[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.

                          ____________________