[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 43 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2138-S2163]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 2755. A bill to provide funding for summer youth jobs; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2755

       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 ``Summer Jobs Stimulus Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. SUMMER YOUTH JOBS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) a temporary $1,000,000,000 investment in summer 
     employment for youth, through the summer youth jobs program 
     supported under this section, will create up to 1,000,000 
     jobs for economically disadvantaged youth and stimulate local 
     economies;
       (2) research from Northwestern University has shown that 
     every $1 a youth earns has an accelerator effect of $3 on the 
     local economy;
       (3) there is a serious and growing need for employment 
     opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth, as 
     demonstrated by statistics from the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics stating that, in December 2007--
       (A) the unemployment rate increased to 5 percent, as 
     compared to 4.4 percent in December 2006;
       (B) the unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds rose to 
     17 percent, as compared to 13 percent in December 2006; and
       (C) the unemployment rate for African-American 16- to 19-
     year-olds increased 5 percent in 1 month, jumping to 34.7 
     percent, as compared to 20 percent in December 2006;
       (4) summer youth jobs help supplement the income of 
     families living in poverty;
       (5) summer youth jobs provide valuable work experience to 
     economically disadvantaged youth;
       (6) often, the summer jobs provided through the program are 
     an economically disadvantaged youth's introduction to the 
     world of work;
       (7) according to the Center for Labor Market Studies at 
     Northeastern University, early work experience is a very 
     powerful predictor of success and earnings in the labor 
     market, and early work experiences raises earnings over a 
     lifetime by 10 to 20 percent;
       (8) participation in a summer youth jobs program can 
     contribute to a reduction in criminal and high-risk behavior 
     for youth; and
       (9)(A) summer youth job programs benefit both youth and 
     communities when designed around principles that promote 
     mutually beneficial programs;
       (B) youth benefit from summer youth jobs that provide them 
     with work readiness skills and that help them make the 
     connection between responsibility on the job and success in 
     adulthood; and

[[Page S2139]]

       (C) communities benefit when youth are engaged productively 
     during the summer, providing much-needed services that meet 
     real community needs.
       (b) Appropriations.--Out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, and in addition to any funds 
     appropriated under any provision of Federal law other than 
     this section, there is appropriated to the Secretary of Labor 
     for youth activities under the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), $1,000,000,000, which shall be 
     available for the period of April 1, 2008 through December 
     31, 2008, under the conditions described in subsection (c).
       (c) Conditions.--
       (1) Use of funds.--The funds appropriated under subsection 
     (b) shall be used for summer employment opportunities 
     referred to in section 129(c)(2)(C) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2854(c)(2)(C)).
       (2) Limitation.--Such funds shall be distributed in 
     accordance with sections 127 and 128 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2852, 2853), except that no portion of such funds shall be 
     reserved to carry out 128(a) or 169 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2853(a), 2914).
       (3) Measure of effectiveness.--The effectiveness of the 
     activities carried out with such funds shall be measured, 
     under section 136 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2871), only with 
     performance measures based on the core indicators of 
     performance described in section 136(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 2871(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 2756. A bill to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to 
establish a permanent background check system; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Hatch and Senator Specter to introduce the Child Protection 
Improvements Act of 2008. This bill will expand and make permanent the 
national child safety pilot program that we passed as part of the 
PROTECT Act back in 2003. This bill is, in my view, an absolutely 
essential step towards developing a comprehensive approach to protect 
our Nation's children.
  Human service organizations rely on volunteers and employees to 
provide services and care to children. These individuals coach soccer 
games, mentor young people, run youth camps, and much more. 
Approximately 61 million adults currently volunteer--with 27 percent 
dedicating their volunteer service to education and youth programs. By 
volunteering, they necessarily gain very close, often unsupervised 
access to our children. Of course, the vast majority of these people 
have the best interest of our children at heart--and we need as many 
volunteers as we can get. But, at the same time, we have to understand 
that bad people will take any step they can to gain access to children 
and many attempt to do this by volunteering.
  Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States make FBI 
criminal history record checks available to organizations seeking to 
screen employees and volunteers who work with children, through the 
National Child Protection Act of 1993 and the Volunteers for Children 
Act. However, according to a report from the Attorney General, these 
laws ``did not have the intended impact of broadening the availability 
of checks.'' A 2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring 
Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring 
organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of Investigation 
background searches. And, even when states do provide access to 
background checks, it can be expensive and time consuming.
  With the PROTECT Act pilot we decided to give some groups a direct 
line towards obtaining a national background check from the FBI and 
obtaining a fitness determination by the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children to see whether the applicant could present a 
potential threat to children. Thanks to the hard work and commitment of 
NCMEC, the FBI, MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, and others this 
pilot program has proven incredibly effective. During the course of the 
pilot, we conducted roughly 37,000 background checks. Of these checks, 
6.1 percent of prospective volunteers were found to have a criminal 
record of concern--including very serious offenses like sexual abuse of 
minors, assaults, murder, and serious drug offenses. In all, this 
represents over 2,200 dangerous people we prevented from working as 
volunteers with children. In addition, over 40 percent of the 
individuals with criminal records had committed an offense in a state 
other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that a state-
only search would not have found relevant criminal records. In my view, 
this speaks to the urgent need of expanding this pilot to more groups 
and towards making the program permanent.

  Despite these successes, the pilot was limited in several respects. 
The pilot was limited in scope with only a few youth-serving entities 
able to participate, and irregularities with respect to the annual 
appropriations process made it extremely difficult to operate the 
program to its fullest extent. With the legislation, we are introducing 
today, we build upon the lessons learned by taking the following steps: 
make the program permanent, which will help ensure that long-term 
investments are made to make the program effective and inexpensive; 
establish an Applicant Processing Center, APC, to assist youth serving 
organizations with the administrative tasks related to accessing the 
system, such as obtaining a fingerprint and handling billing with the 
FBI; and permanently establish and upgrade the fitness determination 
process at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
  In addition, we authorize the collection of a small surcharge to pay 
the FBI fee and offset the expenses incurred by National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children and the Applicant Processing Center. 
With literally millions of volunteers working with our Nation's youth 
every year, it is imperative to provide a mechanism to allow more 
youth-serving organizations access and ensure a steady stream of 
resources to allow the program to grow toward the goal of protecting 
more children. This bill will do that.
  Before closing, I want to touch on fee for service component which is 
added to this bill. Of course, the goal has always been that the checks 
have to be fast, inexpensive, and accurate for these checks to be 
suitable for non-profit organizations. By adding a small surcharge to 
the fee the FBI charges, we maintain that goal while expanding access. 
The bottom line is this--youth-serving organizations have told us that 
the ability to consistently obtain background checks and fitness 
determinations is critical and they will pay a little more to have 
access. Because Federal resources are simply not sufficient to provide 
wide access, and because the ebb and flow of the appropriations process 
creates instability with respect to how many checks can be completed, 
we felt that a small surcharge was the right approach.
  Even with the surcharge, we still keep the cost very low. The bill 
calls for a fee no greater than $25 or the actual costs of preparing 
the application, running the background check by the FBI, and making 
the fitness determination by NCMEC for nonprofits. The applicant 
processing center created in this bill will collect this fee and make 
sure that all the costs are offset. And the goal is that this fee will 
offset all of the costs so that we can grow a system that is available 
to a wide range of entities that work with children. As of today, the 
American Camp Association, the Afterschool Alliance, the America's 
Promise Alliance, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America, Communities In Schools, Inc., First Focus, MENTOR/
National Mentoring Partnership, and YMCA of the USA all agree with this 
approach.
  In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in 2009 for startup costs 
and to develop new processes and technologies to automate and 
streamline the functions to keep costs down. And, while it's not a part 
of this legislation, I hope that we can get some of our great 
technology companies to help us with this effort by possibly donating 
some of their time, expertise, and ingenuity towards helping us 
automate the process--especially with the fitness determination process 
at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which is a 
time consuming, labor-intensive process involving the manual review of 
criminal rap sheets. We formed a similar public-private partnership 
when we established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and I hope 
we will be able to replicate that success here. Once we get this bill 
passed, I will be reaching out to some of our best technology companies 
to see if they can help us ensure that these checks remain inexpensive 
and

[[Page S2140]]

available for as many youth-serving groups as possible.
  I would once again like to thank my colleagues Senator Hatch's and 
Senator Specter's work on crafting this bill. We proved that we can 
help protect children at a low cost with the pilot program, and I 
believe that this bill will help expand access to a greater number of 
groups so that we can grow that number of protected children 
exponentially. To me, this is exactly the kind of service that the 
government owes to its people, and I look forward to its prompt passage 
before the expiration of the pilot program on July 30th, later this 
summer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2756

       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 ``Child Protection 
     Improvements Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 2006, 61,200,000 adults (a total of 26.7 percent of 
     the population) contributed a total of 8,100,000,000 hours of 
     volunteer service. Of those who volunteer, 27 percent 
     dedicate their service to education or youth programs, or a 
     total of 16,500,000 adults.
       (2) Assuming recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, 
     an estimated 6.6 percent of individuals in the United States 
     will serve time in prison for a crime during their lifetime. 
     The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains fingerprints 
     and criminal histories on more than 47,000,000 individuals, 
     many of whom have been arrested or convicted multiple times.
       (3) A study released in 2002, found that, of individuals 
     released from prison in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5 
     percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor 
     within 3 years. Three-quarters of those new arrests resulted 
     in convictions or a new prison sentence.
       (4) Given the large number of individuals with criminal 
     records and the vulnerability of the population they work 
     with, human service organizations that work with children 
     need an effective and reliable means of obtaining a complete 
     criminal history in order to determine the suitability of a 
     potential volunteer or employee.
       (5) The large majority of Americans (88 percent) favor 
     granting youth-serving organizations access to conviction 
     records for screening volunteers and 59 percent favored 
     allowing youth-serving organizations to consider arrest 
     records when screening volunteers. This was the only use for 
     which a majority of those surveyed favored granting access to 
     arrest records.
       (6) Congress has previously attempted to ensure that States 
     make Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history record 
     checks available to organizations seeking to screen employees 
     and volunteers who work with children, the elderly, and 
     individuals with disabilities, through the National Child 
     Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119 et seq.) and the 
     Volunteers for Children Act (Public Law 105-251; 112 Stat. 
     1885). However, according to a June 2006 report from the 
     Attorney General, these laws ``did not have the intended 
     impact of broadening the availability of NCPA checks.''. A 
     2007 survey conducted by MENTOR/National Mentoring 
     Partnership found that only 18 States allowed youth mentoring 
     organizations to access nationwide Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation background searches.
       (7) Even when accessible, the cost of a criminal background 
     check can be prohibitively expensive, ranging from $5 to $75 
     for a State fingerprint check, plus the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation fee, which ranges between $16 to $24, for a 
     total of between $21 and $99 for each volunteer or employee.
       (8) Delays in processing such checks can also limit their 
     utility. While the Federal Bureau of Investigation processes 
     all civil fingerprint requests in less than 24 hours, State 
     response times vary widely, and can take as long as 42 days.
       (9) The Child Safety Pilot Program under section 108 of the 
     PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) revealed the importance of 
     performing fingerprint-based Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     criminal history record checks. Of 29,000 background checks 
     performed through the pilot as of March 2007, 6.4 percent of 
     volunteers were found to have a criminal record of concern, 
     including very serious offenses such as sexual abuse of 
     minors, assault, child cruelty, murder, and serious drug 
     offenses.
       (10) In an analysis performed on the volunteers screened in 
     the first 18 months of the Child Safety Pilot Program, it was 
     found that over 25 percent of the individuals with criminal 
     records had committed an offense in a State other than the 
     State in which they were applying to volunteer, meaning that 
     a State-only search would not have found relevant criminal 
     results. In addition, even though volunteers knew a 
     background check was being performed, over 50 percent of the 
     individuals found to have a criminal record falsely indicated 
     on their application form that they did not have a criminal 
     record.
       (11) The Child Safety Pilot Program also demonstrates that 
     timely and affordable background checks are possible, as 
     background checks under that program are completed within 3 
     to 5 business days at a cost of $18.

     SEC. 3. BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 5 as section 6; and
       (2) by inserting after section 4 the following:

     ``SEC. 5. PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND 
                   CHECKS FOR CHILD-SERVING ORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `applicant processing center' means the 
     applicant processing center established by the Attorney 
     General under subsection (b)(1);
       ``(2) the term `child' means an individual who is less than 
     18 years of age;
       ``(3) the term `covered entity' means a business or 
     organization, whether public, private, for-profit, nonprofit, 
     or voluntary that provides care, care placement, supervision, 
     treatment, education, training, instruction, or recreation to 
     children, including a business or organization that licenses, 
     certifies, or coordinates individuals or organizations to 
     provide care, care placement, supervision, treatment, 
     education, training, instruction or recreation to children;
       ``(4) the term `covered individual' means an individual--
       ``(A) who has, seeks to have, or may have unsupervised 
     access to a child served by a covered entity; and
       ``(B) who--
       ``(i) is employed by or volunteers with, or seeks to be 
     employed by or volunteer with, a covered entity; or
       ``(ii) owns or operates, or seeks to own or operate, a 
     covered entity;
       ``(5) the term `fitness determination program' means the 
     fitness determination program established under subsection 
     (b)(2);
       ``(6) the term `identification document' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1028 of title 18, United States 
     Code;
       ``(7) the term `participating entity' means a covered 
     entity that is approved under subsection (f) to receive 
     nationwide background checks from the applicant processing 
     center and to participate in the fitness determination 
     program;
       ``(8) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the 
     Republic of Palau; and
       ``(9) the term `State authorized agency' means a division 
     or office of a State designated by that State to report, 
     receive, or disseminate criminal history information.
       ``(b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Child Protection 
     Improvements Act of 2008, the Attorney General shall--
       ``(1) establish within the Federal Government or through an 
     agreement with a nonprofit entity an applicant processing 
     center; and
       ``(2) enter into an agreement with the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children, under which the National 
     Center for Missing and Exploited Children shall establish a 
     fitness determination program.
       ``(c) Applicant Processing Center.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the applicant processing 
     center is to streamline the process of obtaining nationwide 
     background checks, provide effective customer service, and 
     facilitate widespread access to nationwide background checks 
     by participating entities.
       ``(2) Duties.--The applicant processing center shall--
       ``(A) provide information to covered entities on the 
     requirements to become a participating entity;
       ``(B) provide participating entities with access to 
     nationwide background checks on covered individuals;
       ``(C) receive paper and electronic requests for nationwide 
     background checks on covered individuals from participating 
     entities;
       ``(D) serve as a national resource center to provide 
     guidance and assistance to participating entities on how to 
     submit requests for nationwide background checks, how to 
     interpret criminal history records, how to obtain State 
     criminal background checks, and other related information;
       ``(E) to the extent practicable, negotiate an agreement 
     with each State authorized agency under which--
       ``(i) that State authorized agency shall conduct a State 
     criminal background check within the time periods specified 
     in subsection (e) in response to a request from the applicant 
     processing center and provide criminal history records to the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; and
       ``(ii) a participating entity may elect to obtain a State 
     background check, in addition to a nationwide background 
     check, through 1 unified request to the applicant processing 
     center;
       ``(F) convert all paper fingerprint cards into an 
     electronic form and securely transmit all fingerprints 
     electronically to the national criminal history background 
     check

[[Page S2141]]

     system and, if appropriate, the State authorized agencies;
       ``(G) collect a fee to conduct the nationwide background 
     check, and, if appropriate, a State criminal background 
     check, and remit fees to the National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 
     the State authorized agencies, as appropriate;
       ``(H) convey the results of the fitness determination to 
     the participating entity that submitted the request for a 
     nationwide background check; and
       ``(I) coordinate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     participating State authorized agencies, and the National 
     Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ensure that 
     background check requests are being completed within the time 
     periods specified in subsection (e).
       ``(3) Requests.--A request for a nationwide background 
     check by a participating entity shall include--
       ``(A) the fingerprints of the covered individual, in paper 
     or electronic form;
       ``(B) a photocopy of a valid identification document; and
       ``(C) a statement completed and signed by the covered 
     individual that--
       ``(i) sets out the covered individual's name, address, and 
     date of birth, as those items of information appear on a 
     valid identification document;
       ``(ii) states whether the covered individual has a criminal 
     record, and, if so, provides the particulars of such criminal 
     record;
       ``(iii) notifies the covered individual that the Attorney 
     General and, if appropriate, a State authorized agency may 
     perform a criminal history background check and that the 
     signature of the covered individual on the statement 
     constitutes an acknowledgment that such a check may be 
     conducted;
       ``(iv) notifies the covered individual that prior to and 
     after the completion of the background check, the 
     participating entity may choose to deny the covered 
     individual access to children; and
       ``(v) notifies the covered individual of the right of the 
     covered individual to correct an erroneous record of the 
     Attorney General and, if appropriate, the State authorized 
     agency.
       ``(4) Fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The applicant processing center may 
     collect a fee to defray the costs of carrying out its duties 
     and the duties of National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children under this section--
       ``(i) for a nationwide background check and fitness 
     determination, in an amount not to exceed the lesser of--

       ``(I) the actual cost to the applicant processing center 
     and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children of 
     conducting a nationwide background check and fitness 
     determination under this section; or
       ``(II)(aa) $25 for a participating entity that is a 
     nonprofit entity; or
       ``(bb) $40 for any other participating entity; and

       ``(ii) for a State criminal background check described in 
     paragraph (2)(E), in the amount specified in the agreement 
     with the applicable State authorized agency, not to exceed 
     $18.
       ``(B) Reduced fees.--In determining the amount of the fees 
     to be collected under subparagraph (A), the applicant 
     processing center--
       ``(i) shall, to the extent possible, discount such fees for 
     participating entities that are nonprofit entities; and
       ``(ii) may use fees paid by participating entities that are 
     not nonprofit entities to reduce the fees to be paid by 
     participating entities that are nonprofit entities.
       ``(C) Prohibition on fees.--
       ``(i) In general.--A participating entity may not charge 
     another entity or individual a surcharge to access a 
     background check conducted under this section.
       ``(ii) Violation.--The Attorney General shall bar any 
     participating entity that the Attorney General determines 
     violated clause (i) from submitting background checks under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Fitness Determination Program.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the fitness determination 
     program is to provide participating entities with reliable 
     and accurate information regarding whether a covered 
     individual has been convicted of, or is under pending arrest 
     or indictment for, a crime that bears upon the fitness of the 
     covered individual to have responsibility for the safety and 
     well-being of the children in their care.
       ``(2) Requirements of fitness determination program.--As 
     part of operating the fitness determination program, the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shall--
       ``(A) establish procedures to securely receive criminal 
     background records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and, if appropriate, State authorized agencies;
       ``(B) make determinations regarding whether the criminal 
     history record information received in response to a criminal 
     history background check conducted under this section 
     indicate that the covered individual has a criminal history 
     record that may render the covered individual unfit to 
     provide care to children, based on the criteria described in 
     paragraph (3);
       ``(C) convey a fitness determination to the applicant 
     processing center;
       ``(D) specify the source of the criminal history 
     information upon which a fitness determination is based; and
       ``(E) work with the applicant processing center and the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to develop procedures and 
     processes to ensure that criminal history background check 
     requests are being completed within the time periods 
     specified in subsection (e).
       ``(3) Criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the fitness 
     determination program shall use the criteria relating to when 
     criminal history record information indicates that an 
     individual has a criminal history record that may render the 
     individual unfit to provide care to children that were 
     established for the Child Safety Pilot Program under section 
     108(a)(3) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note).
       ``(B) Review.--The Attorney General and the National Center 
     for Missing and Exploited Children, in coordination with 
     national organizations representing a range of covered 
     entities, shall review the criteria described in subparagraph 
     (A) and make any changes needed to use such criteria in the 
     fitness determination program.
       ``(e) Timing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Criminal background checks shall be 
     completed not later than 10 business days after the date that 
     a request for a national background check is received by the 
     applicant processing center. The applicant processing center 
     shall work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ensure 
     that the time limits under this subsection are being 
     achieved.
       ``(2) Application processing.--The applicant processing 
     center shall electronically submit a national background 
     check request to the national criminal history background 
     check system and, if appropriate, the participating State 
     authorized agency not later than 3 business days after the 
     date that a request for a national background check is 
     received by the applicant processing center.
       ``(3) Conduct of background checks.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation and, if appropriate, a State authorized agency 
     shall provide criminal history records information to the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children not later 
     than 3 business days after the date that the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation or State authorized agency, as the case may 
     be, receives a request for a nationwide background check from 
     the applicant processing center.
       ``(4) Fitness determinations.--The National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children shall convey a fitness 
     determination to a participating entity and the applicant 
     processing center not later than 4 business days after the 
     date that the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children has received criminal history records from the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation and, if appropriate, each 
     applicable State authorized agency.
       ``(f) Participation in Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The applicant processing center shall 
     determine whether an entity is a covered entity and whether 
     that covered entity should be approved as a participating 
     entity, based on the consultation conducted under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Consultation.--In determining how many covered 
     entities to approve as participating entities, the applicant 
     processing center shall consult quarterly with the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation and the National Center for Missing 
     and Exploited Children to determine the volume of requests 
     for fitness determinations that can be completed, based on 
     the capacity of the applicant processing center and the 
     fitness determination program, the availability of resources, 
     and the demonstrated need for such determinations in order to 
     protect children.
       ``(3) Preference for nonprofit organizations.--In 
     determining whether a covered entity should be approved as a 
     participating entity under paragraph (1), the applicant 
     processing center shall give preference to any organization 
     participating in the Child Safety Pilot Program under section 
     108(a)(3) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) on the 
     date of enactment of the Child Protection Improvements Act of 
     2008 and to any other nonprofit organizations.
       ``(g) Rights of Covered Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered individual who is the subject 
     of a nationwide background check under this section may 
     contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, if 
     appropriate, a State authorized agency to--
       ``(A) request that the full criminal history report of that 
     covered individual be provided to that covered individual or 
     the applicable participating entity not later than 10 
     business days after the date of that request; and
       ``(B) challenge the accuracy and completeness of the 
     criminal history record information in the criminal history 
     report.
       ``(2) Resolution of challenges.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation and, if appropriate, a State authorized agency 
     shall promptly make a determination regarding the accuracy 
     and completeness of any criminal history record information 
     challenged under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Attorney General $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to--
       ``(A) establish and carry out the duties of the applicant 
     processing center established under this section;
       ``(B) establish and carry out the fitness determination 
     program; and
       ``(C) purse technologies and procedures to streamline and 
     automate processes to enhance cost efficiency.

