Organization.--In this section, the
term ``eligible national organization'' means a national
organization that--
(1) has expertise in the epidemiology of psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis; and
(2) maintains an established patient registry or biobank.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000
for fiscal year 2008 and $500,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2012.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL SUMMIT.
(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convene a summit
on the current activities of the Federal Government to
conduct or support research, treatment, education, and
quality-of-life activities with respect to psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis, including psoriasis and psoriatic
arthritis related co-morbidities. The summit shall include
researchers, public health professionals, representatives of
voluntary health agencies and patient advocacy organizations,
representatives of academic institutions, and Federal and
State policymakers.
(b) Focus.--The summit convened under this section shall
focus on--
(1) a broad range of research activities relating to
biomedical, epidemiological, psychosocial, and rehabilitative
issues;
(2) clinical research for the development and evaluation of
new treatments, including new biological agents;
(3) translational research;
(4) information and education programs for health care
professionals and the public;
(5) priorities among the programs and activities of the
various Federal agencies involved in psoriasis and psoriatic
arthritis and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related co-
morbidities; and
(6) challenges and opportunities for scientists,
clinicians, patients, and voluntary organizations.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
first day of the summit convened under this section, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress and make publicly
available a report that includes a description of--
(1) the proceedings at the summit; and
(2) the research, treatment, education, and quality-of-life
activities conducted or supported by the Federal Government
with respect to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, including
psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related co-morbidities.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section, there are authorized such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORT BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an
agreement with the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study
on the following:
(1) The extent to which public and private insurers cover
prescription medications and other treatments for psoriasis
and psoriatic arthritis.
(2) The payment structures, such as deductibles and co-
payments, and the amounts and duration of coverage under
health plans and their adequacy to cover the costs of
providing ongoing care to patients with psoriasis and
psoriatic arthritis.
(3) Health plan and insurer coverage policies and practices
and their impact on the access of such patients to the best
regimen and most appropriate care for their particular
disease state.
(b) Report.--The agreement entered into under subsection
(a) shall provide for the Institute of Medicine to submit to
the Secretary and Congress, not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, a report containing a
description of the results of the study conducted under this
section and the conclusions and recommendations of the
Institutes of Medicine regarding each of the issues described
in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a).
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1461. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human
Services from imposing penalties against a State under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program for failure to satisfy minimum
work participation rates or comply with work participation verification
procedures with respect to months beginning after September 2006 and
before the end of the 12-month period that begins on the date the
Secretary approves the State's work verification plan; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill
to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and
implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform
reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007.
As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a
Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time.
Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new
rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,
TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President
Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work
requirements.
But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for
States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react
to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy
even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of
Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is
approved. This is just not fair.
Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce
Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards.
In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill
without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a
reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements.
On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit
Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on
October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet
new, unpublished work verification requirements.
The President signed the bill into law in February 2006.
The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations
to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work
verification plans until June 29, 2006.
States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans
based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30,
2006.
On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work
verification took effect.
Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work
verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be
penalized for failing participation standards today before they have
gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are
approved, and they know what is expected of them.
This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for
work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be
assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the
potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's
block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State
matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block
grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996.
My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can
be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official
approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State
a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet
know what officially counts as work so they should not face any
penalties until after the rules are clear.
Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing
families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about
promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the
families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes
to ``play by the rules.''
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 1462. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act to promote the adoption of children with special needs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of
fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs
adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves
it.
Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and
improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at-
risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able
to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be
able to provide them with a safe permanent home.
Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the
1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of
nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with
[[Page S6557]]
these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in
foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94
children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as
having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is
especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles
in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as
part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.
In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who
have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption
subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs''
children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to
help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children,
as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or
special equipment for disabled children.
Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available
to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law,
only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for
support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special
needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare
benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these
important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her
biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the
child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected
the child.
It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field
and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at
being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by
removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be
made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all
children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for
Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an
incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by
requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this
bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs.