[[Page S2142]]

       ``(2) Fitness determinations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out the 
     agreement under this section with the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children $1,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2013 to support the fitness determination 
     program and so that fees for nonprofit organizations under 
     that program are as low as possible.
       ``(3) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that in fiscal year 2009, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     the fees collected by the applicant processing center should 
     be sufficient to carry out the duties of the applicant 
     processing center under this section and to help support the 
     fitness determination program.
       ``(i) Report to Congress.--The Attorney General shall, on 
     an annual basis, submit to Congress a report on the 
     participating entities, the number of covered individuals 
     submitting applications under this section, and the data on 
     the number and types of fitness determinations issued under 
     this section.
       ``(j) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--A participating entity shall not be 
     liable in an action for damages solely for failure to conduct 
     a criminal background check on a covered individual, nor 
     shall a State or political subdivision thereof nor any 
     agency, officer, or employee thereof, be liable in an action 
     for damages for the failure of a participating entity (other 
     than itself) to take action adverse to a covered individual 
     who was the subject of a background check.
       ``(2) Reliance.--The applicant processing center or a 
     participating entity that reasonably relies on a fitness 
     determination or criminal history record information received 
     in response to a background check under this section shall 
     not be liable in an action for damages based on the 
     inaccuracy or incompleteness of that information.
       ``(3) National center for missing and exploited children.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children, including a director, officer, employee, or agent 
     of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
     shall not be liable in an action for damages relating to the 
     performance of the responsibilities and functions of the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Intentional, reckless, or other misconduct.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in an action if the National 
     Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or a director, 
     officer, employee, or agent of the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children, engaged in intentional 
     misconduct or acted, or failed to act, with actual malice, 
     with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing 
     injury without legal justification, or for a purpose 
     unrelated to the performance of responsibilities or functions 
     under this section.
       ``(C) Ordinary business activities.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply to an act or omission relating to an ordinary 
     business activity, such as an activity involving general 
     administration or operations, the use of motor vehicles, or 
     personnel management.''.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CHILD SAFETY PILOT.

       Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``60-month''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The Child Safety 
     Pilot Program under this paragraph shall terminate on the 
     date that the program for national criminal history 
     background checks for child-serving organizations established 
     under the Child Protection Improvements Act of 2008 is 
     operating and able to enroll any organization using the Child 
     Safety Pilot Program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 2759. A bill to provide for Kindergarten Plus programs; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
enhance opportunities for low-income children entering school. Today, I 
am introducing the Sandy Feldman Kindergarten Plus Act of 2008.
  The Kindergarten Plus Act will provide children below 185 percent of 
the poverty line with additional time in school during the summer 
before, and the summer after, their traditional kindergarten school 
year to ensure that they enter school ready to succeed.
  Too many low-income children enter school unprepared because they 
have not had access to educational resources such as books and other 
tools for learning. Arriving at school already behind, many of these 
children find it difficult, if not impossible, to catch up academically 
to their more affluent peers.
  When we consider the achievement gap between low-income children and 
their wealthier peers, it immediately becomes clear that we must do a 
better job of preparing these children for school. To prepare them for 
success, we need to expose them to classroom practices earlier, 
introduce them to critical educational concepts, and familiarize them 
with school activities such as story or circle time. Ultimately, we 
need to provide these students with a solid foundation that allows them 
to enter school with the skills necessary to become strong students.
  Only 39 percent of low-income children, compared to about 85 percent 
of high-income children, can recognize letters of the alphabet upon 
arrival in kindergarten. Moreover, low-income children often have a 
more limited vocabulary. By the time they are in first grade, children 
in low-income families have, on average, 5,000 words in their 
vocabulary. In contrast, children from more affluent families enter 
school with vocabularies of about 20,000 words. These startling 
discrepancies should tell us that more needs to be done to help all 
children enter school with an equal opportunity for success. 
Kindergarten Plus strives to provide these opportunities and to lessen 
the achievement gap by providing low-income children more support and 
additional exposure to high-quality schooling.
  This legislation was named after Sandy Feldman. As many of you know, 
Sandy was a tireless advocate for children and public education. Her 
commitment to social justice and her focus on early childhood education 
led her to develop the concept for this legislation, and it was Sandy 
who spent countless hours developing the details to ensure this would 
be a high-quality initiative. I was honored to have worked with Sandy 
in developing the initial legislation and am proud that this bill bears 
her name.
  I am joined today in introducing this legislation by my colleagues 
Senators Lieberman and Durbin. This bill is supported by the American 
Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Council of 
Great City Schools, the Children's Defense Fund, Service Employees 
International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
Employees, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral 
Agencies, and Easter Seals. I urge my colleagues to join my effort and 
cosponsor this legislation. I encourage them to help launch low-income 
children on the path to school success.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2759

       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 ``Kindergarten Plus Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Kindergarten has proven to be a beneficial experience 
     for children, putting children on a path that positively 
     influences their learning and development in later school 
     years.
       (2) Kindergarten and the years leading up to kindergarten 
     are critical in preparing children to succeed in elementary 
     school, especially if the children are from low-income 
     families or have other risks of difficulty in school.
       (3) Disadvantaged children, on average, lag behind other 
     children in literacy, numeracy, and social skills, even 
     before formal schooling begins.
       (4) For many children entering kindergarten, the 
     achievement gap between children from low-income households 
     compared to children from high-income households is already 
     evident.
       (5) Eighty-five percent of beginning kindergartners in the 
     highest socioeconomic group, compared to 39 percent in the 
     lowest socioeconomic group, can recognize letters of the 
     alphabet. Similarly, 98 percent of beginning kindergartners 
     in the highest socioeconomic group, compared to 84 percent of 
     their peers in the lowest socioeconomic group, can recognize 
     numbers and shapes.
       (6) Once disadvantaged children are in school, they learn 
     at the same rate as other children. Therefore, providing 
     disadvantaged children with additional time in kindergarten, 
     in the summer before such children ordinarily enter 
     kindergarten and in the summer before first grade, will help 
     schools close achievement gaps and accelerate the academic 
     progress of their disadvantaged students.
       (7) High quality, extended-year kindergarten that provides 
     children with enriched learning experiences is an important 
     factor in helping to close achievement gaps, rather than 
     having the gaps continue to widen.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means 
     a child who--
       (A) is a 5-year old, or will be eligible to attend 
     kindergarten at the beginning of the next school year;
       (B) comes from a family with an income at or below 185 
     percent of the poverty line; and

[[Page S2143]]

       (C) is not already served by a high-quality program in the 
     summer before or the summer after the child enters 
     kindergarten.
       (2) Kindergarten plus.--The term ``Kindergarten Plus'' 
     means a voluntary full day of kindergarten, during the summer 
     before and during the summer after, the traditional 
     kindergarten school year (as determined by the State).
       (3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (4) Parent.--The term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian 
     or other person standing in loco parentis (such as a 
     grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives, or a 
     person who is legally responsible for the child's welfare).
       (5) Parental involvement.--The term ``parental 
     involvement'' means the participation of parents in regular, 
     2-way, and meaningful communication with school personnel 
     involving student academic learning and other school 
     activities, including ensuring that parents--
       (A) play an integral role in assisting their child's 
     learning;
       (B) are encouraged to be actively involved in their child's 
     education at school; and
       (C) are full partners in their child's education and are 
     included, as appropriate, in decisionmaking and on advisory 
     committees to assist in the education of their child.
       (6) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2))) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       (7) Eligible provider.--The term ``eligible provider'' 
     means a local educational agency or a private not-for-profit 
     agency or organization, with a demonstrated record in the 
     delivery of early childhood education services to preschool-
     age children, that provides high-quality early learning and 
     development experiences that--
       (A) are aligned with the expectations for what children 
     should know and be able to do when the children enter 
     kindergarten and grade 1, as established by the State 
     educational agency; or
       (B) in the case of an entity that is not a local 
     educational agency and that serves children who have not 
     entered kindergarten, meet the performance standards and 
     performance measures described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     of subsection (a)(1), and subsection (b), of section 641A of 
     the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9836a) or the prekindergarten 
     standards of the State where the entity is located.
       (8) School readiness.--The term ``school readiness'' means 
     the cognitive, social, emotional, approaches to learning, and 
     physical development of a child, including early literacy and 
     early mathematics skills, that prepares the child to learn 
     and succeed in elementary school.
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (10) State educational agency.--The term ``State 
     educational agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

     SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational agencies 
     to enable the State educational agencies to provide 
     Kindergarten Plus within the State.
       (b) Sufficient Size.--To the extent possible, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that each grant awarded under this section is of 
     sufficient size to enable the State educational agency 
     receiving the grant to provide Kindergarten Plus to all 
     eligible students served by the local educational agencies 
     within the State with the highest concentrations of eligible 
     students.
       (c) Minimum Amount.--The Secretary shall not award a grant 
     to a State educational agency under this section in an amount 
     that is less than $500,000.
       (d) State Use of Funds.--A State educational agency shall 
     use--
       (1) not more than 3 percent of the grant funds received 
     under this Act for administration of the Kindergarten Plus 
     programs supported under this Act;
       (2) not more than 5 percent of the grant funds received 
     under this Act to develop professional development activities 
     and curricula for teachers and staff of Kindergarten Plus 
     programs in order to develop a continuum of developmentally 
     appropriate curricula and practices for preschool, 
     kindergarten, and grade 1 that ensures--
       (A) an effective transition to kindergarten and to grade 1 
     for students; and
       (B) appropriate expectations for the students' learning and 
     development as the students make the transition to 
     kindergarten and to grade 1; and
       (3) the remainder of the grant funds to award subgrants to 
     local educational agencies.
       (e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this Act the 
     Secretary shall give priority to State educational agencies 
     that--
       (1) on their own or in combination with other government 
     agencies, provide full-day kindergarten to all kindergarten-
     age children who are from families with incomes below 185 
     percent of the poverty line within the State; or
       (2) demonstrate progress toward providing full-day 
     kindergarten to all kindergarten-age children who are from 
     families with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line 
     within the State by submitting a plan that shows how the 
     State educational agency will, at a minimum, double the 
     number of such children that were served by a full-day 
     kindergarten program in the school year preceding the school 
     year for which assistance is first sought.

     SEC. 5. SUBGRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this Act--
       (1) shall reserve an amount sufficient to continue to fund 
     multiyear subgrants awarded under this section; and
       (2) shall award subgrants to local educational agencies 
     within the State to enable the local educational agencies to 
     pay the Federal share of the costs of carrying out 
     Kindergarten Plus programs for eligible students.
       (b) Priority.--In awarding subgrants under this section the 
     State educational agency shall give priority to local 
     educational agencies--
       (1) serving the greatest number or percentage of 
     kindergarten-age children who are from families with incomes 
     below 185 percent of the poverty line, based on data from the 
     most recent school year; and
       (2) that propose to significantly reduce the class size and 
     student-to-teacher ratio of the classes in their Kindergarten 
     Plus programs below the average class size and student-to-
     teacher ratios of kindergarten classes served by the local 
     educational agencies.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     carrying out a Kindergarten Plus program shall be--
       (1) 100 percent for the first, second, and third years of 
     the program;
       (2) 85 percent for the fourth year of the program; and
       (3) 75 percent for the fifth year of the program.
       (d) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of carrying out a Kindergarten Plus program may be in 
     the form of in-kind contributions.

     SEC. 6. STATE APPLICATION.

       (a) In General.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     Act, a State educational agency shall submit an application 
     to the Secretary at such time and containing such information 
     as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       (b) Consultation.--The application shall be developed by 
     the State educational agency in consultation with 
     representatives of early childhood education programs, early 
     childhood education teachers, principals, pupil services 
     personnel, administrators, paraprofessionals, other school 
     staff, early childhood education providers (including Head 
     Start agencies, State prekindergarten program staff, and 
     child care providers), teacher organizations, parents, and 
     parent organizations.
       (c) Contents.--At a minimum, the application shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of developmentally appropriate teaching 
     practices and curricula for children that will be put in 
     place to be used by local educational agencies and eligible 
     providers offering Kindergarten Plus programs to carry out 
     this Act;
       (2) a general description of the nature of the Kindergarten 
     Plus programs to be conducted with funds received under this 
     Act, including--
       (A) the number of hours each day and the number of days 
     each week that children in each Kindergarten Plus program 
     will attend the program; and
       (B) if a Kindergarten Plus program meets for less than 9 
     hours a day, how the needs of full-time working families will 
     be addressed;
       (3) goals and objectives to ensure that high-quality 
     Kindergarten Plus programs are provided;
       (4) an assurance that students enrolled in Kindergarten 
     Plus programs funded under this Act will receive additional 
     comprehensive services (such as nutritional services, health 
     care, and mental health care), as needed; and
       (5) a description of how--
       (A) the State educational agency will coordinate and 
     integrate services provided under this Act with other 
     educational programs, such as Even Start, Head Start, Reading 
     First, Early Reading First, State-funded preschool programs, 
     preschool programs funded under section 619 or other 
     provisions of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1419, 1411 et seq.), and 
     kindergarten programs;
       (B) the State will provide professional development for 
     teachers and staff of local educational agencies and eligible 
     providers that receive subgrants under this Act regarding how 
     to address the school readiness needs of children (including 
     early literacy, early mathematics, and positive behavior) 
     before the children enter kindergarten, throughout the school 
     year, and into the summer after kindergarten;
       (C) the State will assist Kindergarten Plus programs to 
     provide exemplary parent education and parental involvement 
     activities such as training and materials to assist parents 
     in being their children's first teachers at home or home 
     visiting;
       (D) the State will conduct outreach to parents with 
     eligible students, including parents whose native language is 
     not English, parents of children with disabilities, and 
     parents of migratory children; and

[[Page S2144]]

       (E) the State educational agency will ensure that each 
     Kindergarten Plus program uses developmentally appropriate 
     practices, including practices and materials that are 
     culturally and linguistically appropriate for the population 
     of children being served in the program.

     SEC. 7. LOCAL APPLICATION.

       (a) In General.--In order to receive a subgrant under this 
     Act, a local educational agency shall submit an application 
     to the State educational agency at such time and containing 
     such information as the State educational agency determines 
     appropriate.
       (b) Consultation.--The application shall be developed by 
     the local educational agency in consultation with early 
     childhood education teachers, principals, pupil services 
     personnel, administrators, paraprofessionals, other school 
     staff, early childhood education providers (including Head 
     Start agencies, State prekindergarten program staff, and 
     child care providers), teacher organizations, parents, and 
     parent organizations.
       (c) Contents.--At a minimum, the application shall include 
     a description of--
       (1) the standards, research-based and developmentally 
     appropriate curricula, teaching practices, and ongoing 
     assessments for the purposes of improving instruction and 
     services, to be used by the local educational agency that--
       (A) are aligned with the State expectations for what 
     children should know and be able to do when the children 
     enter kindergarten and grade 1, as set by the State 
     educational agency; and
       (B) include--
       (i) language skills, including an expanded use of 
     vocabulary;
       (ii) interest in and appreciation of books, reading, 
     writing alone or with others, and phonological and phonemic 
     awareness;
       (iii) premathematics knowledge and skills, including 
     aspects of classification, seriation, number sense, spatial 
     relations, and time;
       (iv) other cognitive abilities related to academic 
     achievement;
       (v) social and emotional development, including self-
     regulation skills;
       (vi) physical development, including gross and fine motor 
     development skills;
       (vii) in the case of limited English proficiency, progress 
     toward the acquisition of the English language; and
       (viii) approaches to learning;
       (2) how the local educational agency will ensure that the 
     Kindergarten Plus program uses curricula and practices that--
       (A) are developmentally, culturally, and linguistically 
     appropriate for the population of children served in the 
     program; and
       (B) are aligned with the State learning standards and 
     expectations for children in kindergarten and grade 1;
       (3) how the Kindergarten Plus program will improve the 
     school readiness of children served by the local educational 
     agency under this Act, especially in mathematics and reading;
       (4) how the Kindergarten Plus program will provide 
     continuity of services and learning for children who were 
     previously served by a different program;
       (5) how the local educational agency will ensure that the 
     Kindergarten Plus program has appropriate services and 
     accommodations in place to serve children with disabilities 
     and children who are limited English proficient;
       (6) how the local educational agency will perform a needs 
     assessment to avoid duplication with other programs within 
     the geographic area served by the local educational agency;
       (7) how the local educational agency will--
       (A) transition Kindergarten Plus participants into local 
     elementary school programs and services;
       (B) ensure the development and use of systematic, 
     coordinated records on the educational development of each 
     child participating in the Kindergarten Plus program through 
     periodic meetings and communications among--
       (i) Kindergarten Plus program teachers;
       (ii) elementary school staff; and
       (iii) local early childhood education program providers, 
     including Head Start agencies, State prekindergarten program 
     staff, and center-based and family child care providers;
       (C) provide parent and child orientation sessions conducted 
     by teachers and staff; and
       (D) provide a qualified staff person to be in charge of 
     coordinating the transition services;
       (8) how the local educational agency will provide 
     instructional and environmental accommodations in the 
     Kindergarten Plus program for children who are limited 
     English proficient, children with disabilities, migratory 
     children, neglected or delinquent youth, Indian children 
     served under part A of title VII of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
     homeless children, and immigrant children;
       (9) how the local educational agency will conduct outreach 
     to parents of eligible students, including parents whose 
     native language is not English, parents of children with 
     disabilities, and parents of migratory children, which may 
     include--
       (A) activities to provide parents early exposure to the 
     school environment, including meetings with teachers and 
     staff;
       (B) activities to better engage and inform parents on the 
     benefits of Kindergarten Plus and other programs; and
       (C) other efforts to ensure that parents have a level of 
     comfort with the Kindergarten Plus program and the school 
     environment;
       (10) how the local educational agency will assist the 
     Kindergarten Plus program to provide exemplary parent 
     education and parental involvement activities such as 
     training and materials to assist parents in being their 
     children's first teachers at home or home visiting; and
       (11) how the local educational agency will work with local 
     center-based and family child care providers and Head Start 
     agencies to ensure--
       (A) the nonduplication of programs and services; and
       (B) that the needs of working families are met through 
     child care provided before and after the Kindergarten Plus 
     program.

     SEC. 8. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS.

       (a) Local Uses of Funds.--A local educational agency that 
     receives a subgrant under this Act shall use the subgrant 
     funds for the following:
       (1) The operational and program costs associated with the 
     Kindergarten Plus program as described in the application to 
     the State educational agency.
       (2) Personnel services, including teachers, 
     paraprofessionals, and other staff as needed.
       (3) Additional services, as needed, including snacks and 
     meals, mental health care, health care, linguistic 
     assistance, special education and related services, and 
     transportation services associated with the needs of the 
     children in the program.
       (4) Transition services to ensure children make a smooth 
     transition into first grade and proper communication is made 
     with the elementary school on the educational development of 
     each child.
       (5) Outreach and recruitment activities, including 
     community forums and public service announcements in local 
     media in various languages if necessary to ensure that all 
     individuals in the community are aware of the availability of 
     such program.
       (6) Parental involvement programs, including materials and 
     resources to help parents become more involved in their 
     child's learning at home.
       (7) Extended day services for the eligible students of 
     working families, including working with existing programs in 
     the community to coordinate services if possible.
       (8) Child care services, provided through coordination with 
     local center-based child care and family child care 
     providers, and Head Start agencies, before and after the 
     Kindergarten Plus program for the children participating in 
     the program, to accommodate the schedules of working 
     families.
       (9) Enrichment activities, such as--
       (A) art, music, and other creative arts;
       (B) outings and field trips; and
       (C) other experiences that support children's curiosity, 
     motivation to learn, knowledge, and skills.
       (b) Eligible Provider Grants and Applications.--The local 
     educational agency may use subgrant funds received under this 
     Act to award a grant to an eligible provider to enable the 
     eligible provider to carry out a Kindergarten Plus program 
     for the local educational agency. Each eligible provider 
     desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit an 
     application to the local educational agency that contains the 
     descriptions set forth in section 7 as applied to the 
     eligible provider.
       (c) Continuity.--In carrying out a Kindergarten Plus 
     program under this Act, a local educational agency is 
     encouraged to explore ways to develop continuity in the 
     education of children, for instance by keeping, if possible, 
     the same teachers and personnel from the summer before 
     kindergarten, through the kindergarten year, and during the 
     summer after kindergarten.
       (d) Coordination.--In carrying out a Kindergarten Plus 
     program under this Act, a local educational agency shall 
     coordinate with existing programs in the community to provide 
     extended care and comprehensive services for children and 
     their families in need of such care or services.

     SEC. 9. TEACHER AND PERSONNEL QUALITY STANDARDS.

       To be eligible for a subgrant under this Act, each local 
     educational agency shall ensure that--
       (1) each Kindergarten Plus classroom has--
       (A) a highly qualified teacher, as defined in section 9101 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7801); or
       (B) if an eligible provider who is not a local educational 
     agency is providing the Kindergarten Plus program in 
     accordance with section 8(b), a teacher that, at a minimum, 
     has a bachelor's degree in early childhood education or a 
     related field and experience in teaching children of this 
     age;
       (2) a qualified paraprofessional that meets the 
     requirements for paraprofessionals under section 1119 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6319), is in each Kindergarten Plus classroom;
       (3) Kindergarten Plus teachers and paraprofessionals are 
     compensated on a salary scale comparable to kindergarten 
     through grade 3 teachers and paraprofessionals in public 
     schools served by the local educational agency; and
       (4) Kindergarten Plus class sizes do not exceed the class 
     size and ratio parameters set at the State or local level for 
     the traditional kindergarten program.

     SEC. 10. DIRECT GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--If a State educational agency does 
     not apply for a grant

[[Page S2145]]

     under this Act or does not have an application approved under 
     section 6, then the Secretary is authorized to award a grant 
     to a local educational agency within the State to enable the 
     local educational agency to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs of carrying out a Kindergarten Plus program.
       (b) Eligibility.--A local educational agency shall be 
     eligible to receive a grant under this section if the local 
     educational agency operates a full-day kindergarten program 
     that, at a minimum, is targeted to kindergarten-age children 
     who are from families with incomes below 185 percent of the 
     poverty line within the State.
       (c) Application.--In order to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), a local educational agency shall submit to 
     the Secretary an application that--
       (1) contains the descriptions set forth in section 7; and
       (2) includes an assurance that the Kindergarten Plus 
     program funded under such grant will serve eligible students.
       (d) Applicability.--Sections 8 and 9 shall apply to a local 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this section in 
     the same manner as the sections apply to a local educational 
     agency receiving a subgrant under section 5(a).

     SEC. 11. EVALUATION, COLLECTION, AND DISSEMINATION OF 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this Act, in cooperation with the 
     local educational agencies in the State that receive a 
     subgrant under this Act, shall create an evaluation mechanism 
     to determine the effectiveness of the Kindergarten Plus 
     programs in the State, taking into account--
       (1) information from the local needs assessment, conducted 
     in accordance with section 7(c)(6), including--
       (A) the number of eligible students in the geographic area;
       (B) the number of children served by Kindergarten Plus 
     programs, disaggregated by family income, race, ethnicity, 
     native language, and prior enrollment in an early childhood 
     education program; and
       (C) the number of children with disabilities served by 
     Kindergarten Plus programs;
       (2) the recruitment of teachers and staff for Kindergarten 
     Plus programs, and the retention of such personnel in the 
     programs for more than 1 year;
       (3) the provision of services for children and families 
     served by Kindergarten Plus programs, including parent 
     education, home visits, and comprehensive services for 
     families who need such services;
       (4) the opportunities for professional development for 
     teachers and staff; and
       (5) the curricula used in Kindergarten Plus programs.
       (b) Comparison.--The evaluation process may include 
     comparison groups of similar children who do not participate 
     in a Kindergarten Plus program.
       (c) Information Collection and Reporting.--The information 
     necessary for the evaluation shall be collected yearly by the 
     State and reported every 2 years by the State to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Analysis of Effectiveness.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     an analysis of the overall effectiveness of the programs 
     assisted under this Act and make the analysis available to 
     Congress, and the public, biannually.

     SEC. 12. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds made available under this Act shall be used to 
     supplement, not supplant, other Federal, State, or local 
     funds available to carry out activities under this Act.

     SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2009 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2010 through 2014.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 2760. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the 
national defense through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement 
of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of 
Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency response, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased again to join my friend 
and colleague Senator Kit Bond of Missouri in bringing to the Senate 
another matter of importance to the missions of the National Guard and 
to the dedicated men and women of the Guard who perform these missions.
  Today we are introducing the National Guard Empowerment and State-
National Defense Integration Act of 2008. We introduce this legislation 
on behalf of the 91-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, which we 
co-chair. The military is still not structured properly to respond to 
the domestic emergencies that we know will come again. This legislation 
would take us tangible steps forward in correcting that. Our bill would 
sharpen the Defense Department's focus on helping the National Guard 
respond to domestic emergencies.
  This legislation is a new phase in our bipartisan and bicameral drive 
to empower the Guard for successfully meeting the challenges that our 
States and the Nation are asking the Guard to meet. It would clear away 
bureaucratic cobwebs in the Defense Department's organizational 
structure to improve decision making on homeland defense issues that 
involve the Guard. This bill builds on some of the strong provisions 
enacted from the previous version of the Guard Empowerment Bill in the 
recently enacted fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill. By 
empowering the National Guard through more responsibilities, 
authorities, and new lines of control, this bill focuses the Defense 
Department's attention on this critical realm of domestic defense. The 
bill structures potential military operations within the U.S. in a way 
outlined by the Constitution, ensuring local and State control--not 
Federal control--in these emergencies.
  We know that the military--the active duty force, the National Guard, 
and the Reserves--has an important role in responding to emergencies at 
home, events like natural disasters. The events of Hurricane Katrina 
and so many other situations have amply underscored that reality. Our 
civilian authorities will continue to want to tap into the resources, 
personnel, and expertise, and there is no question that we need a 
system that permits that. The debate taking place, mostly behind the 
scenes and within the walls of the Pentagon, has been about how we 
structure that response. The goal must be an effective response in line 
with the Constitution. Our national charter protects our basic 
liberties and places sovereignty in the hands of the people through 
government with adequate checks and balances, splitting administration 
among Federal, State, and local levels.
  This Empowerment Bill would be effective because it drives to enhance 
the National Guard, our first military responders. This force has 
stepped up during dire situations time and time again. The National 
Guard takes its responsibility to carry out relief missions at home as 
seriously as it takes its missions abroad as the nation's primary 
military reserve. The National Guard is a locally based force, spread 
out in armories and readiness centers across the country. The Guard can 
flow forces among States through the Emergency Management Assistance 
Compacts process, which helped make the force one of the few shining 
lights in the darkness of the response to Hurricane Katrina. The 
National Guard has units that specialize in civil support, including 
highly trained, full-time teams located in every one of our States. The 
bottom line is that the Guard has shown that it can do this mission and 
do it superbly.

  The approach of the Empowerment Bill is constitutional because it 
properly involves every layer of Government. It is our mayors, our 
public safety chiefs, and our Governors who are responsible for the 
security of their communities. Under our governmental system, they are 
the ones that should be in control of emergency situations and any 
Federal assets that come in should be strictly in support of them--
certainly not the other way around. The Guard is a State force that 
works closely with these civilian authorities all the time. The Guard, 
which serves under the command of the Governors, is part and parcel of 
the community. The Guard knows that it is civilians, including their 
elected leaders and the populace, who are the ultimate decision-makers 
in these situations.
  Our bill includes several key provisions. To improve the quality of 
advice at the highest levels, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
would gain a full seat on the Joint Chief of Staff, a key advisory body 
where insufficient attention is paid to homeland defense matters. The 
bill would ensure that U.S. Northern Command remains a Federal military 
headquarters that truly supports the Governors and the initial Guard 
response in an emergency, providing for the Governors to have tactical 
control over any active duty and Reserve assets that might be operating 
in their home State during an emergency. The National Guard Bureau is 
enhanced in another section which specifically gives the National Guard 
a separate budget to purchase domestic defense-oriented items. The 
Bureau would carry out its responsibilities in close cooperation with a 
newly

[[Page S2146]]

established planning committee and council that integrally involves the 
States' Adjutants General. And the bill assigns several key command and 
deputy command positions to National Guard officers who have experience 
in homeland defense and domestic emergency response matters.
  This fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill ushered in several 
improvements to the National Guard, including an elevation of the 
Bureau Chief to the rank of four-star general. The National Guard 
Bureau is now more a joint agency than a sub-branch of the Army and the 
Air Force, though the Guard remains a key part of the Army and Air 
Force's Total Force. The Deputy Commander or Commander of U.S. Northern 
Command now must come from the ranks of the National Guard. These are 
far-reaching steps, though I remain concerned that the Department has 
yet to implement these provisions, not even filling the four-star 
position yet.
  Together, last year's enacted organizational changes and those put 
forth in this bill will fundamentally improve our preparations for an 
emergency, and ensure an effective, swift, and constitutional response 
when another emergency occurs.
  Our National Guard has never let our country down, and--once again--
we cannot let our Guard down. I urge prompt attention and action on 
this vital legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
supporting material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2760

       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 ``National Guard Empowerment 
     and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANDED AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD 
                   BUREAU.

       (a) Membership on Joint Chiefs of Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Section 151(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 10502 of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Member of Joint Chiefs of Staff.--The Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau shall perform the duties prescribed for 
     him or her as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under 
     section 151 of this title.''.
       (b) Annual Report to Congress on Validated Requirements.--
     Section 10504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Annual Report on Validated Requirements.--Not later 
     than December 31 each year, the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall submit to Congress a report on the following:
       ``(1) The requirements validated under section 10503a(b)(1) 
     of this title during the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for 
     which funding is to be requested in the next budget for a 
     fiscal year under section 10544 of this title.
       ``(3) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for 
     which funding will not be requested in the next budget for a 
     fiscal year under section 10544 of this title.''.

     SEC. 3. EXPANDED FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Military Assistance for Civil Authorities.--Chapter 
     1011 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 10503 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military 
       assistance to civil authorities

       ``(a) Identification of Additional Necessary Assistance.--
     The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall--
       ``(1) identify gaps between Federal and State military 
     capabilities to prepare for and respond to emergencies; and
       ``(2) make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on 
     programs and activities of the National Guard for military 
     assistance to civil authorities to address such gaps.
       ``(b) Scope of Responsibilities.--In meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (a), the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau shall, in coordination with the adjutants 
     general of the States, have responsibilities as follows:
       ``(1) To validate the requirements of the several States 
     and Territories with respect to military assistance to civil 
     authorities.
       ``(2) To develop doctrine and training requirements 
     relating to the provision of military assistance to civil 
     authorities.
       ``(3) To acquire equipment, materiel, and other supplies 
     and services for the provision of military assistance to 
     civil authorities.
       ``(4) To assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing the 
     budget required under section 10544 of this title.
       ``(5) To administer amounts provided the National Guard for 
     the provision of military assistance to civil authorities.
       ``(6) To carry out any other responsibility relating to the 
     provision of military assistance to civil authorities as the 
     Secretary of Defense shall specify.
       ``(c) Assistance.--The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff shall assist the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in 
     carrying out activities under this section.
       ``(d) Consultation.--(1) The Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall carry out activities under this section through 
     and utilizing an integrated planning process established by 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau for purposes of this 
     subsection. The planning process may be known as the 
     `National Guard Bureau Strategic Integrated Planning 
     Process'.
       ``(2)(A) Under the integrated planning process established 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) the planning committee described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall develop and submit to the planning directorate 
     described in subparagraph (C) plans and proposals on such 
     matters under the planning process as the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau shall designate for purposes of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) the planning directorate shall review and make 
     recommendations to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau on 
     the plans and proposals submitted to the planning directorate 
     under clause (i).
       ``(B) The planning committee described in this subparagraph 
     is a planning committee (to be known as the `State Strategic 
     Integrated Planning Committee') composed of the adjutant 
     general of each of the several States, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(C) The planning directorate described in this 
     subparagraph is a planning directorate (to be known as the 
     `Federal Strategic Integrated Planning Directorate') composed 
     of the following (as designated by the Secretary of Defense 
     for purposes of this subsection):
       ``(i) A major general of the Army National Guard.
       ``(ii) A major general of the Air National Guard.
       ``(iii) A major general of the regular Army.
       ``(iv) A major general of the regular Air Force.
       ``(v) A major general (other than a major general under 
     clauses (iii) and (iv)) of the United States Northern 
     Command.
       ``(vi) The Director of the Joint Staff of the National 
     Guard Bureau under section 10505 of this title.
       ``(vii) Seven adjutants general from the planning committee 
     under paragraph (B).''.
       (b) Budgeting for Training and Equipment for Military 
     Assistance to Civil Authorities and Other Domestic 
     Missions.--Chapter 1013 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget 
       for military assistance to civil authorities and for other 
       domestic operations

       ``(a) In General.--The budget justification documents 
     materials submitted to Congress in support of the budget of 
     the President for a fiscal year (as submitted with the budget 
     of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) shall 
     specify separate amounts for training and equipment for the 
     National Guard for purposes of military assistance to civil 
     authorities and for other domestic operations during such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Scope of Funding.--The amounts specified under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall be sufficient for 
     purposes as follows:
       ``(1) The development and implementation of doctrine and 
     training requirements applicable to the assistance and 
     operations described in subsection (a) for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) The acquisition of equipment, materiel, and other 
     supplies and services necessary for the provision of such 
     assistance and such operations in such fiscal year.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1011 
     of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 10503 the following new item:

``10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to 
              civil authorities.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1013 
     of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military 
              assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic 
              operations.''.

     SEC. 4. REDESIGNATION OF POSITIONS OF DIRECTOR OF THE ARMY 
                   NATIONAL GUARD, DIRECTOR OF THE AIR NATIONAL 
                   GUARD, AND ASSOCIATED POSITIONS.

       (a) Redesignation.--Section 10506 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Director, Army National Guard'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Vice Chief, Army National 
     Guard'';
       (2) by striking ``Deputy Director, Army National Guard'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Deputy Vice Chief, Army 
     National Guard'';
       (3) by striking ``Director, Air National Guard'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Vice Chief, Air National Guard''; 
     and

[[Page S2147]]

       (4) by striking ``Deputy Director, Air National Guard'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Deputy Vice Chief, Air 
     National Guard''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 14512(a)(2)(D) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``Director of the Army National 
     Guard, or Director of the Air National Guard'' and inserting 
     ``Vice Chief of the Army National Guard, or Vice Chief of the 
     Air National Guard''.
       (c) References.--
       (1) Director, army national guard.--Any reference in a law, 
     regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
     States to the Director of the Army National Guard shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the Vice Chief of the Army 
     National Guard.
       (2) Deputy director, army national guard.--Any reference in 
     a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the 
     United States to the Deputy Director of the Army National 
     Guard shall be deemed to be a reference to the Deputy Vice 
     Chief of the Army National Guard.
       (3) Director, air national guard.--Any reference in a law, 
     regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
     States to the Director of the Air National Guard shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the Vice Chief of the Air 
     National Guard.
       (4) Deputy director, air national guard.--Any reference in 
     a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the 
     United States to the Deputy Director of the Air National 
     Guard shall be deemed to be a reference to the Deputy Vice 
     Chief of the Air National Guard.

     SEC. 5. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SERVICE AS JOINT DUTY 
                   EXPERIENCE.

       (a) Vice Chiefs, Army and Air National Guard.--Section 
     10506(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 4(a) of this Act, is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Service of an officer as adjutant general shall be 
     treated as joint duty experience for purposes of assignment 
     or promotion to any position designated by law as open to a 
     National Guard general officer.''.
       (b) Adjutants General and Similar Officers.--The service of 
     an officer of the Armed Forces as adjutant general, or as an 
     officer (other than adjutant general) of the National Guard 
     of a State who performs the duties of adjutant general under 
     the laws of such State, shall be treated as joint duty or 
     joint duty experience for purposes of any provisions of law 
     required such duty or experience as a condition of assignment 
     or promotion.
       (c) Annual Reports on Duty in Joint Force Headquarters to 
     Qualify as Joint Duty Experience.--Not later than six months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually 
     thereafter, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall, in 
     consultation with the adjutants general of the National 
     Guard, submit to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     and to Congress a report setting forth the recommendations of 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as to which duty of 
     officers, and which duty of enlisted members, of the National 
     Guard in the Joint Force Headquarters of the National Guard 
     of the States should qualify as joint duty or joint duty 
     experience for purposes of the provisions of law requiring 
     such duty or experience as a condition of assignment or 
     promotion.
       (d) Annual Reports on Joint Education Courses.--Not later 
     than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and annually thereafter, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff shall submit to Congress a report setting forth 
     information on the joint education courses available through 
     the Department of Defense for purposes of the pursuit of 
     joint careers by officers in the Armed Forces. Each report 
     shall include, for the preceding year, the following:
       (1) A list and description of the joint education courses 
     so available during such year.
       (2) A list and description of the joint education courses 
     listed under paragraph (1) that are available to and may be 
     completed by officers of the reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces in other than an in-resident duty status under title 
     10, United States Code, or title 32, United States Code.
       (3) For each course listed under paragraph (1), the number 
     of officers from each Armed Force who pursued such course 
     during such year, including the number of officers of the 
     Army National Guard, and of the Air National Guard, who 
     pursued such course.

     SEC. 6. ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE UNITED 
                   STATES NORTHERN COMMAND AND OTHER COMBATANT 
                   COMMANDS.

       (a) Commands Responsible for Support to Civil Authorities 
     in the United States.--The United States Northern Command and 
     the United States Pacific Command shall be the combatant 
     commands of the Armed Forces that are principally responsible 
     for the support of civil authorities in the United States by 
     the Armed Forces.
       (b) Discharge of Responsibility.--In discharging the 
     responsibility set forth in subsection (a), the Commander of 
     the United States Northern Command and the Commander of the 
     United States Pacific Command shall each--
       (1) in consultation with and acting through the Chief of 
     the National Guard Bureau and the Joint Force Headquarters of 
     the National Guard of the State or States concerned, assist 
     the States in the employment of the National Guard under 
     State control, including National Guard operations conducted 
     in State active duty or under title 32, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) facilitate the deployment of the Armed Forces on active 
     duty under title 10, United States Code, as necessary to 
     augment and support the National Guard in its support of 
     civil authorities when National Guard operations are 
     conducted under State control, whether in State active duty 
     or under title 32, United States Code.
       (c) Memorandum of Understanding.--
       (1) Memorandum required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commander of the 
     United States Northern Command, the Commander of the United 
     States Pacific Command, and the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, 
     jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding setting 
     forth the operational relationships, and individual roles and 
     responsibilities, during responses to domestic emergencies 
     among the United States Northern Command, the United States 
     Pacific Command, and the National Guard Bureau.
       (2) Modification.--The Commander of the United States 
     Northern Command, the Commander of the United States Pacific 
     Command, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may from 
     time to time modify the memorandum of understanding under 
     this subsection to address changes in circumstances and for 
     such other purposes as the Commander of the United States 
     Northern Command, the Commander of the United States Pacific 
     Command, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau jointly 
     consider appropriate. Each such modification shall be subject 
     to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
       (d) Authority To Modify Assignment of Command 
     Responsibility.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     as altering or limiting the power of the President or the 
     Secretary of Defense to modify the Unified Command Plan in 
     order to assign all or part of the responsibility described 
     in subsection (a) to a combatant command other than the 
     United States Northern Command or the United States Pacific 
     Command.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     regulations for purposes of aiding the expeditious 
     implementation of the authorities and responsibilities in 
     this section.