The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is
often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe,
loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help
our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 1464. A bill to establish a Global Service Fellowship Program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Global Service Fellowship Program Act. This important bill would
provide more Americans the opportunity to volunteer overseas and
strengthen our existing Federal international education and exchange
system. I believe the U.S. government needs to be taking a greater
leadership role in providing opportunities for U.S. citizens to
volunteer overseas and my bill will enhance U.S. efforts to be a global
leader in people-to-people engagement.
People-to-people engagement is one of the United States' most
effective public diplomacy tools and, today more than ever, we need to
be investing in every opportunity to improve the perception of the U.S.
overseas. Bad policy decisions by this administration have led to an
alarming increase in negative opinions of the United States and we have
not done enough to reverse this trend.
Studies have shown that, in areas where U.S. citizens have
volunteered their time, money, and services, opinions of the United
States have improved. A 2006 Terror Free Tomorrow poll found that, ``In
Indonesia, almost two years after the tsunami, American aid to tsunami
victims continues to be the single biggest factor resulting in
favorable opinion towards the United States. Almost 60 percent of
Indonesians surveyed nationwide in August 2006 said that American
assistance made them favorable to the United States. This number has
remained solid following tsunami relief, despite a growing number of
Indonesians who oppose American-led efforts to fight terrorism.''
Greater investment in volunteer opportunities has significant
potential to improve the image of the U.S. overseas and while we have
important programs already in place, the Peace Corps and programs
administered through the Department of State's Bureau of Education and
Cultural Affairs, we can and should be doing more.
My bill would not only provide more opportunities for people-to-
people engagement, but it reduces barriers that the average citizen
faces when trying to volunteer internationally. First of all, my bill
would reduce financial barriers by awarding fellowship awards designed
to defray some of the costs associated with volunteering. The
fellowship awards can be applied towards airfare, housing, or program
costs, to name a few examples. By providing financial assistance, the
Global Service Fellowship program opens the door for every American to
be a participant, not just those with the resources to pay for it.
Secondly, my bill reduces volunteering barriers by offering
flexibility in the length of the volunteer opportunity. I often hear
from constituents that they do not seek opportunities to participate in
Federal volunteer programs because they cannot leave their jobs or
family for years at a time. The Global Service Fellowship Programs
offers volunteers the opportunity to volunteer on a schedule that works
for them, a month up to a year. My bill provides a commonsense approach
to the time limitations of the average American.
Not only does this bill open the door for any U.S. citizen to apply
for fellowship consideration, it calls on Congress to be part of the
decision-making process. The Global Service Fellowship Program
integrates members of Congress by calling on them to nominate volunteer
applicants to the Department of State for consideration. Through this
process, Congress will see firsthand the benefit international
volunteering brings to their communities and the nation.
My bill would cost $150 million, which is more than offset by a
provision that would require the IRS to deposit all of its fee receipts
in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. CBO has estimated that this
offset will save $559 million over 5 years for net deficit reduction of
approximately $409 million.
I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Coleman, Voinovich, Casey,
Menendez, and Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill. This
program would be a valuable addition to our public diplomacy and
humanitarian efforts overseas and I encourage my colleagues to support
the bill.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 1467. A bill to establish an Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment
Demonstration Program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Federal
Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program Act of 2007.
This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current
system with an innovative way to clear the hurdles that lack of
information and high costs often form to prevent low-income students
from planning for a college education. A recent report by the Urban-
Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that grant programs ``that are
well targeted and have more predictable and larger awards tend to have
larger impacts on college-going rates.'' This bill, I am pleased to
say, establishes such a program.
Right now, students do not find out if they are eligible for Federal
aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If
you have ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this
time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier
promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early
and continue it through high school. That way, students and their
families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can
sustain them through the moment they open their letter of acceptance.
This promise can be especially important in changing the expectations
of low-income students whose future plans often don't include college.
[[Page S6558]]
My bill would provide funding for a demonstration in four states,
each of which would work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 eighth grade
students; one in school year 2007-2008, and one in school year 2008-
2009. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School
Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the eighth
grade. Eligible students would qualify for the Automatic Zero Expected
Family Contribution on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid,
FAFSA, guaranteeing them a maximum Pell Grant. Local educational
agencies with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above
50 percent would be eligible for the program.