     SEC. 7. STATE CONTROL OF FEDERAL MILITARY FORCES ENGAGED IN 
                   ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATES AND POSSESSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subtitle A of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 15 the 
     following new chapter:

  ``CHAPTER 16--CONTROL OF THE ARMED FORCES IN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 
                         STATES AND POSSESSIONS

``Sec.
``341. Tactical control of the armed forces engaged in activities 
              within the States and possessions: emergency response 
              activities.

     ``Sec. 341. Tactical control of the armed forces engaged in 
       activities within the States and possessions: emergency 
       response activities

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     in regulations policies and procedures to assure that 
     tactical control of the armed forces on active duty within a 
     State or possession is vested in the governor of the State or 
     possession, as the case may be, when such forces are engaged 
     in emergency response activities within such State or 
     possession.
       ``(b) Discharge Through Joint Force Headquarters.--The 
     policies and procedures required under subsection (a) shall 
     provide for the discharge of tactical control by the governor 
     of a State or possession as described in that subsection 
     through the Joint Force Headquarters of the National Guard in 
     the State or possession, as the case may be, acting through 
     the officer of the National Guard in command of the 
     Headquarters.
       ``(c) Possessions Defined.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of section 101(a), in this section, the term `possessions' 
     means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin 
     Islands.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The tables of chapters at the 
     beginning of title 10, United States Code, and at the 
     beginning of part I of subtitle A of such title, are each 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 15 
     the following new item:

``16. Control of the Armed Forces in Activities Within the States and 
    Possessions..............................................341''.....

     SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL GUARD OFFICERS IN 
                   CERTAIN COMMAND POSITIONS.

       (a) Commander of Army North Command.--The officer serving 
     in the position of Commander, Army North Command, shall be an 
     officer in the Army National Guard of the United States.
       (b) Commander of Air Force North Command.--The officer 
     serving in the position of Commander, Air Force North 
     Command, shall be an officer in the Air National Guard of the 
     United States.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in assigning officers to the command positions specified in 
     subsections (a) and (b), the President should afford a 
     preference in assigning officers in the Army National Guard 
     of the United States or Air National Guard of the United 
     States, as applicable, who have served as the adjutant 
     general of a State.

[[Page S2148]]

       (d) Certain Joint Task Force Positions.--
       (1) In general.--Of the officers serving in the positions 
     specified in each subparagraph of paragraph (2), as least one 
     such officer under each subparagraph shall be an officer in 
     the Army National Guard of the United States or an officer in 
     the Air National Guard of the United States.
       (2) Covered positions.--The positions specified in this 
     paragraph are:
       (A) Commander, Joint Task Force Alaska, and Deputy 
     Commander, Joint Task Force Alaska.
       (B) Commander, Joint Task Force Civil Support, and Deputy 
     Commander, Joint Task Force Civil Support.
       (C) Commander, Joint Task Force North, and Deputy 
     Commander, Joint Task Force North.
                                  ____


    Summary: National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense 
                        Integration Act of 2008


                                purpose

       To enhance the national defense through empowerment of the 
     National Guard, enhancement of the functions of the National 
     Guard Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military 
     coordination in domestic emergency response
     SECTION 1: Title
       National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense 
     Integration Act of 2008
     Section 2: Joint Chiefs of Staff
       Make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a full member 
     of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
     Section 3: Guard Bureau Duties
       Formally give the Guard Bureau the function of working with 
     the states to identify equipment gaps for the purpose of 
     providing military assistance to civil authorities. The 
     Bureau shall work with states--through a State/Adjutant 
     General-dominated planning committee and Federal planning 
     directorate--to validate equipment requirements, develop 
     doctrine for assisting civil authorities in emergencies, 
     acquire necessary equipment, prepare a military assistance 
     budget, and administer the funding provided for military 
     assistance.
     Section 4: Vice Chiefs
       Rename the positions of Activities Directors of the Army 
     and Air National Guard to ``Deputy Vice Chief, Army National 
     Guard'' and ``Deputy Vice Chief, Air National Guard,'' 
     respectively.
     Section 5: Joint Duty Credit
       Provides the Adjutant Generals of the United States with 
     so-called Joint Duty Credit for their experience in the 
     position. Requires the Department of Defense to provide a 
     report on providing joint-duty credit for officers serving in 
     National Guard Joint Force Headquarters, as well as summary 
     of Joint-Duty courses available for Reserve Components 
     officers interested in following a joint career.
     Section 6: Northern Command
       States that Northern Command and Pacific Command are the 
     commands responsible for providing military assistance for 
     civil authorities, and, to carry out that responsibility, 
     these commands must assist the states in employing the 
     National Guard and facilitate the deployment of Title 10 
     forces to supplement and support the Guard, whether operating 
     in State Active Duty or under Title 32 United State Code. 
     Northern Command and Pacific Command must complete a 
     Memorandum of Understanding with the National Guard Bureau on 
     their operational relationship within 180 days of enactment.
     Section 7: Governor's Tactical Control
       Direction to the Department of Defense to establish 
     procedures for the nation's Governors to have tactical 
     control over the military forces, including Title 10 active 
     forces, operating in their state during an emergency. Such 
     tactical control will be exercised by the Governor through 
     the Joint Forces Headquarters of the National Guard of the 
     State. According to Department of Defense standard terms, 
     Tactical Control is ``Command authority over assigned or 
     attached forces or commands ... that is limited to the 
     detailed direction and control of movements or maneuvers 
     within the operational area necessary to accomplish missions 
     or tasks assigned.''
     Section 8: National Guard Command Positions
       A National Guard officer will remain Commander of Air Force 
     North, while Guard officers shall become the Commander Army 
     North, and Commander or Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force 
     Alaska, Joint Task Force Civil Support, and Joint Task Force 
     North.
                                  ____

                                        National Guard Association


                                   of the United States, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2008.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: The National Guard Association of the 
     United States applauds your introduction of the ``National 
     Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act 
     of 2008.'' Your legislation is the logical next step in fully 
     codifying the initiatives that had their birth two years ago 
     in the National Guard Empowerment Act.
       With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for 2008, many of the substantive elements of ``empowerment'' 
     for the National Guard have been presented to the Department 
     of Defense for immediate implementation in accordance with 
     the wishes of the Congress. We are eagerly awaiting their 
     timely response.
       Meanwhile, we support the additional well-reasoned 
     legislative remedies contained in your new bill that will 
     knit together the missing pieces of the empowerment concept. 
     In our view, empowerment for the National Guard is simply a 
     restatement, in contemporary language, of the reliance placed 
     on the National Guard by the framers of the United States 
     Constitution in Article 1, Section 8.
       Thank you for leading this effort for the American people.
           Sincerely,

                                             Stephen M. Koper,

                                    Brigadier General, USAF (ret),
     President.
                                  ____

                                     Adjutants General Association


                                         of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 2008.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: The Adjutants General Association of 
     the United States commends you, your colleagues and your 
     staff on your foresight in introducing the ''National Guard 
     Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 
     2008.'' This legislation will take the next logical step in 
     advancing the gains of the National Guard Empowerment Act and 
     ensuring the intent of that legislation is met.
       We understand and appreciate just how hard you and the 
     entire Guard Caucus worked to gain passage of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for 2008, which gave birth to 
     ``empowerment'' for the National Guard. However, the 
     realization of empowerment has been slow to materialize. With 
     the introduction of this legislation, we are hopeful that the 
     Department of Defense will act in accordance with the wishes 
     of the Congress.
       Again, we thank you for your new bill which will serve to 
     complete the vision of the empowerment concept, which had its 
     genesis two years ago with the original National Guard 
     Empowerment Act. It is clear that empowerment for the 
     National Guard remains a priority of the Congress.
       We thank you for your continuing efforts on the National 
     Guard's behalf.
           Sincerely,

                                            Francis D. Vavala,

                                            Major General, DEARNG,
     President AGAUS.
                                  ____

         Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
           States,
                                   Alexandria, VA, March 13, 2008.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 
     United States, EANGUS is pleased to express our strongest 
     possible support, on behalf of the Enlisted men and women of 
     the Army and Air National Guard, in your efforts to amend 
     Title 10 of the United States Code to enhance the 
     responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     and the functions of the National Guard Bureau.
       Although some historic changes were made in Public Law 110-
     181, signed by the President on January 28,2008, many of the 
     original provisions of the National Guard Empowerment Act 
     of2007 were ``left on the cutting table'' and not enacted 
     into law. These valuable and necessary provisions must be 
     addressed and are addressed in your legislation.
       Our association stands firm in support of your action to 
     remedy this error of omission. The lack of respect of the 
     leadership of the National Guard by service secretaries and 
     leaders, the consistent under-funding of National Guard 
     appropriations accounts, and the intentional lack of 
     communication and coordination all have the possibility of 
     being rectified by this legislation by making the Chief a 
     full partner in the decision-making and appropriations 
     process.
       Thank you for taking legislative action that is not only 
     timely, but unfortunately necessary, and long overdue. We 
     look forward to working with your staff as this legislation 
     works its way into law.
       Working for America's Best!

                                             Michael P. Cline,

                                       Master Sergeant, USA (Ret),
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 2762. A bill to prioritize the provision of assistance to combat 
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria to in-need countries; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the 
reauthorization of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also 
known as PEPFAR.
  The program authorized in 2003 provided $15 billion over 5 years to 
the cause of AIDS relief in parts of the world ravaged by that disease. 
PEPFAR was a demonstration of the American people's desire to help 
those in need.

[[Page S2149]]

  The 2003 legislation was also a demonstration of the American 
people's desire that their generosity not be wasted, as they have seen 
before with so many other aid programs. To that end, the legislation 
required that the lion's share of the funds be devoted to treatment of 
patients in need.
  It encouraged accountability and transparency and it funded programs 
that could demonstrate results, such as the requirement that one third 
of prevention funds be spent on abstinence education programs--a 
decision that has kept countless persons from getting infected with HIV 
since 2003.
  It is therefore mind boggling to me that recent reauthorization 
proposals the bill passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last 
week and the bill scheduled for mark up by the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee today--would take such giant steps backward.
  The bill originally introduced in the House would have eliminated the 
conscience clause, which protects humanitarian and medical 
professionals involved in these programs from having to participate in 
prevention and treatment methods that they find morally or religiously 
objectionable. Wisely, this provision was kept in the bill passed by 
the House committee, though it is substantially watered down--to the 
point of being nonbinding--in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
bill.
  The original House bill struck the requirement that organizations 
that receive PEPFAR grants be opposed to prostitution and sex 
trafficking. That these commonsense provisions were even in danger of 
being dropped in the reauthorization of PEPFAR is sadly telling. It 
appears the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chose not to challenge 
such an unimpeachable provision of law.
  And, unlike the majority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 
which backed down from including many troubling provisions on abortion 
and family planning demanded by far left groups, it appears the Senate 
Committee bill would pander to the so-called ``family planning'' 
agenda.
  I am also deeply troubled that both the House Foreign Affairs 
Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee reauthorization 
proposals remove the requirement that at least fifty-five percent of 
the funds in the program be spent on treatment of AIDS patients. This 
provision was an important check on bureaucratic wastefulness and 
``make work'' and it must be preserved.
  Additionally, the requirement that thirty-three percent of PEPFAR 
prevention funds be spent on abstinence education, removed by the 
majority in last year's omnibus appropriations process, has not been 
restored in either of these two reauthorization proposals. In fact, all 
that remains in the tatters of that requirement in either of these 
bills is something only a bureaucrat could love: in the event a future 
AIDS coordinator chooses to ignore abstinence education, a report must 
be sent to Congress.
  What is more, both of these reauthorization proposals include 
provisions that appear to undermine protections for intellectual 
property, the same protections that are necessary to ensure that 
innovation and research into life-saving medications continue.
  While I am sure the sponsors of these two proposals are well-meaning, 
they further increase support for TB and malaria programs, even though 
the U.S. is already the largest contributor to TB and malaria programs 
through the Global Fund. Sadly, the Global Fund has become synonymous 
with graft and multilateral bureaucratic waste in many countries. We 
should not be duplicating those existing programs. We owe it to the 
American taxpayer, and those people suffering from these dreaded 
diseases, to fix the problems that abound in the Global Fund.
  Lastly, but most significantly, both reauthorization proposals more 
than triple the expenditure for PEPFAR--something we simply cannot 
afford. PEPFAR 2003 authorized $15 billion over 5 years for emergency 
AIDS relief. Not satisfied with a mere doubling of this program as 
requested, both of these proposals would provide $50 billion over 5 
years.
  As I have noted already, the American people are a generous people. 
Our annual foreign aid budget reflects this generosity. However, this 
ability to give is not limitless.
  Need I remind my colleagues, our economy is in distress. The 
presidential candidates on the other side are calling for a Federal 
Government bailout of homeowners facing foreclosure: with $50 billion, 
we could provide 235,157 homeowners with such a bailout.
  Moreover, Congress just passed, and the president just signed, a 
program to provide Americans with checks intended to stimulate the 
economy. While I have doubts that this plan will succeed, I note that 
with this $50 billion, 157 million tax filers could be given rebate 
checks of $318.47.
  Alternatively, with $50 billion, we could ``fully fund'' both No 
Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
at their authorized levels for one year.
  Congress is beginning the annual budget cycle and we are daily 
confronted with requests for more and more federal spending. Already, 
key leaders in the budget process are threatening that if they don't 
get their way on domestic spending, they will add their spending to the 
forthcoming but overdue War Supplemental or will short circuit the 
budget process with a continuing resolution or yet another omnibus. 
Agreeing to this massive increase is not the way to discipline what is 
already shaping up to be a budget train wreck.
  Governing is about choosing. By agreeing to this increase to $50 
billion, neither the House nor Senate committees are governing. They 
are taking the easy course of action: spending.
  I supported the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2003. I 
could reluctantly support doubling that amount over the next five 
years. But adding another $20 billion on top of that is too much.
  We cannot lose sight of the sacrifices of millions of Americans who 
work hard and pay the taxes that support these programs. $50 billion is 
too much.
  I cannot support a bill that so dramatically spends beyond what we 
can afford and so wantonly ignores accountability and transparency 
tools that safeguard the generosity of the American people.
  This legislation can still be salvaged.
  Yesterday, I cosponsored legislation with the Senator from Oklahoma, 
Dr. Coburn, and the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, that sets 
some key principles that must be a part of the reauthorization.
  Earlier today, I introduced a bill that would prohibit the extension 
of PEPFAR funds away from their core purpose, helping the neediest 
countries. This legislation must also be a part of the reauthorization 
of PEPFAR.
  I support the PEPFAR program and I believe that it is worth passage 
if funded at a responsible authorization level with at least the kind 
of commonsense policy, accountability, and transparency provided in the 
2003 bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 2767. A bill to provide for judicial discretion regarding 
suspensions of student eligibility under section 484(r) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to add 
judicial discretion to the Higher Education Act Aid Elimination 
Penalty. Since 1998 the law prevents any student convicted of 
possession of a controlled substance from receiving Federal financial 
aid.
  Since the penalty was enacted, approximately 200,000 low to middle
income students seeking a college education have been disqualified from 
receiving Federal financial assistance. In many cases, these are 
committed young people who simply want to make better lives for 
themselves. In order to be eligible for financial aid in the first 
place, these students have proven they can perform academically. 
Unfortunately, they have made the mistake many young people have made 
experimenting with drugs.
  Just like every Senator in this chamber, I want to help keep 
America's young people from making this mistake and jeopardizing their 
health and their futures. We should all work to enact policies that 
effectively deter dangerous drug use. But this is a sophisticated and 
complicated issue and it cannot be solved by blunt measures such as the 
Aid Elimination Penalty.

[[Page S2150]]

  Any drug abuse expert will tell you that helping someone get off of 
drugs or stay away from trying them requires a variety of approaches. 
In some cases the fear of consequences, such as the Aid Elimination 
Penalty, may be enough. But in many other cases, counseling, 
rehabilitation, and positive reinforcement may offer more effective 
ways to achieve this goal.
  Our laws should reflect the need for varied approaches. 
Unfortunately, the Aid Elimination Penalty does not. It is a blunt tool 
that sweeps all cases into the same one size fits all solution. There 
is little distinction under this law as to whether the drug possession 
is a major or minor violation and to what degree the infraction affects 
the community at large; Teenagers bowing to peer-pressure for the first 
time are treated the same as serious drug users disrupting their 
communities. This means that while in some cases we are penalizing 
chronic drug abusers, we are also penalizing good students who will 
mature and have a better chance of rectifying their mistakes by 
continuing their education.
  What is most disturbing is how the consequences of the penalty can 
negatively impact the course of a student's life. Many students 
affected by the Aid Elimination Penalty are forced to leave school 
since it is no longer affordable without financial assistance. Data 
from the National Center of Education Statistics demonstrates that many 
of these students will not continue their education: 36 percent of 
students who leave 4-year institutions do not return within 5 years and 
50 percent of students who leave 2-year institutions do not return 
within 5 years. For these students, denial of Federal college 
assistance will only force them from school, and may set them on an 
even more self destructive course of increased drug use and abuse. In 
these cases, the Aid Elimination Penalty actually backfires and serves 
to undermine our efforts to prevent the use and abuse of drugs.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation to insert judicial 
discretion into the current law. My bill would make the penalty 
dependent on the ruling of a judge, allowing them to weigh the value of 
implementing the penalty as part of other sanctions and punishments on 
a case by case basis. This will enable the judge to deny student 
financial aid if the situation merits it, and if he or she believes it 
is the most effective or even the only way to help a student get 
control of his or her life. This legislation would also grant judges 
the ability, based on the circumstances, to determine that continuation 
of a college education, in conjunction with rehabilitation and possibly 
other sanctions, offers both the student and the community the best 
possible outcome. This is the way the rest of the criminal justice 
system works and it is the way the Aid Elimination Penalty should be 
implemented. With this change we can fine tune our approach to this 
problem and minimize the negative unintended consequences of current 
law. I urge my colleagues to see the wisdom of this approach and help 
me to refine the law to be more effective in protecting our communities 
and ensuring deserving students the opportunity to advance their 
education.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2767

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

     SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISCRETION FOR SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 484(r) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1091(r)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``A student'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to paragraph (3), a student'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall only apply to a 
     student if the Federal or State court that convicted the 
     student of an offense described in paragraph (1) has ordered 
     that the student's eligibility for assistance under this 
     title be suspended in accordance with this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Burr, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, 
        Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2768. A bill to provide a temporary increase in the maximum loan 
guaranty amount for certain housing loans guaranteed by the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that would rectify 
an oversight made in the recent passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008. If enacted, this bill will allow thousands of veterans to realize 
the American dream of owning a home. Senators Reid, Durbin, Burr, 
Rockefeller, Murray, Obama, Sanders, Brown, Baucus, Clinton, Kerry, and 
Boxer join me in offering this legislation.
  The VA Home Loan Guaranty was part of the original GI Bill in 1944. 
It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and provided 
veterans with a federally guaranteed home loan with no down payment. 
So, as World War II was ending, landmark legislation made the dream of 
home ownership a reality for millions of returning veterans. They were 
able to build new homes and otherwise begin new lives following their 
service and with the assistance of the Federal Government.
  Today, more than 25 million veterans and servicemembers are eligible 
for VA home loan guarantees. Eligibility extends to veterans who served 
on active duty for a minimum of 90 days during wartime or a minimum of 
181 continuous days during peacetime, and have a discharge other than 
dishonorable. Members of the Guard and Reserve who have never been 
called to active duty must serve a total of 6 years in order to be 
eligible. Certain surviving spouses are also eligible for the housing 
guarantee.
  The amount of the home loan guaranty was last adjusted by the 
Veterans Benefits Act of 2004. The maximum guaranty amount was 
increased to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit 
determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation Act for a single family residence, as adjusted for the year 
involved. Using that formula, since the Freddie Mac conforming loan 
limit for a single family residence in 2008 is $417,000, VA will 
guaranty a veteran's loan up to $104,250, or 25 percent of the Freddie 
Mac limit. This guaranty exempts homeowners from having to make a down 
payment or secure private mortgage insurance.
  The newly-enacted Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, however, temporarily 
reset the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA home loan guarantee limits 
to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, without 
reference to the VA home loan program. This had the effect of raising 
the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limits to nearly $730,000, in the 
highest cost areas, while leaving the VA limit of $417,000 in place.
  The measure I am introducing today would correct the oversight in the 
Economic Stimulus Act and extend the temporary increase to veterans as 
well.
  Unlike the economic stimulus legislation, my legislation would extend 
the temporary increase to December 31, 2011, rather than just through 
2008. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to 
purchase a home. In fact, VA expects that there would be an increase of 
approximately 4,313 loans as a result of increasing the VA loan limit 
through December 2011.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure, so that this 
important group of Americans might reap the benefits of an increased 
home loan guaranty in this time of economic uncertainty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2768

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

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MAXIMUM LOAN GUARANTY AMOUNT 
                   FOR CERTAIN HOUSING LOANS GUARANTEED BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       Notwithstanding subparagraph (C) of section 3703(a)(1) of 
     title 38, United States Code, for purposes of any loan 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i)(IV) of such section that is 
     originated during the period beginning on

[[Page S2151]]

     the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 
     31, 2011, the term ``maximum guaranty amount'' shall mean an 
     amount equal to 25 percent of the higher of--
       (1) the limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of 
     the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1454(a)(2)) for the calendar year in which the loan is 
     originated for a single-family residence; or
       (2) 125 percent of the area median price for a single-
     family residence, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of the 
     limitation determined under such section 305(a)(2) for the 
     calendar year in which the loan is originated for a single-
     family residence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 2770. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to 
strengthen the food safety inspection system by imposing stricter 
penalties for the slaughter of nonambulatory livestock; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, 
Senator Stevens and Senator Akaka to offer a bill that takes a major 
step forward in protecting our Nation's food supply. This bill will 
provide penalties for those who are caught trying to slaughter 
``nonambulatory'' or downed animals for food, and will improve public 
notification procedures for voluntary food recalls.
  First, this bill would ban the slaughter of ``nonambulatory'' animals 
for use in food.
  Second, it would establish a graduated penalty system providing 
incentives for slaughter facilities to follow the law regarding 
nonambulatory animals; and; third, in the event of a meat or poultry 
recall, it would direct the USDA to release the names of establishments 
that have received the recalled products so consumers can more easily 
identify products that could be harmful.
  Animals that are sick and too weak to stand or walk on their own 
should not be slaughtered and used for food.
  The safety of our food supply is too important to take any chances.
  Processing downed animals poses a health risk especially to 
vulnerable populations, those who have compromised immune systems, and 
the very young and elderly who rely on our Government food inspection 
system to protect them against foodborne illness.
  On February 17, 2008, the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, 
CA, issued a recall of over 143 million pounds of beef products that 
were processed at their plant.
  This came after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video 
showing workers abusing nonambulatory cows to get them on their feet 
for slaughter.
  The recall brought to the forefront the risk associated with 
processing sick or injured animals for human consumption.
  The potential health risk of slaughtering downed animals became a 
public concern in late 2003 when a cow imported from Canada was found 
to have BSE, mad cow disease.
  In an effort to keep BSE infected beef out of the food supply, USDA 
banned all nonambulatory cattle from being slaughtered regardless of 
the reason.
  Since then, the regulation banning nonambulatory cattle from 
slaughter has been revised to allow USDA veterinarians discretion on a 
case-by-case basis to allow downed cattle into the food supply.
  Clearly, establishments have an incentive to keep all the animals 
delivered to their facility ambulatory for slaughter.
  This legislation provides the incentive for an establishment to 
follow the laws and regulations governing the humane handling of 
nonambulatory animals by offering a graduated penalty system for 
noncompliance.
  For a first violation, in addition to temporarily suspending USDA 
inspection, a fine will be assessed and will be based on a percentage 
of the establishment's gross income.
  A second violation will suspend USDA inspection services for 1 year.
  A third violation will withdraw the establishment's Grant of 
Inspection permanently, effectively closing the operation.
  Additionally, to aid in recovering all of the meat products that are 
recalled, the USDA will be required to promulgate regulation to release 
the names of establishments that have received recalled products.
  This will help distributors, retailers and consumers better identify 
products that have been recalled to aid them in getting those products 
off their shelves and out of their homes.
  We must ensure that those who process our food provide the safest, 
most wholesome products possible to consumers, and when a recall is 
necessary, we must provide the best notification systems for consumers 
to take action.
  This bill will take us one step closer to a safer more wholesome food 
supply system.
  I hope that my colleagues will join us in support of this important 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Bayh, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Casey, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2771. A bill to require the President to call a White House 
Conference on Children and Youth in 2010; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with 
Senator Hagel legislation that would reinstate the White House 
Conference on Children and Youth. This Conference was originally 
created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and continued every 10 
years through 1970. Despite funding in 1981 and reauthorization 
legislation in 1990, no conference has been held since that 1970 
gathering. It is time to renew our commitment to America's children and 
resurrect the oldest White House Conference in U.S. history.
  Similar to the White House Conference on Aging, this symposium would 
be the culmination of nationwide events held over a 2-year span. Just 
as with the first White House Conference, this summit would focus on 
child welfare issues. The legislation authorizes a conference to be 
held in 2010, and establishes a bipartisan, bicameral policy committee, 
including members selected by the next administration. To promote and 
inform the conference and to engage stakeholders, State and local 
events would be held around the country in 2009. These events and the 
conference would focus specifically on child welfare including the 
range of issues from prevention, intervention to permanency including 
reunification, kinship care and adoption. Participants would also 
include state officials, court and legal representatives, providers, 
children, tribal representatives and other parties affected by or 
involved with the child welfare system. By connecting these 
stakeholders through this conference, we can improve the lives of 
children throughout the country.
  Previous conferences have led to major policy improvements in child 
welfare. The Children's Bureau was established after the first 
conference, and recommendations were made that deemphasized the 
institutionalization of children and encouraged the growth of adoption 
agencies. In 1919, the White House Conference initiated standards for 
child welfare, and ten years later it created a 19-point charter to 
address the needs of our children.
  We look forward to comparable achievements from the conference in 
2010, and hope that you will join with us in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2771

       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 ``White House Conference on 
     Children and Youth in 2010 Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 2005 there were over 3,000,000 reports of child 
     abuse and neglect. Only 60 percent of the children from the 
     substantiated reports received follow-up services, and 20 
     percent of such children were placed in foster care as a 
     result of an investigation.
       (2) Each year there are nearly 900,000 substantiated 
     reports of child abuse and neglect.
       (3) Each year approximately 60 percent of such 
     substantiated reports are reports of neglect, 30 percent are 
     physical or sexual abuse reports, and more than 20 percent 
     are reports that involve other forms of abuse.
       (4) Almost 500,000 children (including youth) were in 
     foster care at the end of fiscal year 2004 and nearly 800,000 
     spent at least some time in foster care during the year.
       (5) While 51,000 children are adopted from the foster care 
     system each year, more than 117,000 children are waiting to 
     be adopted.

[[Page S2152]]

       (6) Each year approximately 22,000 youth leave the foster 
     care system not because they have found permanent placements, 
     but because they have reached the age at which foster care 
     ends.
       (7) The child welfare system includes State and local 
     governments, tribal governments, child welfare agencies, 
     child welfare caseworkers, private agencies, social workers, 
     the courts, volunteer court-appointed special advocates, 
     mental health and health care professionals, educators, and 
     advocates.
       (8) There is an overrepresentation of certain populations, 
     including Native Americans and African-Americans, in the 
     child welfare system.
       (9) The number of children being raised by grandparents and 
     other relatives is increasing and exceeds 6,000,000 children. 
     The Government recognized that kinship care is a permanency 
     option through the enactment of the Adoption and Safe 
     Families Act of 1997.
       (10) The State courts make key decisions in the lives of 
     children involved in the child welfare system, including 
     decisions about whether children have been victims of child 
     abuse, whether parental rights should be terminated, and 
     whether children should be reunified with their families, 
     adopted, or placed in other settings.
       (11) The child welfare system will never fully address its 
     primary mission unless the courts are an integral and 
     functioning component of a statewide system of care and 
     protection.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of Congress that--
       (1) the Government should work jointly with the States and 
     their residents to develop recommendations and plans for 
     action to meet the challenges and needs of children and 
     families involved with the child welfare system, consistent 
     with this Act;
       (2) in developing such recommendations and plans, the 
     persons involved should emphasize the role of the Government, 
     State and local child welfare systems, State and local family 
     court systems, child welfare advocates, guardians, and other 
     key participants in such child welfare systems, with a goal 
     of enhancing and protecting the lives and well-being of 
     children and families who are involved with such child 
     welfare systems; and
       (3) Federal, State, and local programs and policies should 
     be developed to reduce the number of children who are abused 
     and neglected, to reduce the number of children in foster 
     care, and to dramatically increase the number of children in 
     permanent placements through family reunification, kinship 
     placement, and adoption.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

       (a) Authority To Call the Conference.--The President shall 
     call a White House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010 
     (referred to in this Act as ``the Conference''), to be 
     convened not later than 18 months after the selection of the 
     last member of the Policy Committee established in section 4, 
     to encourage improvements in each State and local child 
     welfare system, and to develop recommendations for actions to 
     implement the policy set forth in section 2(b).
       (b) Planning and Direction.--The Secretary shall plan, 
     convene, and conduct the Conference in cooperation with the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal entities, including the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, and the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (c) Purposes of the Conference.--The purposes of the 
     Conference are--
       (1) to identify the problems and challenges of child abuse 
     and neglect, and the needs of the children and families 
     affected by decisions made through the child welfare system;
       (2) to strengthen the use of research-based best practices 
     that can prevent child abuse and neglect with a special focus 
     on younger children;
       (3) to strengthen the use of research-based best practices 
     that can increase placement permanency for children removed 
     from their homes, including practices involving family 
     reunification, kinship placement, and adoption;
       (4) to promote the role of State and local family courts in 
     each State child welfare system;
       (5) to develop recommendations that will reduce the number 
     of children who are in out-of-home care and who fail to leave 
     foster care before the age of majority, and recommendations 
     that will reduce the over representation of certain 
     populations in the child welfare system;
       (6) to examine the role of the Government in building an 
     equal partnership with State, local, and tribal entities in 
     order to assist with, and encourage, State, local, and tribal 
     coordination;
       (7) to develop such specific and comprehensive 
     recommendations for State-level executive and legislative 
     action as may be appropriate for maintaining and improving 
     the well-being of children in such system; and
       (8) to review the status of recommendations regarding child 
     welfare made by previous White House conferences.

     SEC. 4. POLICY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a Policy 
     Committee, which shall be comprised of 17 members to be 
     selected as follows:
       (1) Presidential appointees.--Nine members shall be 
     selected by the President and shall consist of--
       (A) 3 members who are officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (B) 6 members, who may be officers or employees of the 
     Federal Government, with experience in the field of child 
     welfare, including providers and children directly affected 
     by the child welfare system.
       (2)  House of representative appointees.--
       (A) Majority appointees.--Two members shall be selected by 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, after 
     consultation with the chairpersons of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor, and the Committee on Ways and Means, of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (B) Minority appointees.--Two members shall be selected by 
     the minority leader of the House of Representatives, after 
     consultation with the ranking minority members of such 
     committees.
       (3) Senate appointees.--
       (A) Majority appointees.--Two members shall be selected by 
     the majority leader of the Senate, after consultation with 
     the chairpersons of the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Finance, of the 
     Senate.
       (B) Minority appointees.--Two members shall be selected by 
     the minority leader of the Senate, after consultation with 
     the ranking minority members of such committees.
       (b) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Policy Committee. Any vacancy 
     in the Policy Committee shall not affect its powers, but 
     shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (c) Voting; Chairperson.--
       (1) Voting.--The Policy Committee shall act by the vote of 
     a majority of the members present.
       (2) Chairperson.--The President shall select a chairperson 
     from among the members of the Policy Committee. The 
     chairperson may vote only to break a tie vote of the other 
     members of the Policy Committee.
       (d) Duties of Policy Committee.--
       (1) Meetings.--The Policy Committee shall hold its first 
     meeting at the call of the Secretary, not later than 30 days 
     after the last member is selected. Subsequent meetings of the 
     Policy Committee shall be held at the call of the chairperson 
     of the Policy Committee.
       (2) General duties.--Through meetings, hearings, and 
     working sessions, the Policy Committee shall--
       (A) make recommendations to the Secretary to facilitate the 
     timely convening of the Conference;
       (B) submit to the Secretary a proposed agenda for the 
     Conference not later than 90 days after the first meeting of 
     the Policy Committee;
       (C) determine the number of delegates to be selected in 
     accordance with section 5 and the manner by which the 
     delegates are to be selected in accordance with such section;
       (D) select delegates for the Conference; and
       (E) establish other advisory committees as needed to 
     facilitate Conference participation of--
       (i) professionals with direct experience providing services 
     to children and families in the child welfare system; and
       (ii) children and families in the child welfare system.
       (e) Powers of the Policy Committee.--
       (1) Information from federal agencies.--The Policy 
     Committee may secure directly from any Federal department or 
     agency such information as the Policy Committee considers 
     necessary to carry out this Act. Upon request of the 
     chairperson of the Policy Committee, the head of such 
     department or agency shall furnish such information to the 
     Policy Committee.
       (2) Postal services.--The Policy Committee may use the 
     United States mails in the same manner and under the same 
     conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal 
     Government.
       (f) Personnel.--
       (1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Council shall not 
     receive compensation for the performance of services for the 
     Council, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for 
     employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Council. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and 
     uncompensated services of members of the Council.
       (2) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Council without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.

     SEC. 5. CONFERENCE DELEGATES.

       To carry out the purposes of the Conference, the Secretary 
     shall convene delegates for the conference, who shall be 
     fairly balanced in terms of their points of view with respect 
     to child welfare, without regard to political affiliation or 
     past partisan activity, who shall include--
       (1) the directors of child welfare systems of the States;
       (2) members of the State and local family court systems, 
     representatives of the State bar associations, and attorneys 
     specializing in family law;
       (3) elected officials of State and local governments; and
       (4) advocates (including national and State organizations), 
     guardians, experts in the field of child welfare, families 
     and children (including youth) affected by the child welfare 
     system, and the general public.

[[Page S2153]]

     SEC. 6. CONFERENCE ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Administration.--In conducting and planning the 
     Conference, the Secretary shall--
       (1) request the cooperation and assistance of the heads of 
     such other Federal entities as may be appropriate, including 
     the detailing of personnel;
       (2) furnish all reasonable assistance, including financial 
     assistance, not less than 18 months before the Secretary 
     convenes the Conference, to State child welfare systems, 
     State and local family court systems, and other appropriate 
     organizations, to enable them to organize and conduct State-
     level child welfare conferences in conjunction with and in 
     preparation for participation in the Conference;
       (3) prepare and make available for public comment a 
     proposed agenda, for the Conference, that reflects to the 
     greatest extent possible the major child welfare issues 
     facing child welfare systems and the courts, consistent with 
     the policy set forth in section 2(b);
       (4) prepare and make available background materials that 
     the Secretary determines to be necessary for the use of 
     delegates to the Conference; and
       (5) employ such additional personnel as may be necessary to 
     carry out this Act without regard to provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III 
     of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates.
       (b) Duties.--In carrying out the Secretary's 
     responsibilities and functions under this section, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) the conferences held under subsection (a)(2) will--
       (A) be conducted so as to ensure broad participation of 
     individuals and groups; and
       (B) include conferences on Native Americans--
       (i) to identify conditions that adversely affect Native 
     American children in the child welfare system and to identify 
     Native American families who are at risk of entering such 
     system;
       (ii) to propose solutions to ameliorate such conditions; 
     and
       (iii) to provide for the exchange of information relating 
     to the delivery of services to Native American children in 
     the child welfare system and to Native American families who 
     are at risk of entering such system;
       (2) the proposed agenda for the Conference under subsection 
     (a)(3) is--
       (A) published in the Federal Register not less than 180 
     days before the Conference is convened; and
       (B) made available for public comment for a period of not 
     less than 60 days;
       (3) the final agenda for the Conference, prepared after the 
     Secretary takes into consideration comments received under 
     paragraph (2), is published in the Federal Register, and 
     transmitted to the chief executive officers of the States, 
     not later than 30 days after the close of the public comment 
     period required by paragraph (2);
       (4) the personnel employed under subsection (a)(5) are 
     fairly balanced in terms of their points of view with respect 
     to child welfare and are appointed without regard to 
     political affiliation or past partisan activity;
       (5) the recommendations of the Conference are not 
     inappropriately influenced by any public official or special 
     interest, but instead are the result of the independent and 
     collective judgment of the delegates of the Conference; and
       (6) before the Conference is convened--
       (A) current and adequate statistical data (including 
     decennial census data) and other information on the well-
     being of children in the United States; and
       (B) such information as may be necessary to evaluate 
     Federal programs and policies relating to children;

     which the Secretary may obtain by making grants to or 
     entering into agreements with, public agencies or nonprofit 
     organizations, are readily available in advance of the 
     Conference to the delegates.

     SEC. 7. REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE.

       (a) Proposed Report.--
       (1) Preparation.--After consultation with the Policy 
     Committee, the Secretary shall prepare a proposed report of 
     the Conference containing--
       (A) the results of the Conference, which shall include a 
     statement of comprehensive coherent national policy on State 
     child welfare systems (including the courts involved); and
       (B) recommendations of the Conference for the 
     implementation of such policy.
       (2) Publication and submission.--The proposed report shall 
     be published in the Federal Register, and submitted to the 
     chief executive officers of the States, not later than 60 
     days after the Conference adjourns.
       (b) Response to Proposed Report.--The Secretary shall 
     solicit recommendations about and other comments on the 
     proposed report, to be submitted not later than 180 days 
     after the publication of the report. The Secretary shall 
     request that the chief executive officers of the States 
     submit to the Secretary, not later than 180 days after 
     receiving the proposed report, their views and findings on 
     the proposed report.
       (c) Final Report.--Not later than 90 days after receiving 
     the comments, and the views and findings of the chief 
     executive officers of the States, under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) prepare a final report of the Conference, which shall 
     include--
       (A) a statement of the policy and recommendations of the 
     Conference;
       (B) a compilation of the comments, and the views and 
     findings of the chief executive officers of the States; and
       (C)(i) the recommendations of the Secretary for a 
     comprehensive coherent national policy on State child welfare 
     systems (including the courts involved), after taking into 
     consideration the comments, views, and findings; and
       (ii) the recommendations of the Secretary for the 
     administrative and legislative action necessary to implement 
     the recommendations described in clause (i); and
       (2) publish the final report in the Federal Register and 
     transmit the report to the President and to Congress.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means any of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, 
     and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
       (b) References.--In this Act, a reference to a child 
     welfare system of a State includes a reference to a child 
     welfare system of a tribal government.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $10,000,000 to carry out this Act.
       (b) Limitation on Appropriations.--Authority provided in 
     this Act to make expenditures or to enter into contracts 
     under which the United States is obligated to make outlays 
     shall be effective only to the extent that amounts are 
     provided, and only to the extent of the amounts provided, in 
     advance in appropriations Acts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 2774. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Hatch to 
introduce a bipartisan bill to address the resource needs of our men 
and women on the Federal judiciary and people around the country by 
authorizing additional U.S. courts of appeals and district court 
judgeships. It has been 18 years since the last time a comprehensive 
judgeship bill was enacted to address the growth in the workload of the 
Federal judiciary by adding new Federal judgeships. That legislation 
established 11 additional circuit court judgeships and 61 permanent and 
13 temporary district court judgeships.
  Since 1990, case filings in our Federal appellate courts have 
increased by 55 percent and case filings on our district courts have 
risen by 29 percent. Without a comprehensive bill, Congress has 
proceeded to authorize only a few additional district court judgeships 
and extend temporary judgeships when it could. For instance, in 2002 we 
were able to provide for 15 new judgeships in the Department of Justice 
authorization bill. However no additional circuit court judgeships have 
been created since 1990 despite their increased workload.
  In 2006, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which 
takes into account an assessment of case complexity, were 464 per 
judgeship, well above the Judicial Conference's standard. The same 
year, the national average circuit court caseload per three-judge panel 
approached the record number of 1,230 cases, recorded a year earlier.
  Our Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to 
maintain the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that 
justice demands, judges must have a manageable workload. The bill that 
we are introducing today would add 12 permanent circuit court 
judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and convert five 
existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These 
additional judgeships would address the significant increase in 
caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades 
since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. It is based on 
the recommendations of the Judicial Conference and its analysis of 
caseloads and needs.
  Our bipartisan bill would also add 14 temporary district court 
judgeships, two temporary circuit court judgeships, and extend one 
existing temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary 
judgeships allow Congress some flexibility with regard

[[Page S2154]]

to future judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress 
has the option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing 
these temporary judgeships.
  By providing that these new judgeships become effective the day after 
the inauguration of the next President, we attempt to insulate this 
effort from partisan politics.
  This bill has the support of the Judicial Conference and Senators on 
both sides of the aisle. I thank Senators Feinstein and Schumer for 
joining us in this effort. A comprehensive bill to respond to the 
increasing workload of our Federal judiciary is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. 2774

       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 ``Federal Judgeship Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the first circuit court 
     of appeals;
       (2) 2 additional circuit judges for the second circuit 
     court of appeals;
       (3) 2 additional circuit judges for the third circuit court 
     of appeals;
       (4) 1 additional circuit judge for the sixth circuit court 
     of appeals;
       (5) 2 additional circuit judges for the eighth circuit 
     court of appeals; and
       (6) 4 additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit court 
     of appeals.
       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional 
     circuit judges for the ninth circuit court of appeals. The 
     first 2 vacancies arising on the court 10 years or more after 
     judges are first confirmed to fill both temporary circuit 
     judgeships created by this subsection shall not be filled.
       (c) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     44 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to 
     each judicial circuit, reflect the changes in the total 
     number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized as a result 
     of subsection (a) of this section, such table is amended to 
     read as follows:


 
                                                              Number of
                         ``Circuits                             judges
 
District of Columbia.......................................           11
First......................................................            7
Second.....................................................           15
Third......................................................           16
Fourth.....................................................           15
Fifth......................................................           17
Sixth......................................................           17
Seventh....................................................           11
Eighth.....................................................           13
Ninth......................................................           33
Tenth......................................................           12
Eleventh...................................................           12
Federal....................................................       12.''.
 