The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program would
also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating
local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns
beginning in the eighth grade and continuing through students' senior
year. These campaigns would inform students and their families of the
program and provide information about the cost of a college education,
State and Federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid
awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a
maximum Pell grant, would allow families and students to plan ahead for
college and develop an expectation that the future includes higher
education.
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. 1467
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EARLY FEDERAL PELL GRANT COMMITMENT DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
Subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 401B. EARLY FEDERAL PELL GRANT COMMITMENT
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
``(a) Demonstration Program Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out
an Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program
under which--
``(A) the Secretary awards grants to 4 State educational
agencies, in accordance with paragraph (2), to pay the
administrative expenses incurred in participating in the
demonstration program under this section; and
``(B) the Secretary awards Federal Pell Grants to
participating students in accordance with this section.
``(2) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (g) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is authorized
to award grants to 4 State educational agencies to enable the
State educational agencies to pay the administrative expenses
incurred in participating in a demonstration program under
which students in 8th grade who are eligible for a free or
reduced price meal receive a commitment to receive a Federal
Pell Grant early in their academic careers.
``(B) Equal amounts.--The Secretary shall award grants
under this section in equal amounts to each of the 4
participating State educational agencies.
``(b) Demonstration Project Requirements.--Each of the 4
demonstration projects assisted under this section shall meet
the following requirements:
``(1) Participants.--
``(A) In general.--The State educational agency shall make
participation in the demonstration project available to 2
cohorts of students, which shall consist of--
``(i) 1 cohort of 8th grade students who begin the
participation in academic year 2007-2008; and
``(ii) 1 cohort of 8th grade students who begin the
participation in academic year 2008-2009.
``(B) Students in each cohort.--Each cohort of students
shall consist of not more than 10,000 8th grade students who
qualify for a free or reduced price meal under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966.
``(2) Student data.--The State educational agency shall
ensure that student data from local educational agencies
serving students who participate in the demonstration
project, as well as student data from local educational
agencies serving a comparable group of students who do not
participate in the demonstration project, are available for
evaluation of the demonstration project.
``(3) Federal pell grant commitment.--Each student who
participates in the demonstration project receives a
commitment from the Secretary to receive a Federal Pell Grant
during the first academic year that student is in attendance
at an institution of higher education as an undergraduate, if
the student applies for Federal financial aid (via the FAFSA)
during the student's senior year of secondary school and
during succeeding years.
``(4) Applicability of federal pell grant requirements.--
The requirements of section 401 shall apply to Federal Pell
Grants awarded pursuant to this section, except that the
amount of each participating student's Federal Pell Grant
only shall be calculated by deeming such student to have an
expected family contribution equal to zero.
``(5) Application process.--The Secretary shall establish
an application process to select State educational agencies
to participate in the demonstration program and State
educational agencies shall establish an application process
to select local educational agencies within the State to
participate in the demonstration project.
``(6) Local educational agency participation.--Subject to
the 10,000 statewide student limitation described in
paragraph (1), a local educational agency serving students,
not less than 50 percent of whom are eligible for a free or
reduced price meal under the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act or the Child Nutritional Act of 1966, shall
be eligible to participate in the demonstration project.
``(c) State Educational Agency Applications.--
``(1) In general.--Each State educational agency desiring
to participate in the demonstration program under this
section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Contents.--Each application shall include--
``(A) a description of the proposed targeted information
campaign for the demonstration project and a copy of the plan
described in subsection (f)(2);
``(B) a description of the student population that will
receive an early commitment to receive a Federal Pell Grant
under this section;
``(C) an assurance that the State educational agency will
fully cooperate with the ongoing evaluation of the
demonstration project; and
``(D) such other information as the Secretary may require.
``(d) Selection Considerations.--
``(1) Selection of state educational agencies.--In
selecting State educational agencies to participate in the
demonstration program, the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the number and quality of State educational agency
applications received;
``(B) the Department's capacity to oversee and monitor each
State educational agency's participation in the demonstration
program;
``(C) a State educational agency's--
``(i) financial responsibility;
``(ii) administrative capability;
``(iii) commitment to focusing State resources, in addition
to any resources provided under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, on students
who receive assistance under such part A;
``(iv) the ability and plans of a State educational agency
to run an effective and thorough targeted information
campaign for students served by local educational agencies
eligible to participate in the demonstration project; and
``(v) ensuring the participation in the demonstration
program of a diverse group of students with respect to
ethnicity and gender.
``(2) Local educational agency.--In selecting local
educational agencies to participate in a demonstration
project under this section, the State educational agency
shall consider--
``(A) the number and quality of local educational agency
applications received;
``(B) the State educational agency's capacity to oversee
and monitor each local educational agency's participation in
the demonstration project;
``(C) a local educational agency's--
``(i) financial responsibility;
``(ii) administrative capability;
``(iii) commitment to focusing local resources, in addition
to any resources provided under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, on students
who receive assistance under such part A;
``(iv) the ability and plans of a local educational agency
to run an effective and thorough targeted information
campaign for students served by the local educational agency;
and
``(v) ensuring the participation in the demonstration
project of a diverse group of students with respect to
ethnicity and gender.
``(e) Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section
(g) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve not more
than $1,000,000 to award a grant or contract to an
organization outside the Department for an independent
evaluation of the impact of the demonstration program
assisted under this section.
``(2) Competitive basis.--The grant or contract shall be
awarded on a competitive basis.
``(3) Matters evaluated.--The evaluation described in this
subsection shall--
``(A) determine the number of individuals who were
encouraged by the demonstration program to pursue higher
education;
``(B) identify the barriers to the effectiveness of the
demonstration program;
[[Page S6559]]
``(C) assess the cost-effectiveness of the demonstration
program in improving access to higher education;
``(D) identify the reasons why participants in the
demonstration program either received or did not receive a
Federal Pell Grant;
``(E) identify intermediate outcomes (relative to
postsecondary education attendance), such as whether
participants--
``(i) were more likely to take a college-prep curriculum
while in secondary school;
``(ii) submitted any college applications; and
``(iii) took the PSAT, SAT, or ACT;
``(F) identify the number of individuals participating in
the demonstration program who pursued an associate's degree
or a bachelor's degree, as well as other forms of
postsecondary education;
``(G) compare the findings of the demonstration program
with respect to participants to comparison groups (of similar
size and demographics) that did not participate in the
demonstration program; and
``(H) identify the impact on the parents of students
eligible to participate in the demonstration program.
``(4) Dissemination.--The findings of the evaluation shall
be widely disseminated to the public by the organization
conducting the evaluation as well as by the Secretary.
``(f) Targeted Information Campaign.--
``(1) In general.--Each State educational agency receiving
a grant under this section shall, in cooperation with the
participating local educational agencies within the State and
the Secretary, develop a targeted information campaign for
the demonstration program assisted under this section.
``(2) Plan.--Each State educational agency receiving a
grant under this section shall include in the application
submitted under subsection (c) a written plan for their
proposed targeted information campaign. The plan shall
include the following:
``(A) Outreach.--Outreach to students and their families,
at a minimum, at the beginning and end of each academic year
of the demonstration project.
``(B) Distribution.--How the State educational agency plans
to provide the outreach described in subparagraph (A) and to
provide the information described in subparagraph (C).
``(C) Information.--The annual provision by the State
educational agency to all students and families participating
in the demonstration program of information regarding--
``(i) the estimated statewide average higher education
institution cost data for each academic year, which cost data
shall be disaggregated by--
``(I) type of institution, including--
``(aa) 2-year public colleges;
``(bb) 4-year public colleges; and
``(cc) 4-year private colleges;
``(II) by component, including--
``(aa) tuition and fees; and
``(bb) room and board;
``(ii) Federal Pell Grants, including--
``(I) the maximum Federal Pell Grant for each academic
year;
``(II) when and how to apply for a Federal Pell Grant; and
``(III) what the application process for a Federal Pell
Grant requires;
``(iii) State-specific college savings programs;
``(iv) State-based merit aid;
``(v) State-based financial aid; and
``(vi) Federal financial aid available to students,
including eligibility criteria for the Federal financial aid
and an explanation of the Federal financial aid programs.