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 4 additional district judges for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (2) 4 additional district judges for the central district 
     of California;
       (3) 4 additional district judges for the eastern district 
     of California;
       (4) 2 additional district judges for the northern district 
     of California;
       (5) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Colorado;
       (6) 4 additional district judges for the middle district of 
     Florida;
       (7) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
     of Florida;
       (8) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of Indiana;
       (9) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Minnesota;
       (10) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of Missouri;
       (11) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Nebraska;
       (12) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Mexico;
       (13) 3 additional district judges for the eastern district 
     of New York;
       (14) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of New York;
       (15) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Oregon;
       (16) 1 additional district judge for the district of South 
     Carolina;
       (17) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of Texas;
       (18) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
     of Texas;
       (19) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of Texas;
       (20) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of Virginia; and
       (21) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of Washington.
       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of 
     Alabama;
       (2) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (3) 1 additional district judge for the central district of 
     California;
       (4) 1 additional district judge for the northern district 
     of California;
       (5) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Colorado;
       (6) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of 
     Florida;
       (7) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of Florida;
       (8) 1 additional district judge for the district of Idaho;
       (9) 1 additional district judge for the northern district 
     of Iowa;
       (10) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Nevada;
       (11) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Jersey;
       (12) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Mexico;
       (13) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Oregon; and
       (14) 1 additional district judge for the district of Utah.

     For each of the judicial districts named in this subsection, 
     the first vacancy arising on the district court 10 years or 
     more after a judge is first confirmed to fill the temporary 
     district judgeship created in that district by this 
     subsection shall not be filled.
       (c) Existing Judgeships.--
       (1) The existing judgeships for the district of Hawaii, the 
     district of Kansas, and the eastern district of Missouri 
     authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act 
     of 1990 (Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5089) as amended by 
     Public Law 105-53, and the existing judgeships for the 
     district of Arizona and the district of New Mexico authorized 
     by section 312(c) of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-273, 116 
     Stat. 1758), as of the effective date of this Act, shall be 
     authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, 
     and the incumbents in those offices shall hold the office 
     under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as amended 
     by this Act.
       (2) The existing judgeship for the northern district of 
     Ohio authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial 
     Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089) 
     as amended by Public Law 105-53, as of the effective date of 
     this Act, shall be extended. The first vacancy in the office 
     of district judge in this district occurring 20 years or more 
     after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the 
     temporary judgeship created by section 302(c) shall not be 
     filled.
       (d) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to 
     each judicial district, reflect the changes in the total 
     number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a 
     result of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, such table 
     is amended to read as follows:


 
                         ``Districts                             Judges
 
Alabama:
  Northern...................................................          7
  Middle.....................................................          3
  Southern...................................................          3
Alaska.......................................................          3
Arizona......................................................         17
Arkansas:
  Eastern....................................................          5
  Western....................................................          3
California:
  Northern...................................................         16
  Eastern....................................................         10
  Central....................................................         31
  Southern...................................................         13
Colorado.....................................................          8
Connecticut..................................................          8
Delaware.....................................................          4
District of Columbia.........................................         15
Florida:
  Northern...................................................          4
  Middle.....................................................         19
  Southern...................................................         19
Georgia:
  Northern...................................................         11
  Middle.....................................................          4
  Southern...................................................          3
Hawaii.......................................................          4
Idaho........................................................          2
Illinois:
  Northern...................................................         22
  Central....................................................          4
  Southern...................................................          4
Indiana:
  Northern...................................................          5
  Southern...................................................          6
Iowa:
  Northern...................................................          2
  Southern...................................................          3
Kansas.......................................................          6
Kentucky:
  Eastern....................................................          5
  Western....................................................          4
  Eastern and Western........................................          1
Louisiana:
  Eastern....................................................         12
  Middle.....................................................          3
  Western....................................................          7
Maine........................................................          3
Maryland.....................................................         10
Massachusetts................................................         13
Michigan:
  Eastern....................................................         15
  Western....................................................          4
Minnesota....................................................          8
Mississippi:
  Northern...................................................          3

[[Page S2155]]

 
  Southern...................................................          6
Missouri:
  Eastern....................................................          7
  Western....................................................          6
  Eastern and Western........................................          2
Montana......................................................          3
Nebraska.....................................................          4
Nevada.......................................................          7
New Hampshire................................................          3
New Jersey...................................................         17
New Mexico...................................................          8
New York:
  Northern...................................................          5
  Southern...................................................         28
  Eastern....................................................         18
  Western....................................................          5
North Carolina:
  Eastern....................................................          4
  Middle.....................................................          4
  Western....................................................          4
North Dakota.................................................          2
Ohio:
  Northern...................................................         11
  Southern...................................................          8
Oklahoma:
  Northern...................................................          3
  Eastern....................................................          1
  Western....................................................          6
  Northern, Eastern, and Western.............................          1
Oregon.......................................................          7
Pennsylvania:
  Eastern....................................................         22
  Middle.....................................................          6
  Western....................................................         10
Puerto Rico..................................................          7
Rhode Island.................................................          3
South Carolina...............................................         11
South Dakota.................................................          3
Tennessee:
  Eastern....................................................          5
  Middle.....................................................          4
  Western....................................................          5
Texas:
  Northern...................................................         12
  Southern...................................................         21
  Eastern....................................................          8
  Western....................................................         14
Utah.........................................................          5
Vermont......................................................          2
Virginia:
  Eastern....................................................         12
  Western....................................................          4
Washington:
  Eastern....................................................          4
  Western....................................................          8
West Virginia:
  Northern...................................................          3
  Southern...................................................          5
Wisconsin:
  Eastern....................................................          5
  Western....................................................          2
Wyoming......................................................      3.''.
 

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including 
     such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space 
     and facilities for the judicial positions created by this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act (including the amendments made by 
     this Act) shall take effect on January 21, 2009.
       (b) Coordination Rule.--The amendments made by this Act 
     shall take effect after the amendment made by section 
     509(a)(2) of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-177; 121 Stat 2543).

  MR. HATCH. Mr. President, Americans are blessed to have the best and 
most independent judicial system in the world. In our constitutional 
framework, Congress has responsibility to both make the laws and ensure 
that the judiciary tasked with interpreting and applying those laws has 
the appropriate resources. This includes addressing the staffing and 
compensation needs of the judicial branch, and we should strive to do 
so without political gambles or speculation about the outcome of a 
Presidential election.
  For that reason, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee I sponsored 
and cosponsored judgeship bills in 2000 when Bill Clinton was President 
and in the 108th Congress under the current President. And that is why 
I am cosponsoring this bill with Senator Leahy, the current Judiciary 
Committee, chairman. It is based on the judicial conference's 
assessment of their needs, not on backroom political deals, and it 
reflects the changes to the allocation of appeals court seats made in 
S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act, which I also cosponsored.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. 
        Clinton):
  S. 2775. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the 
Social Security Act to treat certain domestically controlled foreign 
persons performing services under contract with the United States 
Government as American employers for purposes of certain employment 
taxes and benefits; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Representatives Ellsworth and Emanuel 
and Senator Obama and I are introducing the Fair Share Act of 2008 
which ends the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell 
companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. On March 6 
2008, Farah Stockman of the Boston Globe reported that Kellogg, Brown 
and Root Inc. KBR, has avoided payroll taxes by hiring workers through 
shell companies in the Cayman Islands. The article estimates that 
hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll taxes have been avoided a 
disturbing, yet not all too surprising discovery.
  KBR is an American engineering and construction company, formerly a 
subsidiary of Halliburton, based in Houston, TX. Throughout its 
history, KBR and its predecessors have won numerous contracts with the 
United States military. In recent years, however, many of these 
contracts have been called into question based on everything from 
wasteful spending to mismanagement and lack of competition. The evasion 
of payroll taxes is yet one more serious misstep.
  The Fair Share Act of 2008 will end the practice of U.S. Government 
contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to 
avoid payroll taxes. The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code 
and the Social Security Act to treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. 
companies performing services under contract with the U.S. Government 
as American employers for the purpose of Social Security and Medicare 
payroll taxes. The legislation will apply to foreign subsidiaries of a 
U.S. parent. The degree of common ownership applied by the legislation 
is 50 percent, meaning that the U.S. parent would have to own more than 
50 percent of the subsidiary.
  In addition, the legislation addresses the situation in which a U.S. 
subsidiary of a foreign corporation subcontracts with its foreign 
subsidiary to perform a contract with the U.S Government. In this 
situation, the legislation would apply to wages paid by the foreign 
subsidiary to its U.S. employees. The legislation does not address the 
situation in which the foreign parent contracts directly with the U.S. 
Government. Present law will continue to apply to totalization 
agreements. The legislation applies to services performed after the 
date of enactment.
  The bottom line is this: Federal contractors should not be allowed to 
use tax loopholes to avoid paying U.S. Medicare and Social Security 
taxes on behalf of their American employees working in Iraq. 
Furthermore, KBR should not have a competitive advantage over its U.S. 
competitors because it sets up sham corporations to avoid paying its 
fair share of U.S. payroll taxes. Failing to contribute to Social 
Security and Medicare thousands of times over is not shielding the 
taxpayers they claim to protect, it is costing our citizens.
  At a time when as much as $300 billion per year in taxes goes 
uncollected by the government, and by some estimates more than a third 
of that money may be related to corporations using offshore tax havens, 
we should close every loophole possible.
  Just last week, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, went to 
the Caymans to investigate U.S. companies' offshore operations. The GAO 
went to look at the buildings where U.S. corporations locate shell 
corporations. These corporations are often nothing more than a computer 
file. According to the Boston Globe, the KBR Cayman Island corporations 
do not even have an office or a phone number. I commend Senators Baucus 
and Grassley for requesting this investigation.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I will continue working to 
close corporate loopholes that are fueled by greed. I urge my 
colleagues to support ending this egregious practice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2775

       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 ``Fair Share Act of 2008''.

[[Page S2156]]

     SEC. 2. CERTAIN DOMESTICALLY CONTROLLED FOREIGN PERSONS 
                   PERFORMING SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT WITH UNITED 
                   STATES GOVERNMENT TREATED AS AMERICAN 
                   EMPLOYERS.

       (a) FICA Taxes.--Section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(z) Treatment of Certain Foreign Persons as American 
     Employers.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any employee of a foreign person is 
     performing services in connection with a contract between the 
     United States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and 
     any member of any domestically controlled group of entities 
     which includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall 
     be treated for purposes of this chapter as an American 
     employer with respect to such services performed by such 
     employee.
       ``(2) Domestically controlled group of entities.--For 
     purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `domestically controlled group 
     of entities' means a controlled group of entities the common 
     parent of which is a domestic corporation.
       ``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled 
     group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations 
     as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
       ``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at 
     least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
       ``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to 
     subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

     A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) 
     shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of 
     entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of 
     section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any 
     entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this 
     sentence).
       ``(3) Liability of common parent.--In the case of a foreign 
     person who is a member of any domestically controlled group 
     of entities, the common parent of such group shall be jointly 
     and severally liable for any tax under this chapter for which 
     such foreign person is liable by reason of this subsection.
       ``(4) Cross reference.--For relief from taxes in cases 
     covered by certain international agreements, see sections 
     3101(c) and 3111(c).''.
       (b) Social Security Benefits.--Subsection (e) of section 
     210 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e) The term'' and inserting ``(e)(1) The 
     term'',
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F), respectively, and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) If any employee of a foreign person is performing 
     services in connection with a contract between the United 
     States Government (or any instrumentality thereof) and any 
     member of any domestically controlled group of entities which 
     includes such foreign person, such foreign person shall be 
     treated for purposes of this chapter as an American employer 
     with respect to such services performed by such employee.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) The term `domestically controlled group of entities' 
     means a controlled group of entities the common parent of 
     which is a domestic corporation.
       ``(ii) The term `controlled group of entities' means a 
     controlled group of corporations as defined in section 
     1563(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except 
     that--
       ``(I) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at 
     least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
       ``(II) the determination shall be made without regard to 
     subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563 of such Code.

     A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) 
     shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of 
     entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of 
     section 954(d)(3) of such Code) by members of such group 
     (including any entity treated as a member of such group by 
     reason of this sentence).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to services performed after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 2777. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar 
Elias Biscet, in recognition of his courageous and unwavering 
commitment to democracy, human rights, and peaceful change in Cuba; to 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2777

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet was born on July 20, 1961, in 
     Havana, Cuba;
       (2) Dr. Biscet is married to fellow democracy advocate, 
     Elsa Morejon Hernandez, and he has 2 children;
       (3) Dr. Biscet is currently serving a 25-year prison 
     sentence for allegedly committing crimes against the 
     sovereignty of the Cuban regime;
       (4) in 1997, Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for 
     Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups in 
     Havana, which promotes the study, defense, and denunciation 
     of human rights violations inside Cuba and wherever the 
     rights and liberties of human beings are disregarded;
       (5) as a physician, Dr. Biscet denounced the double-
     standards and systematic repression of the Cuban National 
     Health Care System, and as a result he was forbidden from 
     practicing medicine;
       (6) on February 27, 1999, Dr. Biscet was imprisoned for 3 
     years, after hanging the national flag sideways at a press 
     conference;
       (7) although Cuban independence and democracy advocates 
     have always used this statement as a sign of civil 
     disobedience, the regime nonetheless accused Dr. Biscet of 
     insulting the nation's symbols, public disorder, and inciting 
     criminal activity;
       (8) once released in 2002, and unable to practice medicine, 
     Dr. Biscet engaged in organizing seminars on the Universal 
     Declaration of Human Rights;
       (9) on December 6, 2002, on his way to one such meeting, he 
     and several of the seminar's participants were beaten and 
     arrested;
       (10) on April 7, 2003, Dr. Biscet was sentenced to 25 years 
     in prison and sent to a special state security prison, Kilo 
     Cinco y Medio in Pinar Del Rio province;
       (11) Dr. Biscet has declared himself a ``plantado'', a 
     political prisoner who refuses to undertake ideological 
     ``reeducation'' or wear a common prisoner's uniform and 
     therefor remains in Cuba's political gulag;
       (12) on November 5, 2007, President Bush recognized Dr. 
     Biscet and presented him (in absentia) with the Presidential 
     Medal of Freedom, stating that ``Dr. Biscet is a champion in 
     the fight against tyranny and oppression. Despite being 
     persecuted and imprisoned for his beliefs, he continues to 
     advocate for a free Cuba in which the rights of all people 
     are respected.''; and
       (13) Dr. Biscet is a follower of the Dalai Lama, Ghandhi, 
     and Martin Luther King, and continues to fight every day to 
     bring democracy and justice to Cuba.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The President Pro Tempore of 
     the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on 
     behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate 
     design, to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet in recognition of his 
     courageous and unwavering commitment to democracy, human 
     rights, and peaceful change in Cuba.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price 
     sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.

       (a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and 
     5136 of title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under 
     this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprises 
     Fund such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs of 
     the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be 
     deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprises 
     Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Salazar, Mr. 
        Allard, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 2779. A bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have 
the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation 
projects: to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill important to 
public health and safety and the environment in the West. This 
legislation addresses a recent interpretation by the Department of the 
Interior, DOI, which restricts the ability of states to use certain 
funds under the Abandoned Mine

[[Page S2157]]

Land, AML, Program authorized by the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act, SMCRA, for non-coal mine reclamation.
  The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 contained amendments to 
SMCRA reauthorizing collection of an AML fee on coal produced in the 
U.S. and making certain modifications to the AML program. Under this 
program, which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim 
abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, 
safety, general welfare, and property and restoration of land and water 
resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is 
largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 
409 of SMCRA, limited funds have been available to address non-coal 
mine sites.
  Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has interpreted the 
amendments in a manner that limits the ability of western states to use 
certain funds under SMCRA to address significant problems relating to 
non-coal abandoned mines, despite the fact that these funds had 
previously been available for these purposes.
  Section 409 of SMCRA, provides that states may address public health 
and safety hazards at abandoned mine sites, both coal and non-coal. 
Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have prioritized 
the use of AML funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on 
both coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on non-coal sites 
have consumed a relatively insignificant portion of the funding 
provided for the overall AML program, the results in terms of public 
health and safety in these states is considerable, and there is 
significant work yet to be done. For example, New Mexico alone has over 
15,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these being non-
coal. All AML-related fatalities in the State in the last few decades 
have been at non-coal mine sites.
  I disagree with this interpretation by DOI. This result was not the 
intention of those of us working on the SMCRA amendments, and I believe 
the interpretation is in error. First, OSM's interpretation disregards 
the fact that section 409 was left unamended by the Congress. 
Furthermore, this interpretation is inconsistent with assurances 
repeatedly given to us by OSM during the consideration of the 
legislation that non-coal work could continue to be undertaken with 
these AML funds. Finally, the interpretation has the unacceptable 
result of requiring states to devote funds to low priority coal sites 
while leaving dangerous non-coal sites unaddressed.
  The bill that I am introducing today would correct this problem by 
modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that the funding would be 
available for noncoal reclamation as it was prior to the passage of the 
amendments in 2006. Under the bill, western, non-certified States could 
continue to use the payments comprising their so-called previously 
unappropriated state share balances for noncoal reclamation.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, which has 
important implications for abandoned mine clean-up in the West.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2779

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

     SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

       (a) Limitation on Funds.--Section 409(b) of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     1239(b)) is amended by inserting ``or section 411(h)(1)'' 
     after ``section 402(g)''.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 
     1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``or 409'' after 
     ``section 403''.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 2781. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
increase the per resident payment floor for direct graduate medical 
education payments under the Medicare program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
   Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to discuss a critical 
infrastructure issue facing our Nation. As our population ages, we will 
need more health care professionals. We are already seeing shortages in 
critical areas such as nursing.
   The Council on Graduate Medical Education, COGME, has also strongly 
advised that we need to train more physicians. COGME recommends that 
the number of physicians entering residency programs increase by 3,000 
over the next 10 years to partially remedy an anticipated shortfall of 
85,000 physicians by 2020.
   Yet for many of my teaching hospitals, there is a problem in how 
they are reimbursed through the Medicare Program for training the next 
generation of doctors. Their ``graduate medical education'' 
reimbursement GME, is based on data collected over 30 years ago that no 
longer reflects current costs and increasing needs. Over 30 Michigan 
teaching hospitals lose more than $18 million a year as a result of 
Medicare's outdated policy. Insufficient funding makes it very 
difficult for hospitals to train a workforce sufficient to care for the 
growing Medicare population.
   Congress has recognized that this formula has caused unfairness in 
GME payments. In 1999, Congress set a minimum payment level at 70 
percent of the national average, and in 2000, Congress raised the 
minimum payment level again to 85 percent of the national average.
   The bill I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Bunning, 
merely raises the  floor again to 100 percent of the national average 
over a 3-year period. Teaching hospitals could use the additional money 
to make up shortfalls or pay for additional residents to train.