``(3) Cohorts.--The information described in paragraph
(2)(C) shall be provided to 2 cohorts of students annually
for the duration of the students' participation in the
demonstration program. The 2 cohorts shall consist of--
``(A) 1 cohort of 8th grade students who begin the
participation in academic year 2007-2008; and
``(B) 1 cohort of 8th grade students who begin the
participation in academic year 2008-2009.
``(4) Reservation.--Each State educational agency receiving
a grant under this section shall reserve $200,000 of the
grant funds received each fiscal year for each of the 2
cohorts of students (for a total reservation of $400,000 each
fiscal year) served by the State to carry out their targeted
information campaign described in this subsection.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
``(1) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which--
``(A) $500,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(e); and
``(B) $800,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(f)(2)(C);
``(2) $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which $1,600,000
shall be available to carry out subsection (f)(2)(C);
``(3) $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which $1,600,000
shall be available to carry out subsection (f)(2)(C);
``(4) $2,100,000 for fiscal year 2011, of which--
``(A) $500,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(e); and
``(B) $1,600,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(f)(2)(C);
``(5) $1,600,000 for fiscal year 2012, of which $1,600,000
shall be available to carry out subsection (f)(2)(C);
``(6) $14,600,000 for fiscal year 2013, of which--
``(A) $800,000 shall be available to carry out subsection
(f)(2)(C); and
``(B) $13,800,000 shall be available for Federal Pell
Grants provided in accordance with this section; and
``(7) $13,800,000 for fiscal year 2014, of which
$13,800,000 shall be available for Federal Pell Grants
provided in accordance with this section.''.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI:
S. 1468. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase
burial benefits for veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial
Benefits Improvement Act.
We must honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their
country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on
this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given
their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication
to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the
brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of
them.
Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to
soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure
promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These
promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper
burial for our veterans.
I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our
wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising
funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day,
but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep
up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never
intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a
fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the federal government
first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for
working with me in the 107 Congress. Together, we were able to increase
modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the
plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a
step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts
included in my bill.
That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits
Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the
same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also
provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with
inflation.
In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of
veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of
funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from
$2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.
In 1973, the nonservice connected benefit paid for 22 percent of
funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it
covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the
nonservice connected benefit from $300 to $1,270, bringing it back up
to the original 22 percent level.
In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral
costs. Yet it now covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will
increase the plot allowance from $300 to $745, bringing it back up to
the original 13 percent level.
Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also
ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually,
so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.
This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men
and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and
people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment
to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every
generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting
our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S6560]]
S. 1468
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 ``Veterans Burial Benefits
Improvement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BURIAL AND FUNERAL BENEFITS FOR VETERANS.
(a) Increase in Burial and Funeral Expenses and Provision
for Annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment.--
(1) Expenses generally.--Section 2302(a) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``$300'' and
inserting ``$1,270 (as increased from time to time under
section 2309 of this title)''.
(2) Expenses for deaths in department facilities.--Section
2303(a)(1)(A) of such title is amended by striking ``$300''
and inserting ``$1,270 (as increased from time to time under
section 2309 of this title)''.
(3) Expenses for deaths from service-connected
disabilities.--Section 2307 of such title is amended by
striking ``$2,000,'' and inserting ``$4,100 (as increased
from time to time under section 2309 of this title),''.
(b) Plot Allowance.--Section 2303(b) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$300'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``$745 (as increased from time to time under
section 2309 of this title)''; and
(2) by striking ``$300'' the second place it appears and
inserting ``$745 (as so increased)''.
(c) Annual Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 23 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2309. Annual adjustment of amounts of burial benefits
``With respect to any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
provide a percentage increase (rounded to the nearest dollar)
in the burial and funeral expenses under sections 2302(a),
2303(a), and 2307 of this title, and in the plot allowance
under section 2303(b) of this title, equal to the percentage
by which--
``(1) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(2) the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in paragraph (1).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2309. Annual adjustment of amounts of burial benefits.''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to deaths
occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Prohibition on cost-of-living adjustment for fiscal
year 2008.--No adjustments shall be made under section 2309
of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (c),
for fiscal year 2008.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1469. A bill to require the closure of the Department of Defense
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to close
the U.S. military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is remarkable
agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. Our closest
allies have all urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders
from across the political spectrum in the United States.
Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day,
President Bush acknowledged that the prison has damaged America's
reputation abroad. The President said:
No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our
friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say that the
United States is not upholding the values that they're trying
to encourage other countries to adhere to.
The President said:
I'd like to close Guantanamo.
More recently, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice
have urged that the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington
Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported Secretary
Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at
Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post,
Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut
down as quickly as possible.''
Make no mistake, current detainees at Guantanamo include a number of
extremely dangerous terrorists with the determination and the ability--
if they are given the opportunity--to inflict grave harm on the United
States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of
al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being
one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, plus others. We
must, and we can, hold these enemy combatants in maximum security
confinement elsewhere.
But the critics are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a
stain on the honor of this country. By holding people at Guantanamo
without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal
counsel, and--in the past--subjecting many of them to torture, we have
forfeited the moral high ground and we stand as hypocrites in the eyes
of the world.
Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the
prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a
propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for terrorists. It alienates
our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the
moral high ground, and rally the world against the terrorists who
threaten us.
The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo
as ``the worst of the worst'' or, as former Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld once described them, the ``most dangerous, best-trained,
vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the
detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of
Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan, highly respected
National Journal last year came to the following conclusions: A large
percentage, perhaps the majority, of the detainees were not captured on
any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as
the President once asserted. Fewer than 20 percent of the detainees
have ever been al-Qaida members. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of
the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida
members. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather,
handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis, Afghan warlords, and by
villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the
detainees is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an
assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this
detainee consists in its entirety of the following:
One, the detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces
in Narim, Afghanistan, under the command of Haji Mullah Baki.
Two, the detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern
Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance.
This person is still sitting in Guantanamo.
The situation at Guantanamo, I must add, reminds me of an earlier
episode in this Senator's life. In July of 1970, I was a staff
assistant to a House committee in the House of Representatives. I was
working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to
Vietnam. I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con
Son Island, off the coast of Vietnam, where Viet Cong and some North
Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilian opponents of the war, were
all being held together, held incommunicado, tortured and killed, with
the full knowledge, support, and sanction of the United States
Government. We had heard reports about the possible existence of these
tiger cages. But our State Department vehemently denied their
existence. They dismissed all of these claims as communist propaganda.
Well, I looked into this and believed the reports were credible. I
was determined to investigate further to see if they did exist. Thanks
to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee,
Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, Don Luce, an American
working for a nongovernmental organization, and a brave, young
Vietnamese man who risked his life and his brother's life, who was
still held on Con Son in the tiger cages, who drew us the maps and
showed us how to find the tiger cages at these prisons--Nguyen Caoli
was the young man's name. He risked it all by trusting us. Thanks to
his maps and telling us how to find them, we were able to expose the
tiger cages on Con Son Island in July of 1970.
Supporters of the war claimed the tiger cages were not all that bad.
But then Life Magazine and other magazines around the world published
the pictures I had surreptitiously taken on Con Son, and the world saw
the horrific conditions, as I said, with Vietnamese guerrillas, as well
as civilian opponents
[[Page S6561]]
of the war, all crowded together in these cages, in clear violation of
the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of the most fundamental
principles of human rights.
At the time, the United States Government had been insisting the
North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of
United States prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were condoning,
funding, and even supervising the torture of Vietnamese prisoners and
civilians, whose only crime was protesting the war, all in clear
violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son
Island nearly four decades ago and what happened at Guantanamo in
recent years. In both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote
islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and
restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as
prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protections of the Geneva
Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right of due
process, judicial review, or a fair trial.
They were simply held indefinitely in isolation, in limbo. In both
cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United
States stood accused of hypocrisy, of betraying its most sacred values,
and of violating international law.
So you can see why I have watched what has transpired at Guantanamo,
and I have thought back to that episode in my life when all of this
came out about the tiger cages and the inhumane treatment of these
several hundred prisoners who were there at the time. There was a happy
ending to that event. Because of the international outcry, the tiger
cages were closed down, the prisoners were released, and people went
back to their homes.