   I am pleased to have the support of the American Osteopathic 
Association as well as many of Michigan's premier medical schools and 
academic medical centers.
   I look forward to working with my colleagues on ensuring that our 
Nation's teaching hospitals are the envy of the world and that we have 
the physician workforce we need for the future.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Statewide campus system, Michigan State University 
           College of Osteopathic Medicine,
                                                   March 10, 2008.
     Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: The Statewide Campus System at 
     Michigan State University is a consortium of 26 hospitals in 
     Michigan. Its primary purpose is to provide medical education 
     to nearly 1,300 interns, residents, and fellows within our 
     state. Support for the training of these physicians comes 
     primarily from federal financing through the Medicare 
     program. We are acutely aware how our training institutions 
     are disadvantaged by the current operations of the DGME 
     payment system. Many of our hospitals receive less than the 
     national average from Medicare that is used to offset medical 
     education. Public demands for increased patient safety and 
     competency assessment of procedural skills performed by 
     residents are unfunded mandates that we are now challenged to 
     provide.
       We are aware that Congress has addressed this issue in 
     piecemeal fashion in moving the reimbursement level from 70 
     percent to 85 percent of the locally adjusted national 
     average. Congress further recognized in the Medical 
     Modernization Act of 2003 by adding a provision that the 
     redistributed postdoctoral positions be reimbursed at 100 
     percent of the national average. The next logical step is to 
     level the playing field so that teaching institutions can be 
     compensated in accordance with their regionally adjusted 
     average and use the additional funds to expand our 
     educational commitments to residents.
       The Statewide Campus System is supportive of your efforts 
     to introduce legislation that would increase Medicare's 
     Direct Medical Educational payments at 100 percent for those 
     hospitals whose historical costs are less than the national 
     average. We welcome and endorse legislation that has the same 
     impact sponsored in the 109th Congress, S. 2289/H.R. 4371.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Mark Cummings, PhD,
     Associate Dean, SCS.
                                  ____

                                            University of Michigan


                                                Health System,

                                                   March 11, 2008.
     Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Stabenow: On behalf of Michigan's hospitals 
     disadvantaged under Medicare's Direct Graduate Medicare 
     Education payment system, we strongly endorse

[[Page S2158]]

     your legislation to address the longstanding inequities for 
     graduate medical education to be introduced on the Senate 
     floor on March 13, 2008.
       As you know, Medicare's formula for paying hospitals that 
     operate teaching programs is based on data from the early 
     1980s which are significantly below current costs and 
     increasing needs. Insufficient funding makes it very 
     difficult for hospitals to train a workforce sufficient to 
     care for the growing Medicare population.
       In our state, 34 teaching hospitals lose more than $18 
     million a year as a result of Medicare's out-dated policy. 
     More than 600 hospitals nationwide also receive less than the 
     national average payment from Medicare for the direct costs 
     of providing graduate medical education.
       Congress has addressed this problem over the past 7 years 
     in various incremental ways. In 2000, Congress included 
     provisions in the ``Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefit 
     Improvement and Protection Act'' (BIPA) to raise the floor 
     for direct graduate medical education payments from 70 
     percent of the locality adjusted national average to 85 
     percent. In the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress 
     again recognized the flaws in Medicare's payments to teaching 
     hospitals by including a provision requiring that any 
     resident positions redistributed to other hospitals be 
     reimbursed at 100 percent of the national average.
       The legislation would continue on this important path by 
     increasing Medicare's Direct Graduate Medical Education 
     (DGME) payments to hospitals to 100 percent of the national 
     average per resident for facilities whose historical costs 
     are less than the national average. In short, Medicare should 
     pay for the average cost of operating a training program so 
     no hospitals receive less than Medicare's fair share of the 
     costs of operating a medical education program. We appreciate 
     your leadership on behalf of the teaching hospitals, the 
     physicians we train, and the patients we serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Douglas Strong,
                                   Chief Executive Officer, UMHHC.
                                              American Osteopathic


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 2008.
     Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Bunning,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Stabenow and Bunning: On behalf of the 61,000 
     osteopathic physicians represented by the American 
     Osteopathic Association (AOA), I am pleased to inform you of 
     our support for your legislation, which would amend title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the per resident 
     payment floor for direct graduate medical education payments 
     under the Medicare program. We applaud your leadership and 
     strongly support your efforts.
       Numerous academic and advisory bodies, including the 
     Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME), have issued 
     reports showing that there will be an inadequate number of 
     physicians to meet patient demands by the year 2020. This 
     shortage of physicians comes at a time when the Nation's 
     senior population and the number of Medicare beneficiaries is 
     growing at a rapid rate. While the precise number of 
     physicians needed is debatable, there is little doubt that 
     the Nation's graduate medical education system limits our 
     ability to meet the future physician workforce needs.
       Currently, one in five medical school students in the 
     United States is enrolled in a college of osteopathic 
     medicine. The Nation's colleges of osteopathic medicine 
     currently graduate 3,000 new osteopathic physicians annually. 
     This number will increase to approximately 3,500 in 2008 and 
     is projected to be greater than 4,500 by 2013.
       Please be assured that we are committed to educating and 
     training quality physicians that are capable of meeting the 
     health care needs of the nation. However, we must increase 
     the payment floor for direct graduate medical education 
     payments.
       Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. The AOA 
     and our members stand ready to assist you in securing the 
     enactment of this important legislation. Please do not 
     hesitate to call upon the AOA for assistance as you move 
     forward on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                              Peter B. Ajluni, DO,
     President.
                                  ____

     Hon. Debbie A. Stabenow,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jim Bunning,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Senators Stabenow and Bunning: On behalf of the Coalition 
     for DGME Fairness, thank you very much for introducing direct 
     graduate medical education (DGME) legislation.
       We stand together in strong support of your legislation so 
     that we can continue to train a workforce sufficient to care 
     for the growing Medicare population. Medicare pays less than 
     its fair share for the costs of educating doctors in more 
     than 600 hospitals across the country.
       Your legislation would address the outdated methodology and 
     longstanding inequity by increasing the Direct Graduate 
     Medical Education (DGME) payment--for hospitals whose 
     historical costs are less than the national average--to 100 
     percent of the national average per resident amount. Medicare 
     pays hospitals for operating teaching programs based on costs 
     reported in the early 1980s. These payments bear little, if 
     any, relationship to the actual cost of operating training 
     programs in the 21st century.
       Twice before (1999 and 2001), Congress made incremental 
     improvements in DGME payments for these hospitals, 
     implementing a floor at 70 percent and then raising it to 85 
     percent of the national average. In the Medicare 
     Modernization Act of 2003, Congress again recognized the 
     flaws in Medicare's payments to teaching hospitals by 
     requiring that unused residency positions redistributed to 
     other hospitals be paid 100 percent of the national average. 
     This legislation would complete Congress's work to address 
     this inequity.
       On behalf of our physicians, hospitals, and the patients we 
     serve, we commit to work diligently with you to see this 
     legislation enacted. If you have any further questions or 
     need to get in touch with the coalition please contact Peggy 
     Tighe, Partner at Strategic Health Care at 202-266-2600 or at 
     [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                      Coalition for DGME Fairness.
       Enclosure.

                                Alabama

       Huntsville Hospital; University of Alabama.


                                Arkansas

       Crittenden Memorial Hospital.


                               California

       Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Loma Linda University Medical 
     Center; Pacific Hospital Long Beach; Stanford Hospital; UCLA 
     Medical Center; UC San Francisco Medical Center; University 
     of CA Davis Medical Center; UCSD Medical Center; UCI Medical 
     Center; UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital.


                              Connecticut

       Bridgeport Medical Center; Danbury Hospital; Hospital of 
     St. Raphael; Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center; Yale 
     New Haven Hospital.


                          District of Columbia

       Georgetown University Hospital.


                                Florida

       Bayfront Medical Center; H. Lee Moffit Cancer Center; Tampa 
     General Hospital; Westchester General Hospital.


                                Illinois

       Memorial Medical Center; Mercy Hospital & Medical Center; 
     Northwestern Memorial Hospital; St. Johns Hospital.


                                Indiana

       Ball Memorial Hospital.


                                 Kansas

       University of Kansas Hospital.


                                Kentucky

       Jewish Hospital; St. Mary's Mercy Medical Center; 
     University of Louisville; University of Kentucky Hospital.


                             Massachusetts

       Mount Auburn Hospital; Tufts-New England Medical Center.


                                 Maine

       Maine Medical Center.


                               Michigan.

       Botsford General Hospital; Genesys Regional Medical Center; 
     Henry Ford Bi-County Hospital; Henry Ford Wyandotte; Ingham 
     Regional Medical Center; Mount Clemens General Hospital; POH 
     Medical Center; St. Joseph Mercy Hospital; University of 
     Michigan Health System.


                               Minnesota

       St. Mary's Medical Center.


                                Missouri

       Des Peres Hospital; Freeman Health; St. Luke's.


                             North Carolina

       Duke University Health System.


                              North Dakota

       Trinity Health.


                               New Jersey

       Monmouth Medical Center; Newark Beth Israel Medical Center; 
     Saint Barnabas Medical Center; UMDNJ--University Hospital; 
     Union Hospital.


                                  Ohio

       Cleveland Clinic Hospital; Clinton Memorial Hospital; 
     Doctors Hospital; Fairview Hospital; Hillcrest Hospital; 
     Forum Health Western Reserve; James Cancer Hospital; Medical 
     University of Ohio; Ohio State University Hospital; Riverside 
     Methodist; Southern Ohio Medical Center; South Pointe 
     Hospital; St. Elizabeth Health Center; St. Joseph Regional 
     Health Center; The University of Toledo; University 
     Hospitals.


                                Oklahoma

       Hillcrest Medical Center; Oklahoma State Univ. Medical 
     Center; St. Anthony Hospital.


                              Pennsylvania

       Lancaster General Hospital; Lehigh Valley Hospital; 
     Memorial Hospital; Millcreek Community Hospital; Robert 
     Parker Hospital.


                              Rhode Island

       Miriam Hospital; Rhode Island Hospital.


                                 Texas

       JPS Health Network; Memorial Hermann Hospital System; St. 
     Josephs, Ryan.


                                  Utah

       Univ. of Utah Hospitals and Clinics.

[[Page S2159]]

                               Wisconsin

       Gundersen Lutheran; Univ. of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am proud to be introducing legislation 
today with Senator Stabenow that will benefit many of the teaching 
hospitals across the Nation, including 20 facilities in the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  Teaching hospitals play a critical role in educating, inspiring, and 
preparing our young doctors to meet the challenges of their new 
profession. Although necessary, this training adds to the cost of 
patient care. That is why Medicare pays these hospitals for its share 
of cost of training new physicians through payments known as direct 
graduate medical education payments--or DGME payments.
  Unfortunately, there is some inequity in how DGME payments are 
calculated. The legislation we are introducing today takes steps to 
adequately reimburse all hospitals for the cost of training new 
physicians.
  Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the 
Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These 
reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is 
reimbursed.
  Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each 
hospital reported, which has lead to large variations in payments 
between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is 
20 years old.
  To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor 
for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the 
national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of 
the national average.
  The legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would 
bring all of Medicare's DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national 
average over a 3-year period. This would affect about 600 hospitals 
across the Nation that are currently being reimbursed below the 
national average, including the 20 in Kentucky.
  I am glad we are introducing this legislation today and hope my 
colleagues can take a close look at it. Adequately paying our teaching 
hospitals is critically important, and this bill would benefit many 
hospitals across the country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2784. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to 
extend the food labeling requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and 
Education Act of 1990 to enable customers to make informed choices 
about the nutritional content of standard menu items in large chain 
restaurants; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Menu 
Education and Labeling Act, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Ms. 
Feinstein of California, and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts.
  Poor nutrition and obesity are a major public health problem in the 
U.S. The issue is far from merely cosmetic. It is medical and economic. 
Diet-related disease are prevalent in the U.S. Cardiovascular disease, 
which is the leading cause of death in the U.S., is clearly linked to 
poor diets. Type-2 diabetes, results in amputation, blindness, and 
premature death.
  Diet is also clearly associated with rising rates of overweight and 
obesity. More than 65 percent of American adults are overweight, and 
more than 30 percent are clinically obese. We lead the world in this 
dubious distinction, which is growing worse. Increasingly the problem 
starts in childhood. According to the Institute of Medicine, since 
1963, obesity rates have quadrupled among older children ages 6 to 11 
years, and tripled for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19. If we 
do not change course, kids attending school today will be the first 
generation in American history to live a shorter lifespan than their 
parents
  The obesity epidemic has far-reaching consequences. Overweight people 
have an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and 
other illnesses. Sixty percent of overweight youth already have at lest 
one risk factor for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death 
in the U.S. Obesity also causes or contributes to $117 billion a year 
in health care and related costs, more than half borne by taxpayers.
  There is no single solution to the complex problem of poor nutrition 
and diet-related disease, but we must start taking meaningful steps to 
address this growing problem by giving people the tools necessary to 
consume healthier diets. The legislation that we are introducing today 
will extend nutrition labeling beyond packaged foods to include foods 
at chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as food in 
vending machines. This common-sense idea will give consumers a needed 
tool to make wiser choices and live healthier lives.
  In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 
NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on 
nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been tremendous. Not only do 
nearly three-quarters of adults use the food labels on packaged foods, 
but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier 
diets.
  American adults and children now consume a third of their calories at 
restaurants and nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric 
consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of obesity. However, 
restaurants were excluded from the Nutrition Labeling and Education 
Act. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided 
when they order their food at restaurants, yet, while they have good 
nutrition information in supermarkets, at restaurants they can only 
guess.
  Similarly, vending machine food sales also play a large role in 
contributing to the diets of Americans. Over the last three decades 
vending machine sales have shot up 85 percent after inflation. Most 
vending machine sales include foods of low nutritional value.
  The Menu Education and Labeling Act will require fast-food and other 
chain restaurants to provide point of sale information on calories, 
saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium and will require point of sale 
labeling of calories on foods sold in vending machines.
  I would also like to note that last night, one of the true lions of 
the Senate, my old friend Howard M. Metzenbaum from Ohio, passed away. 
Senator Metzenbaum was a good friend and a great senator. One of his 
great achievements in the Senate is that he was the author of and the 
driving force behind the Nutrition Education Labeling Act, which first 
established nutrition labeling for packaged foods. The bill that we are 
introducing today builds upon Senator Metzenbaum's work on nutrition 
labeling, and in honor of his work and his distinguished career, I am 
naming this bill after him.
  Let there be no doubt: poor nutrition in America is indeed an 
epidemic, and it is continuing to grow. This is a public health crisis 
and we must address it. Although this bill alone will not end poor 
nutrition or halt rising obesity in its tracks, it provides consumers 
with an important tool with which to make better choices about the food 
that they and their children consume.
                                 F_____
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2786. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to health care under the Medicare program for 
beneficiaries residing in rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare 
Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2008.
  The purpose of this legislation is to continue ongoing efforts to 
ensure that Americans in rural areas have access to health care 
services. Much has been done in the past to improve access to rural 
providers such as hospitals and doctors. Much more still needs to be 
done.
  I hold town meetings in each of the 99 counties in the great State of 
Iowa every year. As many know, Iowa is largely a rural State, and a 
significant concern that I consistently hear during these meetings is 
the difficulty my constituents experience in accessing health care 
services. As the former chairman and currently the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee, it has, therefore, been a priority for me to 
improve the availability of health care in rural areas.
  In Iowa, as in many rural areas across the country, hospitals are 
often

[[Page S2160]]

not only the sole provider of health care in rural areas, but also 
employers and purchasers in the community. Moreover, the presence of a 
hospital is essential for purposes of economic development because 
businesses check to see if a hospital is in the community in which they 
might set up shop. As you can see, it is vital that these institutions 
are able to keep their doors open.
  In previous legislation, Congress has been able to improve the 
financial viability of rural hospitals. For instance, the creation and 
subsequent improvements to the Critical Access Hospital designation has 
greatly improved the financial health of certain small rural hospitals 
and ensured that community residents have access to health care.
  However, there are still a group of rural hospitals that need help. I 
am referring to what are known as ``tweener'' hospitals, which are too 
large to be Critical Access Hospitals, but too small to be financially 
viable under the Medicare hospital prospective payment systems. These 
facilities are struggling to stay afloat despite their tireless 
efforts. Like in many communities across the country, the staff of 
tweener hospitals and their community residents take great pride in the 
quality of care at these facilities. I have heard countless stories of 
the exemplary work tweener hospitals in Iowa perform not only as 
providers of essential health care, but also as responsible members of 
their communities. It is for this reason that many provisions in this 
bill are intended to improve the financial health of tweener hospitals 
and ensure that people have access to health care.
  Most tweener hospital are currently designated as Medicare Dependent 
Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals under the Medicare program. 
There are provisions, both temporary and permanent, included in this 
bill that would improve Medicare payments for both types of hospitals. 
This includes improvements to the payment methodologies so that 
inpatient payments to these facilities would better reflect the costs 
they incur in providing care. Improvements are also proposed in this 
bill to Medicare hospital outpatient payments for both Medicare 
Dependent Hospitals and Sole Community Hospitals so they would both 
share the benefit of hold harmless payments and add-on payments.
  Also, a major driver of the financial difficulties that tweener 
hospitals face is the fact that many have relatively low volumes of 
inpatient admissions. This bill would improve the existing low-volume 
add-on payment for hospitals so that more rural facilities with low 
volumes would receive the assistance they desperately need.
  Over the years, many have commented that it is simply unfair for many 
rural hospitals to receive only a limited amount of Medicare 
Disproportionate Share Hospital, or DSH, payments while many urban 
hospitals are not subject to such a cap. This bill would eliminate the 
cap for DSH payments for those rural hospitals for a 2-year period.
  There are also other provisions that would continue to help rural 
hospitals. The rural flexibility program would be extended for an 
additional year. Certain rural hospitals that are paid on a cost basis 
for the outpatient laboratory services they provide would continue to 
do so on a permanent basis. And Critical Access Hospitals that provide 
outpatient laboratory services would be paid 101 percent of their costs 
regardless of whether the specimen was collected from a patient of the 
CAH or whether the specimen was collected in a skilled nursing facility 
or clinic associated with the CAH.
  This legislation also seeks to improve incentives for physicians 
located in rural areas and increase beneficiaries' access to rural 
health care providers. It includes provisions designed to reduce 
inequitable disparities in physician payment resulting from the 
Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or adjusters, known as GPCIs. 
Medicare payment for physician services varies from one area to another 
based on the geographic adjustments for a particular area. Geographic 
adjustments are intended to reflect cost differences in a given area 
compared to a national average of 1.0 so that an area with costs above 
the national average would have an index greater than 1.0, and an area 
below the national average would have an index less than 1.0. There are 
currently three geographic adjustments: for physician work, practice 
expense, and malpractice expense.
  Unfortunately, the existing geographic adjusters result in 
significant disparities in physician reimbursement which penalize, 
rather than equalize, physician payment in Iowa and other rural states. 
These geographic disparities in payment lead to rural states 
experiencing significant difficulties in recruiting and retaining 
physicians and other health care professionals due to their 
significantly lower reimbursement rates.
  These disparities have perverse effects when it comes to realigning 
Medicare payment to reward quality of care. Let me put that into 
context. Iowa is widely recognized as providing some of the highest 
quality health care in the country yet Iowa physicians receive some of 
the lowest Medicare reimbursement due to these inequitable geographic 
adjustments. Medicare reimbursement for some procedures is at least 30 
percent lower in Iowa than payment for those very procedures in other 
parts of the country. That is a significant disincentive for Iowa 
physicians who are providing some of the best quality care in the 
country, and it is fundamentally unfair. Congress needs to reduce these 
disparities in payment and focus on rewarding physicians who provide 
high quality care.
  The inequitable geographic payment formulas have also exacerbated the 
problems that rural areas face in terms of access to health care. Rural 
America today has far fewer physicians per capita than urban areas. The 
GPCI formulas are a dismal failure in promoting an adequate supply of 
physicians in States such as Iowa, and more severe physician shortages 
in rural areas are predicted in the future.
  The legislation I am introducing today makes changes in the GPCI 
formulas for work and practice expense to reverse this trend. It 
establishes a 1.0 floor for the physician work and practice expense 
adjustments. It also revises the calculation of the work and practice 
expense formulas to reduce payment differences and more accurately 
compensate physicians in rural areas for their true practice costs. We 
must act now to help rural States recruit and retain more physicians so 
that beneficiaries will continue to have access to needed health care.
  Congress has previously enacted a number of other provisions to 
improve Medicare payment for health care professionals and providers in 
rural areas that will expire soon. This bill extends the five percent 
incentive payments for primary care and specialty physicians in 
scarcity areas through December 2009. It also extends the existing 
payment arrangements which allow independent laboratories to bill 
Medicare directly for certain physician pathology services.
  The bill includes several new provisions to improve beneficiary 
access to health care services. It increases rural ambulance payments 
by 5 percent for the next 18 months. It permanently increases the 
payment limits for rural health clinics. It allows hospital-based renal 
dialysis centers and skilled nursing facilities to provide telehealth 
services. It also allows physician assistants to order post-hospital 
extended care services and to serve hospice patients.
  Finally, the bill would protect rural areas from being adversely 
affected by the new Medicare competitive bidding program for durable 
medical equipment. It would ensure that home medical equipment 
suppliers who provide equipment and services in rural areas and small 
metropolitan statistical areas, MSAs, with a population of 600,000 or 
less can continue to serve the Medicare program by exempting these 
areas from competitive bidding. We must ensure that rural areas 
continue to have medical equipment suppliers available to serve 
beneficiaries in these areas.
  Mr. President, as you can see, we still have much to do when it comes 
to ensuring access to health care in rural America. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this important matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a summary of the bill.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S2161]]