Many of them who were in the tiger cages I met later on in life. One
became the mayor of Saigon, several became successful businesspeople,
and others went on with their lives. But watching what happened at
Guantanamo and seeing that many of these people were swept up in a war
which some of them--many of them--well, the National Journal says a
majority of them were not even engaged.
So it is time to close it down. We need to reverse the damage
Guantanamo has done to America's reputation and to our ability to wage
an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September
11, and the essential first step must be to close the prison at
Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The bill I am introducing
today offers a practical approach to accomplishing this within 120 days
of enactment of the law.
As I said, there are known hardcore terrorists at Guantanamo, such as
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who must continue to be held in maximum-
security conditions. Under my bill, these prisoners will be transferred
to the U.S. detention base at Fort Leavenworth, KS. This is a state-of-
the-art maximum-security facility just opened in 2002. It has adequate
capacity to receive these prisoners from Guantanamo. Under my bill, the
remaining prisoners, some 365 in number, would have their legal status
resolved. In each case, the administration will determine whether the
prisoner planned or committed hostile acts against the United States.
Those who did plan or commit hostile acts would be charged and
transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Those who did not would be released to
the custody of their home country or, where necessary, to a country
where they would not face torture.
There is a pending bill, S. 1249, to close the prison at Guantanamo.
However, that bill gives the administration too much leeway to maintain
the status quo in terms of the detainees' legal status. It allows an
enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without charge--that is
what is getting us into trouble in the first place--and it does not
require that the administration abide by the Convention Against
Torture, nor does it give detainees a forum in which to lodge credible
claims of torture or abuse. The bill I am introducing does all of that.
The United States has lost its way, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo.
We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight
against the terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that
do not give credence to their anti-American propaganda and do not rally
more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at
Guantanamo as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering today
will accomplish this.
This legislation has the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights
Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American
Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1469
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 ``Guantanamo Bay Detention
Facility Closure Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FACILITY AND
DISPOSITION OF DETAINEES.
(a) Closure of Facility.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall close
the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay Cuba.
(b) Restriction on Use of Funds.--
(1) Restriction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 may be used for the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility or for detention at the Guantanamo Bay
detention facility of any foreign national who was detained
at such facility on or after Marach 31, 2007.
(2) Exceptions.--Amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 may be
used for the following purposes related to the detention of
foreign nationals who were detained at the Guantanamo Bay
detention facility on any date between March 31, 2007 and the
date of enactment:
(A) Transfer to the United States Disciplinary Barracks at
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for purposes of pretrial detention
or detention during a trial or while serving a sentence, of
any such person who, not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, is charged with an offense
under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added
by section 3 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-366), or with a felony offense under title 18, United
States Code, or chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code
(the Uniform Code of Military Justice); or
(B) Continued detention at the Guantanamo Bay detention
facility for an additional 120 day period, not to continue
more than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, upon written certification by the Secretary of Defense
to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that additional time is needed to complete the investigation
and preparation of charges, including a detailed factual
explanation of the specific reasons why the additional time
is needed.
(C) Transfer of any such person to another country,
provided that--
(i) the transfer complies with the Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva July 28, 1951, the
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at
New York December 10, 1984, and Federal law; and
(ii) an individual being so transferred who is asserting a
well founded fear of torture, abuse, or persecution has an
opportunity to have the claim heard by the Executive Office
for Immigration Review, subject to the same judicial review
provided for in section 242(a)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(4)).
(c) Immigration Status.--The transfer of an individual
under subsection (b)(2)(A) shall not be considered an entry
into the United States for purposes of immigration status.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
activities under this Act related to the investigation,
prosecution, and defense of cases and claims relating to
foreign nationals who were detained at the Guantanamo Bay
detention facility on or after March 31, 2007, and the
transfer of such persons, including for the reimbursement of
costs incurred by local communities.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1470. A bill to provide States with the resources needed to rid
our schools of performance-enhancing drug use; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Drug
Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007. This bill would provide States with
the resources they need to rid our schools of steroids and other
performance-enhancing drugs.
I believe steroid use doesn't begin at the professional level. I am
very concerned about performance-enhancing
[[Page S6562]]
drug use among young athletes, specifically high school athletes.
Steroid use among high school students is on the rise. It more than
doubled among high school students from 1991 to 2003, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, a study by the
University of Michigan shows that the percentage of 12 graders who said
they had used steroids some time in their lives rose from 1.9 percent
in 1996 to 3.4 percent in 2004. This is unacceptable and a health risk
to our children.
In 2004, the Polk County School District became the first in Florida
to establish random testing for high school athletes, and the Florida
House passed a bill that would have made Florida the first State to
require steroid testing for high school athletes. That bill stalled in
the Senate, but now Florida and other States are considering a similar
law. Currently, less than 4 percent of U.S. high schools test athletes
for steroids, and no State requires high schools to test athletes.
Schools and States say that cost is usually the reason they don't test.
In response, I am introducing this legislation to help States with
the resources they need to curb the use of steroids and other
performance-enhancing drugs. My legislation would provide federal
grants directly to States so that they can develop and implement
performance-enhancing drug testing programs.
The Drug Free Varsity Sports Act of 2007 would authorize $20 million
in grants to States to create statewide pilot drug testing programs for
performance-enhancing drugs. States that receive the grants would be
required to incorporate recovery, counseling, and treatment programs
for those students who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.
Stopping the use of performance-enhancing drugs goes beyond testing.
That is why my legislation also would require States that receive
grants to allocate no less than 10 percent of the funding to establish
statewide policies to discourage steroid use, through educational or
other related means.
There is no simple solution to the issue of steroids in sports.
Congress can do its part by enacting the Drug Free Varsity Sports Act
of 2007. But the sports leagues, their players, coaches, and parents
all must play an active role.
Mr. President, I request 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. 1470
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 ``Drug Free Varsity Sports Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PILOT DRUG-TESTING PROGRAMS FOR PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING
DRUGS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to supplement
the other student drug-testing programs assisted by the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of
Education by establishing, through the Office, a grant
program that will allow State educational agencies to test
secondary school students for performance-enhancing drug use.
(b) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, acting
through the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe
and Drug-Free Schools, shall award, on a competitive basis,
grants to State educational agencies to enable the State
educational agencies to develop and carry out statewide pilot
programs that test secondary school students for performance-
enhancing drug use.
(c) Application.--A State educational agency that desires
to receive a grant under this section shall submit an
application to the Secretary of Education at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
may require.
(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary of Education shall give priority to State
educational agencies that incorporate community organizations
in carrying out the recovery, counseling, and treatment
programs described in subsection (e)(1)(B).
(e) Use of Funds.--
(1) Drug-testing program for performance-enhancing drugs.--
A State educational agency that receives a grant under this
section shall use not more than 90 percent of the grant funds
to carry out the following:
(A) Implement a drug-testing program for performance-
enhancing drugs that is limited to testing secondary school
students who meet 1 or more of the following criteria:
(i) The student participates in the school's athletic
program.
(ii) The student is engaged in a competitive,
extracurricular, school-sponsored activity.
(iii) The student and the student's parent or guardian
provides written consent for the student to participate in a
voluntary random drug-testing program for performance-
enhancing drugs.
(B) Provide recovery, counseling, and treatment programs
for secondary school students tested in the program who test
positive for performance-enhancing drugs.
(2) Prevention.--A State educational agency that receives a
grant under this section shall use not less than 10 percent
of the grant funds to establish statewide policies that
discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs, through
educational or other related means.
(f) Report.--For each year of the grant period, a State
educational agency that receives a grant under this section
shall prepare and submit an annual report to the Assistant
Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
on the impact of the pilot program, which report shall
include--
(1) the number and percentage of students who test positive
for performance-enhancing drugs;
(2) the cost of the pilot program; and
(3) a description of any barriers to the pilot program, as
well as aspects of the pilot program that were successful.
(g) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``State
educational agency'' and ``secondary school'' have the
meanings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Separation of funds.--The Secretary of Education shall
keep any funds authorized for this section under paragraph
(1) separate from any funds available to the Secretary for
other student drug-testing programs.
____________________