          Medicare Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2008


             Title I--Provisions Relating to Medicare Part A

      Section 101. Extension of Medicare Rural Hospital 
         Flexibility Grant Program.
        Current Law
        Presently, the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Grant 
     Program is authorized for $35 million from FY2005 through 
     FY2008.
        Explanation of Provision
        The provision would extend this grant program through 
     FY2009.
      Section 102. Improvements to the Medicare Dependent Hospital 
         (MDH) Program.
        Current Law
        MDHs are small rural hospitals with a high proportion of 
     patients who are Medicare beneficiaries (have at least 60% of 
     acute inpatient days or discharges attributable to Medicare 
     in FY1987 or in two of the three most recently audited cost 
     reporting periods). An MDH cannot be a Sole Community 
     Hospital (SCH) and must have 100 or fewer beds. Until October 
     1, 2006, MDHs were paid at the wage-adjusted national 
     standardized amount or, if higher, 50% of their adjusted 
     FY1982 or FY1987 hospital specific costs. Starting for 
     discharges on October 1, 2006, an MDH would be able to elect 
     payments based on its FY2002 hospital specific costs if that 
     would result in higher Medicare payments. Also, starting for 
     discharges on October 1, 2006, an MDH that elected to be paid 
     using its hospital-specific costs would have its payments 
     based on 75% of those costs.
        Explanation of Provision
        Starting for discharges on October 1, 2008 until October 
     1, 2011, an MDH that elects to be paid using the national 
     standardized amount would not have that per discharge payment 
     amount adjusted by an area wage adjustment unless such 
     adjustment will result in improved payments to the MDH. 
     Starting for discharges on October 1, 2008 until October 1, 
     2011, those MDHs would have their payments based on 85% of 
     their hospital specific costs.
      Section 103. Rebasing for Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs).
        Current Law
        Medicare payments to SCHs for inpatient hospital services 
     are made on the basis of the federal per discharge payment 
     amount or on the basis of its updated hospital-specific per 
     discharge amount from FY1982, FY1987, or FY1996, whichever 
     would result in the largest payment.
        Explanation of Provision
        Starting for discharges on October 1, 2008, SCHs would be 
     able to elect payment based on their FY2002 hospital-specific 
     payment amount per discharge. This amount would be increased 
     by the annual update starting in FY2008.
      Section 104. Temporary Improvements to the Medicare 
         Inpatient Hospital Payment Adjustment for Low-volume 
         Hospitals.
        Current Law
        Under Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System 
     (IPPS), certain low-volume hospitals receive a payment 
     adjustment to account for their higher costs per discharge. A 
     low volume hospital is defined as an acute care hospital that 
     is located more than 25 road miles from another comparable 
     hospital and that has less than 800 total discharges during 
     the fiscal year. Under current law, the Secretary is required 
     to determine an appropriate percentage increase for these 
     low-volume hospitals based on the empirical relationship 
     between the standardized cost-per-case for such hospitals and 
     their total discharges to account for the additional 
     incremental costs (if any) that are associated with such 
     number of discharges. The low-volume adjustment is limited to 
     no more than 25 percent. Accordingly, under regulations, 
     qualifying hospitals (those located more than 25 road miles 
     from another comparable hospital) with less than 200 total 
     discharges receive a 25% payment increase for every Medicare 
     discharge.
        Explanation of Provision
        This provision would make a temporary adjustment that 
     would provide payments in FY2009 and FY2010 to more low-
     volume hospitals. A low-volume hospital could be located more 
     than 15 road miles from another comparable hospital and have 
     2,000 discharges of individuals entitled to or enrolled for 
     Medicare Part A benefits. The Secretary would determine the 
     applicable percentage increase using a linear sliding scale 
     ranging from 25% for low-volume hospitals below a certain 
     threshold to no adjustment for hospitals with greater than 
     2,000 discharges of individuals with Medicare Part A 
     benefits.
      Section 105. Temporarily Lifting the Disproportionate Share 
         Hospital (DSH) Adjustment Cap.
        Current Law
        Medicare will increase its payments to hospitals that 
     qualify for a DSH adjustment. In many instances, the size of 
     a hospital's DSH adjustment will depend upon the number of 
     patient days provided to poor Medicare patients or Medicaid 
     patients (DSH patient share). However, small urban hospitals 
     and many rural hospitals have their DSH adjustment capped at 
     12%.
        Explanation of Provision
        The provision would eliminate the DSH adjustment cap for 
     these hospitals for discharges occurring in FY2009 and 
     FY2010. For discharges on or after October 1, 20010, the DSH 
     adjustment cap would revert to 12%.


            Title II--Provisions Relating to Medicare Part B

      Section 201. Extension and Expansion of the Medicare 
         Hospital Outpatient Department Hold Harmless Provision 
         for Small Rural Hospitals.
        Current Law
        Small rural hospitals (with no more than 100 beds) that 
     are not Sole Community Hospitals (SCHs) can receive 
     additional Medicare payments if their outpatient payments 
     under the prospective payment system are less than under the 
     prior reimbursement system. For CY2006, these hospitals will 
     receive 95% of the difference between payments under the 
     prospective payment system and those that would have been 
     made under the prior reimbursement system. The hospitals will 
     receive 90% of the difference in CY2007 and 85% of the 
     difference in CY2008.
        Explanation of Provision
        The provision would establish that in CY 2009 and CY 2010, 
     small rural hospitals, including Medicare Dependent Hospitals 
     and SCHs, would receive 100% of the difference between 
     payments made under the Medicare Hospital Outpatient 
     Prospective Payment System and those made under the prior 
     reimbursement system.
      Section 202. Expansion of the Medicare Hospital Outpatient 
         Department Add-on Payment for Rural Sole Community 
         Hospitals (SCHs).
        Current Law
        Under Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), the Secretary was required 
     to study to determine whether the costs incurred by rural 
     hospitals were greater than urban hospitals and whether the 
     prospective payment system (PPS) for hospital outpatient 
     departments (HOPD) accounted for those cost differences. The 
     Secretary was authorized to provide a payment adjustment for 
     rural hospitals by January 1, 2006 if such an adjustment was 
     warranted. Starting in CY2006, rural SCHs have had their 
     Medicare payments for outpatient services increased by 7.1%.
        Explanation of Provision
        This provision would establish that the Secretary's 
     authority to provide a payment adjustment would apply to 
     services furnished in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The Medicare 
     statute would be amended so that SCHs and Medicare Dependent 
     Hospitals (MDHs) in rural areas would receive a 7.1% increase 
     in payments for covered HOPD services for services starting 
     January 1, 2009. The increase would be applied before 
     calculating outliers and coinsurance. The Secretary would be 
     able to revise this percentage starting for services 
     furnished after January 1, 2010 through promulgation of a 
     regulation. The increase would not apply to pass-through 
     drugs and biologicals. The increased payments as they relate 
     to SCHs and MDHs would not be implemented in a budget-neutral 
     manner.
      Section 203. Permanent Treatment of Medicare Reasonable 
         Costs Payments for Certain Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory 
         Tests Furnished to Hospital Patients in Certain Rural 
         Areas.
        Current Law
        Generally, hospitals that provide clinical diagnostic 
     laboratory services under Part B are reimbursed using a fee 
     schedule. Hospitals with under 50 beds in qualified rural 
     areas (certain rural areas with low population densities) 
     receive 100% of reasonable cost reimbursement for the 
     clinical diagnostic laboratories covered under Part B that 
     are provided as outpatient hospital services. Reasonable cost 
     reimbursement for laboratory services provided by these 
     hospitals will expire on July 1, 2008.
        Explanation of Provision
        This provision would add Section 1833(v) to the Social 
     Security Act which would make reasonable cost reimbursement 
     for laboratory services provided by qualified rural hospitals 
     permanent starting July 1, 2008. The Secretary would be 
     required to apply the current rules that are used to 
     determine whether clinical diagnostic laboratory services are 
     furnished as an outpatient Critical Access Hospital service 
     (without regard to amendments enacted in this legislation.)
      Section 204. Clarification of Payment for Clinical 
         Laboratory Tests Furnished by Critical Access Hospitals 
         (CAHs).
        Current Law
        Medicare outpatient covered clinical laboratory services 
     are generally paid based on a fee schedule. Clinical 
     diagnostic laboratory services provided to patients who 
     receive services directly from CAHs on an outpatient basis 
     are paid 101% of reasonable costs. Clinical laboratory 
     services provided by CAHs to those who are not patients are 
     paid on the basis of the Medicare fee schedule. In no 
     instance are Medicare beneficiaries liable for any 
     coinsurance or deductible amounts.
        Explanation of Provision
        Under this provision, clinical diagnostic laboratory 
     services furnished by a CAH starting in January 1, 2009 would 
     be reimbursed at 101% of costs as outpatient hospital 
     services without regard to whether the specimen was collected 
     from a patient of the CAH or whether the specimen was 
     collected in a skilled nursing facility or clinic that is 
     owned by or co-located with the CAH.

[[Page S2162]]

      Section 205. Extension of Medicare Incentive Payment Program 
         for Physician Scarcity Areas.
        Current Law
        MMA provided for an additional 5% in payments for certain 
     physicians in scarcity areas for the period January 1, 2005 
     through December 31, 2007. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) extended these payments through 
     June 30, 2008. The Secretary was required to calculate, 
     separately for practicing primary care physicians and 
     specialists, the ratios of such physicians to Medicare 
     beneficiaries in the county, rank each county (or equivalent 
     area) according to its ratio for primary care and specialists 
     separately, and then identify those scarcity areas with the 
     lowest ratios which collectively represented 20% of the total 
     Medicare beneficiary population in those areas. The list of 
     counties was to be revised no less often than once every 
     three years unless there were no new data. There would be no 
     administrative or judicial review of the designation of the 
     county or area as a scarcity area, the designation of an 
     individual physician's specialty, or the assignment of a 
     postal zip code to the county or other area. The listing of 
     counties appeared in Appendix I and Appendix J of the 2005 
     physician fee schedule update.
        Explanation of Provision
        The provision would extend the add-on payments through 
     December 31, 2009.
      Section 206. Revisions to the Work Geographic Adjustment 
         Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
       Current Law
        Medicare's physician fee schedule assigns relative values 
     to services that reflect physician work (i.e., the time, 
     skill, and intensity it takes to provide the service), 
     practice expenses, and malpractice costs. The relative values 
     are adjusted for geographic variations in costs. The adjusted 
     relative values are then converted into a dollar payment 
     amount by a conversion factor.
        The geographic adjustment factors are indices that reflect 
     the relative cost difference in a given area in comparison to 
     a national average. An area with costs above the national 
     average would have an index greater than 1.00 while an area 
     with costs below the average would have an index below 1.00. 
     The physician work geographic adjustment factor is based on a 
     sample of median hourly earnings in six professional 
     specialty occupational categories. Unlike the other 
     geographic adjustments, the work adjustment factor reflects 
     only one-quarter of the cost differences in an area. The 
     Secretary is required to periodically review and adjust the 
     geographic indices.
        MMA required the Secretary to increase the value of any 
     work geographic index that was below 1.00 to 1.00 for 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 2004 and before 
     January 1, 2007. TRHCA extended the provision for an 
     additional year, through December 31, 2008, and MMSEA 
     extended the provision for an additional six months, for 
     services provided before July 1, 2008.
        Explanation of Provision
        Subsection (a) would extend the 1.0 work floor through 
     December 31,2009. Subsection (b) would recognize the equality 
     of physician work in all geographic areas and eliminate 
     differing work index values by establishing a national value 
     of 1.0, effective 2010.
      Section 207. Revisions to the Practice Expense Geographic 
         Adjustment Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
        Current Law
        Medicare's physician fee schedule assigns relative values 
     to services that reflect physician work (i.e., the time, 
     skill, and intensity it takes to provide the service), 
     practice expenses, and malpractice costs. The relative values 
     are adjusted for geographic variations in costs. The adjusted 
     relative values are then converted into a dollar payment 
     amount by a conversion factor.
        The geographic adjustment factors are indices that reflect 
     the relative cost difference in a given area in comparison to 
     a national average. An area with costs above the national 
     average would have an index greater than 1.00 while an area 
     with costs below the average would have an index below 1.00. 
     The practice expense geographic adjustment is calculated by 
     measuring variations in employee wages, office rents, and 
     miscellaneous. The Secretary is required to periodically 
     review and adjust the geographic indices.
        Explanation of Provision
       Subsection (a) would establish a practice expense floor of 
     1.0 for 2009 by requiring the Secretary to increase the value 
     of any practice expense geographic index that was below 1.0 
     to 1.0 for services furnished on or after January 1, 2009 and 
     before January 1, 2010. Subsection (b) would reduce the 
     geographic adjustment for practice expense to 50 percent of 
     the current adjustment for employee wages and rent, effective 
     2010.
     Section 208. Extension of Treatment of Certain Physician 
         Pathology Services Under Medicare.
       Current Law
       BBA 97 specified that independent labs that had agreements 
     with hospitals on July 22, 1999, to bill directly for the 
     technical component of pathology services could continue to 
     do so in 2001 and 2002. The provision has been periodically 
     extended. TRHCA extended the provision through 2007, and 
     MMSEA further extended it through June 30, 2008.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would be extended through December 31, 2009.
     Section 209. Extension of Increased Medicare Payments for 
         Rural Ground Ambulance Services.
       Current Law
       Ambulance services are paid on the basis of a national fee 
     schedule, which is being phased in. The fee schedule 
     establishes seven categories of ground ambulance services and 
     two categories of air ambulance services. The payment for a 
     service equals a base rate for the level of service plus 
     payment for mileage. Geographic adjustments are made to a 
     portion of the base rate.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would provide for an increase in the rates 
     otherwise established for ground ambulance services of 5% in 
     rural areas for the period July 1, 2008-December 31, 2009.
     Sec. 210. Adding Hospital-Based Renal Dialysis Centers 
         (Including Satellites) As Originating Sites for Payment 
         of Telehealth Services.
       Current Law
       Medicare may cover a telehealth service for beneficiaries 
     who are located (i) in an area designated as a rural health 
     professional shortage area; (ii) in a county that is not 
     included in a Metropolitan Statistical Area; or (iii) at an 
     entity that participates in a federal telemedicine 
     demonstration project that has been approved by (or receives 
     funding from) the Secretary of Health and Human Services as 
     of December 31, 2000. If a beneficiary is located in those 
     areas, counties, or entities, then the beneficiary is 
     permitted to receive telemedicine at one of the following 
     sites: (1) a physician or practitioner's office; (ii) a 
     critical access hospital; (iii) a rural health clinic; (iv) a 
     federally qualified health center; or (v) a hospital.
       Explanation of Provision
       This provision would permit a hospital-based or critical 
     access hospital-based renal dialysis center (including 
     satellites) to serve as a telemedicine site. The provision 
     would be effective for services furnished on or after January 
     1, 2009.
     Section 211. Expansion of Telehealth Services to Skilled 
         Nursing Facilities.
       Current Law
       Medicare covers certain services including professional 
     consultations, office and other outpatient visits, individual 
     psychotherapy, pharmacological management, psychiatric 
     diagnostic interview examinations and end stage renal disease 
     related services delivered via an eligible telecommunications 
     system. The originating site (the location of the beneficiary 
     receiving the telehealth service) can be a physician or 
     practitioner's office, a critical access hospital, a rural 
     health clinic, a federally qualified health center, or a 
     hospital. The originating site must be in a rural health 
     professional shortage area or in a county that is not in a 
     metropolitan statistical area or at an entity that 
     participates in a specified federal telemedicine 
     demonstration project.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would permit otherwise qualifying skilled 
     nursing facilities to be the originating site for the 
     provision of covered telehealth services furnished on or 
     after January 1, 2009.
     Section 212. Rural Health Clinic Improvements.
       Current Law
       Most rural health clinics (RHCs) receive cost-based 
     reimbursement from Medicare, subject to per-visit payment 
     limits and certain productivity standards. Each year the 
     limit is increased by the percentage increase in the Medicare 
     Economic Index (MEI). For CY2007, the RHC upper payment limit 
     is $74.29 per visit.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would establish the RHC upper payment limit 
     at $92 per visit in 2009. The limit would be increased in 
     subsequent years by the limit established for the previous 
     year increased by the percentage increase in the MEI 
     applicable to primary care services.
     Section 213. Exemption for suppliers in small MSAs and rural 
         areas.
       Current Law
       The MMA established Medicare competitive bidding for 
     durable medical equipment, supplies, and other items. The 
     Secretary is required to establish competitive acquisition 
     areas, but has discretion to exempt rural areas and areas 
     with low population density within urban areas that are not 
     competitive, unless a significant national market exists 
     through mail order for a particular item or service. The 
     programs are required to be phased-in so that competition 
     under the programs occurs in 10 of the largest metropolitan 
     statistical areas (MSAs) beginning in 2007, 80 of the largest 
     MSAs in 2009, and remaining areas after 2009.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would require the Secretary to exempt rural 
     areas and small MSAs with a population of 600,000 or less. 
     Competitively bid prices would not apply to rural and small 
     MSAs exempted under this section. The provision would be 
     effective as if included in the MMA, other than for contracts 
     entered into pursuant to implementation of competitive 
     bidding prior to September 1, 2008.

[[Page S2163]]

     Section 214. Permitting Physician Assistants to Order Post-
         Hospital Extended Care Services and to Provide for 
         Recognition of Attending Physician Assistants as 
         Attending Physicians to Serve Hospice Patients.
       (a) Ordering Post-Hospital Extended Care Services.
       Current Law
       In a skilled nursing facility (SNF), Medicare law allows 
     physicians, as well as nurse practitioners and clinical nurse 
     specialists who do not have a direct or indirect employment 
     relationship with a SNF, but who are working in collaboration 
     with a physician, to certify the need for post-hospital 
     extended care services for purposes of Medicare payment. 
     Section 20.2.1 of Chapter 8 of the Medicare Benefit Policy 
     Manual defines post-hospital extended care services as 
     services provided as an extension of care for a condition for 
     which the individual received inpatient hospital services. 
     Extended care services are considered ``post-hospital'' if 
     they are initiated within 30 days after discharge from a 
     hospital stay that included at least three consecutive days 
     of medically necessary inpatient hospital care.
       Explanation of Provision
       The provision would allow a physician assistant who does 
     not have a direct or indirect employment relationship with a 
     SNF, but who is working in collaboration with a physician, to 
     certify the need for post-hospital extended care services for 
     Medicare payment purposes.
       (b) Recognition of Attending Physician Assistants as 
     Attending Physicians to Serve Hospice Patients.
       Current Law
       Under the Medicare program, hospice services may only be 
     provided to terminally ill individuals under a written plan 
     of care established and periodically reviewed by the 
     individual's attending physician and the medical director 
     (and by the interdisciplinary group of the hospice program). 
     For purposes of a hospice written plan of care, Medicare 
     defines an attending physician as a physician or nurse 
     practitioner who may be employed by a hospice program and who 
     the individual identifies as having the most significant role 
     in the determination and delivery of medical care to the 
     individual at the time the individual makes an election to 
     receive hospice care.
       For an individual to be eligible for Medicare-covered 
     hospice services, the individual's attending physician (not 
     including a nurse practitioner) and the medical director (or 
     physician member of the interdisciplinary group of the 
     hospice program) must each certify in writing that the 
     individual is terminally ill at the beginning of the first 
     90-day period of hospice.
       Explanation of Provision
       For purposes of a hospice written plan of care, the 
     provision would include a physician assistant in the 
     definition of an attending physician. The provision would 
     continue to exclude physician assistants from the authority 
     to certify an individual as terminally ill.
       Both provisions would apply to items and services furnished 
     on or after January 1, 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
        Coleman, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Cardin, Mr. Brown, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S.J. Res. 30. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the 
Department of Health and Human Services relating to optional State plan 
case management services under the Medicaid program; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 30

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human 
     Services relating to optional State plan case management 
     services under the Medicaid program (published at 72 Fed. 
     Reg. 68077 (December 4, 2007)), and such rule shall have no 
     force or effect.

                          ____________________